When I post something on Facebook as an average user, my expectation is that the information posted there is only visible to people I have approved as a friend. In this regard, the information is private
What part of "A well regulated militia" do you not understand?
When and as written, "militia" meant all white male free citizens, physically capable of combat, of an age generally between 16 and 45. "Organized militia" referred to the force represented by a gathering of these individuals. In no way did militia mean a force of government employees, armed by the government.
When and as written, "Well regulated" meant that each individual would show up when called with a standard amount of powder, shot, and compatible arms. It did not mean that they could not show up with additional arms; for instance, should a militiaman arrive at the assembly with a horse-drawn cannon, this would be entirely appropriate and welcome. In no way would it excuse them from bringing the expected powder, shot and so forth, however.
The phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is the explicatory phrase of the 2nd amendment, which means that it presents a rationale for the operative phrase that follows. It is also sometimes referred to as the prefatory phrase, that is, it serves as a preface. It is non-exclusive; that is, it does not say that this is the only reason; its presence can only be interpreted as a sufficient reason.
The operative phrase of the 2nd amendment contains instructions to the government in the context of the constitution, which is the authorizing document for all lawmaking. The instructions say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
An accurate transcription in modern English is: "Because we need consistently armed and able citizens that may be quickly organized to fight to maintain the condition of freedom, the citizens' right to store and carry arms shall not be in any way diminished."
This maintains the prefatory / operative phrasing, and carries the precise meaning of each phrase forward.
The main thing one needs to understand about the prefatory phrase is that since it gives no instruction to the government, it carries no legitimate weight whatsoever with regard to the 2nd amendment's restriction upon making law that infringes on the citizen's right to keep and carry arms. That is entirely the province of the operative phrase.
The government does have a mechanism available to it to change the operative phrase, or for that matter the rest of the amendment as well. That is article five. They have not, to date, made use of this, and therefore amendment two remains 100% in effect, and any law or procedure that infringes on any citizen's right to keep and bear arms (not guns, arms*), is illegal from start to finish, an entirely unauthorized use of power.
Having said that, the government has obviously stepped outside its authorized bounds here, bringing the subject around to another reason citizens should be armed: when such unauthorized powers become intolerable, an attempt can be made by armed citizens to bring the government to heel by force. Many arguments are made that such an attempt in the modern environment would not succeed; even if that were so (doubtful, in my estimation - most such arguments are simplistic at best, not based upon realistic tactics, strategies and force balance of such a conflict), it would not in any way change the fact that it would be the right thing to do.
Some of the more common arms in use at the time the 2nd amendment was penned include all manner of pistols, rifles, muskets, cannons, explosive and solid cannonballs, cannonballs filled with shards, frigates with multiple decks of cannon, wagons with explosives and multiple guns rigged to fire in unison, chain shot, flaming missiles soaked with pitch and other inflammable, easily spread and hard to extinguish compounds, caltrops, swords, knives, bayonets, fighting canes, brass knuckles, metal claws, battering rams, catapults, siege towers, glass bottles, garrotes, whips, chains, both fused and me
You realize, don't you, that bandwidth is a locally limited resource Y, and that if they guarantee you X, they have Y-X remaining for everyone else? And further, if they guaranteed, say, 1 mb/sec to a thousand customers, they'd have to have a 1,000,000 mb/sec pipe to support it? And THEN, once this goes out on any portion of the network they don't control (by which, I mean almost all of it), of course you know said bandwidth can be choked off by any other company for any particular reason, rendering your "guarantee" absolutely useless?
Your pipe from point A to point B can only be as fast as the slowest segment. It makes guarantees a bit problematic.
There are times when some users make huge demands -- movies, database transfers, streaming this or that. But when they're not doing that, there's more pipe for everyone. This could allow high bandwidth moments (locally) but not a guarantee. That's the reality of what any ISP faces today.
If you *really* wanted a guaranteed minimum network transfer speed, I bet [laughing, hand-waving] the guarantee would have to be about the speed of a 1200 baud modem.
We just need more pipe. Easy to say, expensive to do.
I was saying that covering part of the work with one's hand/fingers isn't a certain impediment to the highest quality work, as demonstrated by the vast repository of superb art created by those who had no choice but to work that way.
By extension, I was also implying that a tablet has the potential to be a very fine artist's tool, contrary to the concern being expressed about portions of the work being obscured.
Or die in a car accident. Which is probably more likely.
The reason you're not likely to die in a car accident is because you're trained to avoid risky behaviors of your own, and watch out for dangers from others, animals, and the environment.
What you're suggesting here is to drive your car with your eyes closed, and still expect to not have an accident.
You're every lawyer's dream: To the prosecutor, a naive computer user they can take right to the cleaners and carve another notch in their law degree. To the defense lawyer, you represent a new paint job for the Porsche, or that 150" TV they've had their eye on.
Eventually, you'll figure out that the last thing you want in life is to get yourself caught in the gears of the criminal legal process. There's no winning.
Good! The Internet was founded on free and open access.
The problem with "free and open access", at least here in the USA, is you can be accused of being responsible if someone downloads something unsavory (in the legal sense) over your connection. Even if you win in court, the costs (time, money, reputation, loss of computing equipment, loss of ability to use the Internet, etc) of defending such an accusation are enormous; that's why I no longer leave a connection open for the public. "Free and open" is no longer something I associate with US law. We're far down the road of repression and censorship, sad to say.
Worse, the situation is continually degrading, and the consequences of something that is minor now could become considerably worse in the future. Congress and the states have shown absolutely no reluctance to enact and enforce ex post facto laws, which are (among other things) laws that make consequences worse after the fact.
I want to see what I'm working on and not have to deal with... my hand and wrist covering up my work.
A problem that utterly destroyed the work of amateurs like DaVinci, Michaelangelo, and Raphael, right?
A Wacom is at least 2400 point per inch. A tablet using a finger cannot have that precision.
Well, yes, it can, and more -- by zooming in. And also by utilizing technologies such as bezier and spline curves. Methinks thou protests a bit too much. Also, even if you are stuck with the type of drawing you describe, it doesn't mean that others will be.
Hence the hopes for the iSlate -- which are so high that it may be difficult for even Apple to meet them.
Yep. I've been hoping it will be affordable, say $300...$500 or so. I've also been hoping it'll be a wifi/bluethooth machine, not a cellphone machine, as cell companies are notorious for overcharging for bandwidth (and generally lousy at providing it.) I don't think it can balance long battery life with the desired form factor and power requirements if it's a full bore OS X machine, so I anticipate an iPod-like design, that is, one app at a time, not much CPU power, CPU and GPU mostly asleep, or you get battery life measured in very few hours. I don't really mind that idea though... I've got an iPod touch and I am most impressed with what it can do under those same constraints.
Still, the price and communications issues loom large in my mind, and I'm feeling more than a little cynical. I'm sure, knowing Apple, that the thing will be beautiful and desirable, but Apple's been known to make fairly large mis-steps before in other areas (camera in the nano, not the Touch; Apple TV; Newton; one-button mouse; etc) and this may simply be another.
The US itself created those "economic waves" when it chose - yes, chose - to hugely overreact to the insanely-hyped threat of terrorism. You played right into the hands of whomever is responsible for the 11/09/01 events in NYC and elsewhere.
That is precisely correct, and on more than just an economic level. We have also turned around and eroded many of the fundamental liberties and rights that our country was based upon as if this were a solution to people attacking the system. The "terrorists" could not have hoped for an outcome anywhere near as destructive as what they actually achieved through the weakness of our leaders and the muzzy-headed pandering of our media.
...under law, a child can't consent. So if you're making the point that child laws are justified because the child not want their picture viewed, why are scanners any different?
If one can't give consent, then one can't travel. I didn't lay out the details because I thought it was obvious. These are private conveyances, and if they require a scan before they'll let you travel, then either you must consent, or you can't travel. If you can't consent, you can't travel. Ergo, as according to the law kids cannot consent, kids can't travel.
And as I also said, I hope these consequences destroy the airline industry, dealing a huge financial blow to the economy and the government -- because I can't see any other way they might be brought to their senses.
And outlawing such pictures by labeling them pedophilia is your solution?
No, it's not. I was pointing out that such images are not the same as images of an animal, which was the assertion of the post I was replying to.
My personal position is that photography is a form of speech, and that the proper course of action is to prosecute for coercion or nonconsent if the photographs actually depict that and the subject(s) agree, or are determined to be unable to agree -- that is, they cannot demonstrate an understanding of the photograph and the potential social consequences of its exposure in varying degrees: family, friends, enemies, people they don't know, and broad publication.
The critical underlying issue is a combination of one or more of the following factors: informed consent, coercion, and physical harm. The correct way to deal with it, in my view, is to actually address those issues.
I also don't particularly agree with drawing a line in the sand by age and claiming that it adequately describes an inability to consent. If you go to extremes, it works, but it doesn't work at all when deployed as is, in the teenage years (and sometimes late in the teenage years.) Many teenagers are well able to give informed consent; many adults are not. I'd prefer to see consent validated by decent answers to a series of questions about understanding of consequences, potential consequences, and so forth. Both at the pre-photography stage, and, if a legal tangle arises, at that stage as well.
In other words, I think the whole system is broken. I also think that our society (speaking of the US) is utterly unable to deal with this issue, and it isn't going to get fixed in any way, shape or form -- it's just going to get worse.
Speaking as a photographer, my chosen response to the current situation is to refuse to take pictures of anyone aged less than 18 under any but the most mundane circumstances. Same thing as a martial arts instructor; I won't teach kids. I think it is obvious that society has turned youth itself into a weapon to be used in an almost indiscriminate manner against honest citizens. Often based on no more than the flimsiest of accusations. In my opinion, the best way to protect one's self at this time is to steer clear of said youth.
I also think that parents who take "cute baby pix" in the current social climate are taking risks they don't comprehend, risks with no sunset, in fact risks that are very likely to escalate long after the photos are made. The term "witch hunt" is entirely appropriate for all the connotations of danger, lack of common sense and outright cultural insanity.
Bestiality is illegal. Let's outlaw all images of naked animals; the logic is the same, unfortunately.
No, it isn't.
First of all, an animal won't care, as it grows older, that there is a picture of its genitalia, or it being involved in a sex act to which it did not consent, extant in the public space. Or even just lying there, exposed. People -- they generally will care. That even applies to baby pictures. Parents think they're cute. The subjects, not so much.
Secondly, the real issue here is that the problem law is one that outlaws not images of real people, but any rendering, artistic or otherwise, of a real or imaginary young person.
As far as the airport scanners go, (1) inform the public what they face, and (2) they can choose whether to submit. This is very harsh, but it still allows for privacy and most liberty, excepting that travel using someone else's privately owned conveyance has preconditions no sensible person would put up with (and hopefully, that will kill the air travel industry, finally teaching the idiots in government a lesson.)
It is much more disturbing that art and less-than-art expression, harming no individual, utterly victimless, is being cast as criminal activity. That's straight up repression, censorship, and foolish to boot.
Here, it would be straight up unconstitutional. Which is not to say, of course, that they wouldn't make laws against it anyway, they've stepped on eight of ten of the bill of rights amendments as it is, not to mention other parts of the constitution. But at least you'd have a leg to stand on to object.
...to suggest that there should be nothing wrong with shouting over the designated speaker at an event because the shouter has free speech just doesn't hold water.
...to suggest that there should be nothing wrong with suppressing the objections at a public event because the speaker has free speech just doesn't hold water.
The idea that any public event is a one-way communication is abhorrent. Further, if you can't defend your views, you deserve to have the objections to them put right in your face (verbally, on signs, etc.) Such defense should be an inherent part of any stance; and taking the time to do it right is how you get a reputation of knowing what you're about instead of becoming a laughingstock when someone points out a serious flaw in your position.
Your idea of "free speech" is dictating a position to a silent crowd of like-minded (or utterly silent) pairs of ears. You shouldn't get to suppress other people's opinions just because you're standing in front of them. Debate - not lecturing - is one of the most powerful tools for getting at the truth there is; people who want to suppress debate usually don't have their ducks lined up worth a damn anyway.
You want to have a private, your-mouth to their-ears event? A nice lecture? Fine. Rent a private venue. You want to have a speaking event in a public space? Then the public should have as much right as you do to say anything, any way they want. Sure, it'd be nice if this was done in a reasonable fashion, but on the other hand, if you repress the objectors, they're going to come at you harder... and you deserve it.
Anyway, perhaps you should be more appropriately termed an agnostic and not an atheist?
No. Agnosticism is the stance that one doesn't know; it isn't a third position between theism (belief in a god or gods) and atheism (without belief in a god or gods.) Either you hold such beliefs, or you don't. Why - knowledge, instinct, ignorance, statistics, disdain - doesn't have any measure of effect on putting you in some position of ambivalence. Either one is a theist, or one is an atheist.
Just as there are many subtle differences in theist positions, there are myriad subtle differences in atheist positions. The unfortunate part for public perception has been the casting of "atheist" in the role of anti-theism. That assigns a good many people views they don't hold.
They have no problems with inflicting casualties and it is much easier to do this in a free society.
It is. It is also much easier to do a whole raft of reasonable things in a free society. The question is, are we going to let cowardice remove all those reasonable things in order to deal with this one bad thing?
There are other solutions, and I sure wish we would just up and use them. Getting out of the middle east would be a great start. It's not our land, not our resources, not our business. We shouldn't be there. We should be spending like crazy on renewable energy. Once we get somewhere with it, we should give it to the world. Then these lands, and these people, can go back to the value they had prior to oil being a salable commodity: zero. There's plenty of oil everywhere if we're not burning it for fuel, no need to finance 12-century theotards. We've got our own theotards to deal with, after all. We don't need extras.
Well, one should definitely do that (and I do), but, if if you don't do anything, if you're passive in the face of the destruction of your liberties, then eventually, you'll have a lot less you can do. If you step outside and the TSA guy on the sidewalk says "papers please", what then? You can already be searched without a warrant if you are within X miles of the US border; all they have to do is put some people on your sidewalk and you're there.
The price of freedom is risk. The price of safety is liberty. It's your budget, you decide what you want to pay.
Imaging technologies are in use, and have been for some time. So it's a perfectly reasonable request. Especially in light of the OP's claim that "The short answer is a qualified YES. All imaging technologies can (help) save us from (some) terrorists."
As for being deterrents, yes, they are. I won't support an industry that cares so little for my liberties, not to mention which encourages acting like a bunch of craven cowards. So I never fly.
As far as efficacy in stopping an infinitesimal number of these clowns from blowing themselves up (or incompetently attempting to, like mr-flaming-pants and mr-flaming-shoe) as compared to the number of flights per day... that simply hasn't been demonstrated. Nor has it been shown that they won't simply switch to shoulder-mounted rockets or something similar. Or different targets. The fact is, if there were a lot of 'em, there would be a lot of incidents or a lot of them getting caught. But there aren't. It's 99.9999% theater, and it's all at the expense of our way of life.
The real problem is that the masses live in fear inspired and encouraged by the media and the politicians. I stand against everything that makes that problem worse.
This is a staged marketing image, not a "terrorist." Where are the shots that demonstrate terrorists being caught? I'm not talking about a housewife with a bottle of glow-face, or someone with a legal-carry pistol, either, I'm talking about a terrorist who intended to bring down an aircraft.
The price of freedom is risk. The price of safety is liberty. I'll take the former over the latter any day.
I don't see why people are so critical of the TSA.
Because privacy is still something we're raised to expect as a basic civilized consideration, a fundamental personal liberty to maintain social boundaries until we wish otherwise. It's just that simple.
Not a problem. Take a cruise ship. Loads of fun, great food, gambling, accommodations from basic to extreme luxury, swimming, tennis, dancing... I haven't been on a plane in decades and I've been to every continent except Antarctica in that time. You'd be surprised how reasonable the prices are, too, presuming you don't absolutely have to get that luxury suite. Though I highly recommend them.:)
The biggest challenge today with electronic texts is that page build needs to be fast.
Yes, in order for real speed, convenience and maximum processing efficiency, we'll have to move to an advanced format like ASCII with embedded bitmap references. Possibly something as advanced as basic HTML. The basic technologies will become available in the future, perhaps around the 1970's or so, though you'll have to wait a few more years for HTML. You'll need at least a 4-bit processor running at 1 MHz to handle them, too.
One can only wait patiently for the future to unfold...
But a dollar for a movie I want to watch now can be even more convenient than waiting 2-10 hours for a movie to finish on bittorrent, depending on how well it's seeded.
And don't forget, as compared to purchasing intellectual property, bittorrent offers the unique opportunity to pay a huge fine and/or go to the federally sponsored involuntary ass-fuck brothel for a few years.... I mean, that is priceless!
Slashdot Mirror
That's exactly correct. It is important to understand what privacy actually is.
When and as written, "militia" meant all white male free citizens, physically capable of combat, of an age generally between 16 and 45. "Organized militia" referred to the force represented by a gathering of these individuals. In no way did militia mean a force of government employees, armed by the government.
When and as written, "Well regulated" meant that each individual would show up when called with a standard amount of powder, shot, and compatible arms. It did not mean that they could not show up with additional arms; for instance, should a militiaman arrive at the assembly with a horse-drawn cannon, this would be entirely appropriate and welcome. In no way would it excuse them from bringing the expected powder, shot and so forth, however.
The phrase "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is the explicatory phrase of the 2nd amendment, which means that it presents a rationale for the operative phrase that follows. It is also sometimes referred to as the prefatory phrase, that is, it serves as a preface. It is non-exclusive; that is, it does not say that this is the only reason; its presence can only be interpreted as a sufficient reason.
The operative phrase of the 2nd amendment contains instructions to the government in the context of the constitution, which is the authorizing document for all lawmaking. The instructions say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
An accurate transcription in modern English is: "Because we need consistently armed and able citizens that may be quickly organized to fight to maintain the condition of freedom, the citizens' right to store and carry arms shall not be in any way diminished."
This maintains the prefatory / operative phrasing, and carries the precise meaning of each phrase forward.
The main thing one needs to understand about the prefatory phrase is that since it gives no instruction to the government, it carries no legitimate weight whatsoever with regard to the 2nd amendment's restriction upon making law that infringes on the citizen's right to keep and carry arms. That is entirely the province of the operative phrase.
The government does have a mechanism available to it to change the operative phrase, or for that matter the rest of the amendment as well. That is article five. They have not, to date, made use of this, and therefore amendment two remains 100% in effect, and any law or procedure that infringes on any citizen's right to keep and bear arms (not guns, arms *), is illegal from start to finish, an entirely unauthorized use of power.
Having said that, the government has obviously stepped outside its authorized bounds here, bringing the subject around to another reason citizens should be armed: when such unauthorized powers become intolerable, an attempt can be made by armed citizens to bring the government to heel by force. Many arguments are made that such an attempt in the modern environment would not succeed; even if that were so (doubtful, in my estimation - most such arguments are simplistic at best, not based upon realistic tactics, strategies and force balance of such a conflict), it would not in any way change the fact that it would be the right thing to do.
You realize, don't you, that bandwidth is a locally limited resource Y, and that if they guarantee you X, they have Y-X remaining for everyone else? And further, if they guaranteed, say, 1 mb/sec to a thousand customers, they'd have to have a 1,000,000 mb/sec pipe to support it? And THEN, once this goes out on any portion of the network they don't control (by which, I mean almost all of it), of course you know said bandwidth can be choked off by any other company for any particular reason, rendering your "guarantee" absolutely useless?
Your pipe from point A to point B can only be as fast as the slowest segment. It makes guarantees a bit problematic.
There are times when some users make huge demands -- movies, database transfers, streaming this or that. But when they're not doing that, there's more pipe for everyone. This could allow high bandwidth moments (locally) but not a guarantee. That's the reality of what any ISP faces today.
If you *really* wanted a guaranteed minimum network transfer speed, I bet [laughing, hand-waving] the guarantee would have to be about the speed of a 1200 baud modem.
We just need more pipe. Easy to say, expensive to do.
That, by the way, was a hit directly on your head with the clue-bat. :)
I was saying that covering part of the work with one's hand/fingers isn't a certain impediment to the highest quality work, as demonstrated by the vast repository of superb art created by those who had no choice but to work that way.
By extension, I was also implying that a tablet has the potential to be a very fine artist's tool, contrary to the concern being expressed about portions of the work being obscured.
The reason you're not likely to die in a car accident is because you're trained to avoid risky behaviors of your own, and watch out for dangers from others, animals, and the environment.
What you're suggesting here is to drive your car with your eyes closed, and still expect to not have an accident.
You're every lawyer's dream: To the prosecutor, a naive computer user they can take right to the cleaners and carve another notch in their law degree. To the defense lawyer, you represent a new paint job for the Porsche, or that 150" TV they've had their eye on.
Eventually, you'll figure out that the last thing you want in life is to get yourself caught in the gears of the criminal legal process. There's no winning.
All those arguments will go up in smoke when you are the one caught.
The problem with "free and open access", at least here in the USA, is you can be accused of being responsible if someone downloads something unsavory (in the legal sense) over your connection. Even if you win in court, the costs (time, money, reputation, loss of computing equipment, loss of ability to use the Internet, etc) of defending such an accusation are enormous; that's why I no longer leave a connection open for the public. "Free and open" is no longer something I associate with US law. We're far down the road of repression and censorship, sad to say.
Worse, the situation is continually degrading, and the consequences of something that is minor now could become considerably worse in the future. Congress and the states have shown absolutely no reluctance to enact and enforce ex post facto laws, which are (among other things) laws that make consequences worse after the fact.
A problem that utterly destroyed the work of amateurs like DaVinci, Michaelangelo, and Raphael, right?
Well, yes, it can, and more -- by zooming in. And also by utilizing technologies such as bezier and spline curves. Methinks thou protests a bit too much. Also, even if you are stuck with the type of drawing you describe, it doesn't mean that others will be.
Yep. I've been hoping it will be affordable, say $300...$500 or so. I've also been hoping it'll be a wifi/bluethooth machine, not a cellphone machine, as cell companies are notorious for overcharging for bandwidth (and generally lousy at providing it.) I don't think it can balance long battery life with the desired form factor and power requirements if it's a full bore OS X machine, so I anticipate an iPod-like design, that is, one app at a time, not much CPU power, CPU and GPU mostly asleep, or you get battery life measured in very few hours. I don't really mind that idea though... I've got an iPod touch and I am most impressed with what it can do under those same constraints.
Still, the price and communications issues loom large in my mind, and I'm feeling more than a little cynical. I'm sure, knowing Apple, that the thing will be beautiful and desirable, but Apple's been known to make fairly large mis-steps before in other areas (camera in the nano, not the Touch; Apple TV; Newton; one-button mouse; etc) and this may simply be another.
We'll know soon enough.
I never said I thought the laws made sense; you're setting up a straw man here. Please read my other posts in the thread.
That is precisely correct, and on more than just an economic level. We have also turned around and eroded many of the fundamental liberties and rights that our country was based upon as if this were a solution to people attacking the system. The "terrorists" could not have hoped for an outcome anywhere near as destructive as what they actually achieved through the weakness of our leaders and the muzzy-headed pandering of our media.
If one can't give consent, then one can't travel. I didn't lay out the details because I thought it was obvious. These are private conveyances, and if they require a scan before they'll let you travel, then either you must consent, or you can't travel. If you can't consent, you can't travel. Ergo, as according to the law kids cannot consent, kids can't travel.
And as I also said, I hope these consequences destroy the airline industry, dealing a huge financial blow to the economy and the government -- because I can't see any other way they might be brought to their senses.
No, it's not. I was pointing out that such images are not the same as images of an animal, which was the assertion of the post I was replying to.
My personal position is that photography is a form of speech, and that the proper course of action is to prosecute for coercion or nonconsent if the photographs actually depict that and the subject(s) agree, or are determined to be unable to agree -- that is, they cannot demonstrate an understanding of the photograph and the potential social consequences of its exposure in varying degrees: family, friends, enemies, people they don't know, and broad publication.
The critical underlying issue is a combination of one or more of the following factors: informed consent, coercion, and physical harm. The correct way to deal with it, in my view, is to actually address those issues.
I also don't particularly agree with drawing a line in the sand by age and claiming that it adequately describes an inability to consent. If you go to extremes, it works, but it doesn't work at all when deployed as is, in the teenage years (and sometimes late in the teenage years.) Many teenagers are well able to give informed consent; many adults are not. I'd prefer to see consent validated by decent answers to a series of questions about understanding of consequences, potential consequences, and so forth. Both at the pre-photography stage, and, if a legal tangle arises, at that stage as well.
In other words, I think the whole system is broken. I also think that our society (speaking of the US) is utterly unable to deal with this issue, and it isn't going to get fixed in any way, shape or form -- it's just going to get worse.
Speaking as a photographer, my chosen response to the current situation is to refuse to take pictures of anyone aged less than 18 under any but the most mundane circumstances. Same thing as a martial arts instructor; I won't teach kids. I think it is obvious that society has turned youth itself into a weapon to be used in an almost indiscriminate manner against honest citizens. Often based on no more than the flimsiest of accusations. In my opinion, the best way to protect one's self at this time is to steer clear of said youth.
I also think that parents who take "cute baby pix" in the current social climate are taking risks they don't comprehend, risks with no sunset, in fact risks that are very likely to escalate long after the photos are made. The term "witch hunt" is entirely appropriate for all the connotations of danger, lack of common sense and outright cultural insanity.
No, it isn't.
First of all, an animal won't care, as it grows older, that there is a picture of its genitalia, or it being involved in a sex act to which it did not consent, extant in the public space. Or even just lying there, exposed. People -- they generally will care. That even applies to baby pictures. Parents think they're cute. The subjects, not so much.
Secondly, the real issue here is that the problem law is one that outlaws not images of real people, but any rendering, artistic or otherwise, of a real or imaginary young person.
As far as the airport scanners go, (1) inform the public what they face, and (2) they can choose whether to submit. This is very harsh, but it still allows for privacy and most liberty, excepting that travel using someone else's privately owned conveyance has preconditions no sensible person would put up with (and hopefully, that will kill the air travel industry, finally teaching the idiots in government a lesson.)
It is much more disturbing that art and less-than-art expression, harming no individual, utterly victimless, is being cast as criminal activity. That's straight up repression, censorship, and foolish to boot.
Here, it would be straight up unconstitutional. Which is not to say, of course, that they wouldn't make laws against it anyway, they've stepped on eight of ten of the bill of rights amendments as it is, not to mention other parts of the constitution. But at least you'd have a leg to stand on to object.
The idea that any public event is a one-way communication is abhorrent. Further, if you can't defend your views, you deserve to have the objections to them put right in your face (verbally, on signs, etc.) Such defense should be an inherent part of any stance; and taking the time to do it right is how you get a reputation of knowing what you're about instead of becoming a laughingstock when someone points out a serious flaw in your position.
Your idea of "free speech" is dictating a position to a silent crowd of like-minded (or utterly silent) pairs of ears. You shouldn't get to suppress other people's opinions just because you're standing in front of them. Debate - not lecturing - is one of the most powerful tools for getting at the truth there is; people who want to suppress debate usually don't have their ducks lined up worth a damn anyway.
You want to have a private, your-mouth to their-ears event? A nice lecture? Fine. Rent a private venue. You want to have a speaking event in a public space? Then the public should have as much right as you do to say anything, any way they want. Sure, it'd be nice if this was done in a reasonable fashion, but on the other hand, if you repress the objectors, they're going to come at you harder... and you deserve it.
No. Agnosticism is the stance that one doesn't know; it isn't a third position between theism (belief in a god or gods) and atheism (without belief in a god or gods.) Either you hold such beliefs, or you don't. Why - knowledge, instinct, ignorance, statistics, disdain - doesn't have any measure of effect on putting you in some position of ambivalence. Either one is a theist, or one is an atheist.
Just as there are many subtle differences in theist positions, there are myriad subtle differences in atheist positions. The unfortunate part for public perception has been the casting of "atheist" in the role of anti-theism. That assigns a good many people views they don't hold.
It is. It is also much easier to do a whole raft of reasonable things in a free society. The question is, are we going to let cowardice remove all those reasonable things in order to deal with this one bad thing?
There are other solutions, and I sure wish we would just up and use them. Getting out of the middle east would be a great start. It's not our land, not our resources, not our business. We shouldn't be there. We should be spending like crazy on renewable energy. Once we get somewhere with it, we should give it to the world. Then these lands, and these people, can go back to the value they had prior to oil being a salable commodity: zero. There's plenty of oil everywhere if we're not burning it for fuel, no need to finance 12-century theotards. We've got our own theotards to deal with, after all. We don't need extras.
Well, one should definitely do that (and I do), but, if if you don't do anything, if you're passive in the face of the destruction of your liberties, then eventually, you'll have a lot less you can do. If you step outside and the TSA guy on the sidewalk says "papers please", what then? You can already be searched without a warrant if you are within X miles of the US border; all they have to do is put some people on your sidewalk and you're there.
The price of freedom is risk. The price of safety is liberty. It's your budget, you decide what you want to pay.
Imaging technologies are in use, and have been for some time. So it's a perfectly reasonable request. Especially in light of the OP's claim that "The short answer is a qualified YES. All imaging technologies can (help) save us from (some) terrorists."
As for being deterrents, yes, they are. I won't support an industry that cares so little for my liberties, not to mention which encourages acting like a bunch of craven cowards. So I never fly.
As far as efficacy in stopping an infinitesimal number of these clowns from blowing themselves up (or incompetently attempting to, like mr-flaming-pants and mr-flaming-shoe) as compared to the number of flights per day... that simply hasn't been demonstrated. Nor has it been shown that they won't simply switch to shoulder-mounted rockets or something similar. Or different targets. The fact is, if there were a lot of 'em, there would be a lot of incidents or a lot of them getting caught. But there aren't. It's 99.9999% theater, and it's all at the expense of our way of life.
The real problem is that the masses live in fear inspired and encouraged by the media and the politicians. I stand against everything that makes that problem worse.
This is a staged marketing image, not a "terrorist." Where are the shots that demonstrate terrorists being caught? I'm not talking about a housewife with a bottle of glow-face, or someone with a legal-carry pistol, either, I'm talking about a terrorist who intended to bring down an aircraft.
The price of freedom is risk. The price of safety is liberty. I'll take the former over the latter any day.
Because privacy is still something we're raised to expect as a basic civilized consideration, a fundamental personal liberty to maintain social boundaries until we wish otherwise. It's just that simple.
Not a problem. Take a cruise ship. Loads of fun, great food, gambling, accommodations from basic to extreme luxury, swimming, tennis, dancing... I haven't been on a plane in decades and I've been to every continent except Antarctica in that time. You'd be surprised how reasonable the prices are, too, presuming you don't absolutely have to get that luxury suite. Though I highly recommend them. :)
Yes, in order for real speed, convenience and maximum processing efficiency, we'll have to move to an advanced format like ASCII with embedded bitmap references. Possibly something as advanced as basic HTML. The basic technologies will become available in the future, perhaps around the 1970's or so, though you'll have to wait a few more years for HTML. You'll need at least a 4-bit processor running at 1 MHz to handle them, too.
One can only wait patiently for the future to unfold...
And don't forget, as compared to purchasing intellectual property, bittorrent offers the unique opportunity to pay a huge fine and/or go to the federally sponsored involuntary ass-fuck brothel for a few years.... I mean, that is priceless!