Please have the courtesy of reserving judgement (sic) until such a time all the facts are in
Request denied. Slashdot is not a court of law, and judgments and opinions expressed by its membership are not binding on anyone. As such they may be made and expressed with too few, just the right amount, or too many facts.
I don't know... I'm tempted to question why a driver's license is used as ID in the first place. It's a license to drive a car, but people treat it like it's a universal ID and everyone is supposed to have one.
Cause it's America. How did you get wherever you are to show your ID if not by car? But you do have a good point, and next time I buy beer I'm gonna pull out the dog license. Then again, the gun license might get free beer and an opportunity to witness my tax dollars at work.
I applied for a new passport this Summer, and it sounds like the new New York DL just includes a "Passport Card" in it. They're both for surface entry of the US from North American and Caribbean countries. The additional DL fee is $30, but a new Passport Card is $45, $20 if you already have a passport book. As such, privacy concerns would be exactly the same as with a new Passport or Passport Card.
Please don't use that term. Even those of us who agree with you don't like it. It reminds me a president who says "democrat party" instead of "democratic party" because he knows it annoys them. Granted, it's a rather minor annoyance compared to what we feel when we see what the rednecks and fundamentalists have turned our country into. Everyone will still know if you are referring to America (the USA) and America (the two continents) from your context. I know we've got to fix this place ourselves, but we'd like to feel that there's someone rooting for us.
Then they're welcome to come up with ways to make that money. Once they've busted their asses in several jobs, risking hundreds of thousands of dollars on investments, and earned their first million, they can suddenely be taxed right back to where they started, because congress thinks they can spend 600,000 of that man's first generated million better than he can.
I suspect that for every unfortunate slob who busts his ass and risks his hundreds of thousands to make his first million, there are at least 100 other lucky guys who bust their humps their whole lives without ever facing the disappointment of reaching the maximum tax bracket. Lucky bastards. Probably even get subsidized burial plots.
Welcome to "How to ruin an economy 101: Start by taking away everything from those who know how to make and invest money, then give it to the worst investors you can." The Obama plan!
So what's that make the Bush plan? "How to ruin an economy 002: Remedial Ruination for Privileged Frat Boys"?
Not justifying the abortion clinic attacks, just suggesting that the actions were at least targeted at preventing what they consider a wrong, while the terrorists we are fighting are NOT targeted at preventing a wrong
Doesn't everyone who takes up violence for a cause believe they're doing it for the right reasons? For that matter, doesn't everyone who takes up a cause with or without violence believe that?
I'd still rather hire someone who didn't drop acid on camera 5 years ago.
If that's one of the most important qualifications for the job, then so be it. But if I were basing hiring decisions on stuff unrelated to qualifications, I'd select for large breasts (for females) and extremely hard-to-pronounce names (for everyone).
Which might actually be a good thing, since any such manager has probably also populated the place with fellow idiots.
That may be the best point here. That you really don't want to work anywhere that a hiring manager weeds out applicants on the basis of unverified webprints. I'm sure one could argue that you just have to get past the gatekeeper, and s/he's the only idiot there, the rest of the staff are really great. One could. I wouldn't.
INTJ, actually. You've piqued my curiosity. How did my use of italicized words lead you to this conclusion?
Sorry to mislead -- I didn't mean to claim any super power. I had italicized your words "I think" to indicate that the thinking before writing made you an I instead of an E. I should have been more verbose, but being an I myself, I over-thought it.
Every time I feel like writing fan-mail, I think, "Wait, would I really want to be bothered by this? And is it creepy?" and then I don't send it.
One thing that tells you is that your personality profile has an "I" in it instead of an "E", due to the 2 italicized words in the quote. That said, I'm sure almost anyone would appreciate novel, well-thought-out, positive, criticism. That said, I always figure someone has always beaten me to it with a better-thought-out note already, so I don't send it either.
The illegal kinds of stalking are those, where (unwanted) physical presence takes place. It is criminalized under names such as "criminal menace" or "criminal harassment". I don't think, what we are talking about here (which, mind you, is in itself some blogger's speculation), would rise to illegal stalking, even if it were true...
I was reading the same wikipedia article as you, and I think I agree, but for a different reason. After reading your reply, I followed the links to read the texts of some of the state laws, and they don't seem to require a physical presence, but they do require a threat.
So if you were following someone electronically, they wouldn't necessarily be aware of it. In that case, you would need to let them know you were watching their whereabouts (more than once). E.g., you could call them or send a text message. If your goal is discreet surveillance, you wouldn't tip them off like that. So, ya, it wouldn't be criminal stalking.
. . . do you really want to be on the NSA and FSI's shit list?
I'm with the other responder, "yes". In fact, the more people on the "shit list" the better. Then the "shit list" isn't worth -- shit. It's just a phone book. If the NSA and FBI are keeping a "shit list", they are derelict in their actual duties.
Finally, there is no evidence (I am aware of) that these orders are so bad.
. . . the article seems to be about phone location snooping -- somebody, somewhere records where you (or, rather, your phone) were, and not, what you said. Encryption will not help you here, but your privacy is not violated either -- or not nearly as much, as the "Heil Bush" moron would like you to think.
It is not even illegal
It sounds a lot like stalking, which is illegal in most US States.
B) No they were not. The ORIGINAL source has totally denied the story.
The site you cite only says that the purported book list is bogus, not that the censorship attempt didn't happen. You probably shouldn't have posted the URL, since we could read the quote in context . ..
note: there's some buzz being generated that says that this post contains a comment that lists the books that Palin supposedly wanted banned. The list is here, but there appears to be no truth to the claim made by the commenter, and no further documentation or support for this has turned up.
So someone posted a supposed list of the books that were to be censored. That list is bogus, not the original censorship claim.
Man. DO you really believe these lies? How gullible are you to this far left trash propoganda?
Sure, but I bet you believe the Right's lies that McCain is a Christian, that he doesn't eat children as part of his bizarre cult rituals, and that Palin is not in fact a transsexual. Gullible freak.
I guess what they really need to teach is reading comprehension... She said to teach it all and debate it. Don't forbid any of it.
There is no need to teach science and debate whether it is theology or teach theology and debate whether it is science. There is no need for "debate" about which is which, except perhaps in debate class;)
Of course this might confuse the average slashdotter (who, the stereotype says, has no women in his life), but still, monogamy and commitment are orthogonal issues.
Confused and pissed off. Possibly because you poached his women.
Slashdot Mirror
Please have the courtesy of reserving judgement (sic) until such a time all the facts are in
Request denied. Slashdot is not a court of law, and judgments and opinions expressed by its membership are not binding on anyone. As such they may be made and expressed with too few, just the right amount, or too many facts.
I don't know... I'm tempted to question why a driver's license is used as ID in the first place. It's a license to drive a car, but people treat it like it's a universal ID and everyone is supposed to have one.
Cause it's America. How did you get wherever you are to show your ID if not by car? But you do have a good point, and next time I buy beer I'm gonna pull out the dog license. Then again, the gun license might get free beer and an opportunity to witness my tax dollars at work.
I applied for a new passport this Summer, and it sounds like the new New York DL just includes a "Passport Card" in it. They're both for surface entry of the US from North American and Caribbean countries. The additional DL fee is $30, but a new Passport Card is $45, $20 if you already have a passport book. As such, privacy concerns would be exactly the same as with a new Passport or Passport Card.
And thus it is proved the USA education system still can't teach people geography. 3 continents, please: North, Central and South America.
Hey, man -- I'm certainly well aware of Central America -- but most of us Midwesterners don't really think of ourselves as having our own continent!
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it. - E. Debs
That's a most reasonable appeal.
Just to be clear: I'm not pissing on USians here.
Please don't use that term. Even those of us who agree with you don't like it. It reminds me a president who says "democrat party" instead of "democratic party" because he knows it annoys them. Granted, it's a rather minor annoyance compared to what we feel when we see what the rednecks and fundamentalists have turned our country into. Everyone will still know if you are referring to America (the USA) and America (the two continents) from your context. I know we've got to fix this place ourselves, but we'd like to feel that there's someone rooting for us.
The link was removed, then reinstated and the claimant complained - a public apology was made by the Mayor.
End of.
We call that, "Can dish it out but can't take it".
Then they're welcome to come up with ways to make that money. Once they've busted their asses in several jobs, risking hundreds of thousands of dollars on investments, and earned their first million, they can suddenely be taxed right back to where they started, because congress thinks they can spend 600,000 of that man's first generated million better than he can.
I suspect that for every unfortunate slob who busts his ass and risks his hundreds of thousands to make his first million, there are at least 100 other lucky guys who bust their humps their whole lives without ever facing the disappointment of reaching the maximum tax bracket. Lucky bastards. Probably even get subsidized burial plots.
Welcome to "How to ruin an economy 101: Start by taking away everything from those who know how to make and invest money, then give it to the worst investors you can." The Obama plan!
So what's that make the Bush plan? "How to ruin an economy 002: Remedial Ruination for Privileged Frat Boys"?
hard to pronounce names, so they are the only ones that come up in a search? Cause you know "John Smith" ain't got this damn problem.
That's a side benefit I hadn't considered. I really just want to confuse people calling the office.
Senator of Connecticut? Sounds like serious pressure!
Actually, he sounds more like a cross of Elmer Fudd and Eeyore.
Not justifying the abortion clinic attacks, just suggesting that the actions were at least targeted at preventing what they consider a wrong, while the terrorists we are fighting are NOT targeted at preventing a wrong
Doesn't everyone who takes up violence for a cause believe they're doing it for the right reasons? For that matter, doesn't everyone who takes up a cause with or without violence believe that?
I'd still rather hire someone who didn't drop acid on camera 5 years ago.
If that's one of the most important qualifications for the job, then so be it. But if I were basing hiring decisions on stuff unrelated to qualifications, I'd select for large breasts (for females) and extremely hard-to-pronounce names (for everyone).
Which might actually be a good thing, since any such manager has probably also populated the place with fellow idiots.
That may be the best point here. That you really don't want to work anywhere that a hiring manager weeds out applicants on the basis of unverified webprints. I'm sure one could argue that you just have to get past the gatekeeper, and s/he's the only idiot there, the rest of the staff are really great. One could. I wouldn't.
INTJ, actually. You've piqued my curiosity. How did my use of italicized words lead you to this conclusion?
Sorry to mislead -- I didn't mean to claim any super power. I had italicized your words "I think" to indicate that the thinking before writing made you an I instead of an E. I should have been more verbose, but being an I myself, I over-thought it.
Every time I feel like writing fan-mail, I think, "Wait, would I really want to be bothered by this? And is it creepy?" and then I don't send it.
One thing that tells you is that your personality profile has an "I" in it instead of an "E", due to the 2 italicized words in the quote. That said, I'm sure almost anyone would appreciate novel, well-thought-out, positive, criticism. That said, I always figure someone has always beaten me to it with a better-thought-out note already, so I don't send it either.
The illegal kinds of stalking are those, where (unwanted) physical presence takes place. It is criminalized under names such as "criminal menace" or "criminal harassment". I don't think, what we are talking about here (which, mind you, is in itself some blogger's speculation), would rise to illegal stalking, even if it were true...
I was reading the same wikipedia article as you, and I think I agree, but for a different reason. After reading your reply, I followed the links to read the texts of some of the state laws, and they don't seem to require a physical presence, but they do require a threat.
So if you were following someone electronically, they wouldn't necessarily be aware of it. In that case, you would need to let them know you were watching their whereabouts (more than once). E.g., you could call them or send a text message. If your goal is discreet surveillance, you wouldn't tip them off like that. So, ya, it wouldn't be criminal stalking.
. . . do you really want to be on the NSA and FSI's shit list?
I'm with the other responder, "yes". In fact, the more people on the "shit list" the better. Then the "shit list" isn't worth -- shit. It's just a phone book. If the NSA and FBI are keeping a "shit list", they are derelict in their actual duties.
Finally, there is no evidence (I am aware of) that these orders are so bad.
Well, that's the beauty of keeping it secret.
. . . the article seems to be about phone location snooping -- somebody, somewhere records where you (or, rather, your phone) were, and not, what you said. Encryption will not help you here, but your privacy is not violated either -- or not nearly as much, as the "Heil Bush" moron would like you to think.
It is not even illegal
It sounds a lot like stalking, which is illegal in most US States.
B) No they were not. The ORIGINAL source has totally denied the story.
The site you cite only says that the purported book list is bogus, not that the censorship attempt didn't happen. You probably shouldn't have posted the URL, since we could read the quote in context . . .
note: there's some buzz being generated that says that this post contains a comment that lists the books that Palin supposedly wanted banned. The list is here, but there appears to be no truth to the claim made by the commenter, and no further documentation or support for this has turned up.
So someone posted a supposed list of the books that were to be censored. That list is bogus, not the original censorship claim.
Riiight - and the list of books supposedly banned includes books that *hadn't been published* at the time of the alleged incident (1996).
But that was back when Palin was still a man.
Man. DO you really believe these lies? How gullible are you to this far left trash propoganda?
Sure, but I bet you believe the Right's lies that McCain is a Christian, that he doesn't eat children as part of his bizarre cult rituals, and that Palin is not in fact a transsexual. Gullible freak.
I guess what they really need to teach is reading comprehension... She said to teach it all and debate it. Don't forbid any of it.
There is no need to teach science and debate whether it is theology or teach theology and debate whether it is science. There is no need for "debate" about which is which, except perhaps in debate class ;)
Of course this might confuse the average slashdotter (who, the stereotype says, has no women in his life), but still, monogamy and commitment are orthogonal issues.
Confused and pissed off. Possibly because you poached his women.
So you are saying I could leave the world by going up or down?
. . . Something, possibly this very sentence, tells you that it would be dangerous to travel east or west.
. . . It was a pun.