Thousands of them, trained by some very serious, very passionate people who don't even begin to fit the cartoon caricature description of cops who fake drug busts
but the above scenario has been reported a number of times
How many is a "number," relative to the all day, every day work these dogs and their handlers do?
So you think that dogs that have been mis-trained into being incorrect about detecting something are... being abused? What, their self esteem will end up really low, and that's abuse, to you? What are you talkign about?
wouldn't you want a furry friend with an addiction to powerful drugs to keep you company?
The only thing search/detection dog is addicted to is the simple pleasure of working. They're descended from wolves, who live to hunt. They're bred to be incredibly sensitive, nose-wise, and have had their pack instincts morphed into a very gratifying (for them, and their handlers) pleasure in their essentially symbiotic relationship with humans. They love to go out and do stuff, and are raised as pups to get some good clean joy out of accurately differentiating between being right and wrong with their noses. They're addicted to being part of a well organized pack, just like many social animals. Addicted to the drugs or other materials they've learned to identify by the parts-per-billion in the air? Nonsense. They want a pat on the head, their favorite toy as a reward, and a chance to go do it again.
This is why it's important to yell loudly and repeatedly "AM I BEING DETAINED?!?!" whenever speaking to a cop.
Yes, because being obnoxious and shouting at cops is a super way to show that you're not trying to distract/deflect. Do you do your job better when someone is screaming in your face? Really? Fascinating.
The dogs are demonstrably a placebo that "triggers" when the handling cop signals the dog to do so.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. About dogs generally, or about their use in quickly showing awareness of explosives, drugs, and other items. They are uncannily accurate once they've been shown the difference between placebos and the real thing. Oh, and you also have no understanding of how the word "placebo" is used.
Yes. And I truly hope you're right. Responsive, though, can be a huge PITA for content designers, but there are plenty of responsive frameworks out there, and they do actually work. Full-on mobile-only only content is generally awful, except for very specific scenarios (track your package, check your balance, etc).
A complete disregard for the customers because there is ZERO penalty for producing a shitty product.
Do you purchase their products? Will you in the future? Will you be recommending their products to any people or businesses that you know? Will you be praising or condemning them in venues like this?
What penalty did you have mind beyond them losing sales?
Should we criminalize imperfect software? Let's see some of your code.
I don't believe you actually need a pilot's license to fly anything characterized as an "ultralight" aircraft, as these tape-and-balsawood gyrocopters appear to be. Doesn't mean the FAA can't fine your ass, of course, when you do dumb crap like flying a possibly deadly set of large rotors right past crowds of tourists at low altitudes in an urban area like DC.
Actually have you found any private details in the publicized materials or are you just theorizing?
Why aren't you asking the author of the article that question? Regardless, prior leaks of this info show communications with HR, discussions of paychecks, etc.
Yeah, you would not BELIEVE how much money I get from the Tri-Lateral Commission. You can too! Just follow my simple 5-step plan, which I lay out in my seminars, which I host annually at the Rothschilds. They always let me stay in their pool house.
McCain-Feingold was not an attempt to "prevent people from gathering together in a group, pooling their resources, and using those resources to express an opinion about politics"
That's exactly what it was. How else would you characterize you being subject to felony federal charges if you (personally, or as part of a group) run an issue or party advocacy ad in the week before an election? It wasn't about the size or loudness of the "megaphone," it was about political speech, period. Unless you are part of one of the groups that the law allowed to continue. Which is the second reason why the law was struck down - unequal protection. The law abridged free speech, and applied the law unevenly to different parties. Unconstitutional right out of the gate on both counts.
The DC FRZ is indeed there to cut down on the need to deal with a bunch of yahoos buzzing very high-profile targets. But the who decided to fly his gyrocopter right past crowds after a low-level pass over an urban area is up for reckless operation charges from the FAA either way. That bit of idiocy is idiocy whether it's done around people in DC or around people in downtown Miami.
Being subjected to over paid messages is NOT free speech it PAID for speech
It would be great if you can point out where, in the First Amendment, it says that your rights to say what you want about politics is taken away if you do it by, say, paying a printer to copy your message onto 500 pieces of paper you want to hand out. Paid speech! Paid speech! The government must censor that, since it took money to reproduce the message and spread it around!
We don't even have to get IN to whether or to what degree one ad or another does or doesn't feel "fair" to you. Because it all comes down to what you want: censorship. Until you just plainly say what you want, there's no point getting into the rest of it. And you won't come out and say it because you know that the control you want is not compatible with the constitution.
There! Just like always, you run away because you can't reconcile your desire for control of other people with the constitution's limits on the government doing so.
You want the government to limit speech, but you don't have the personal integrity to say it out loud. What are you afraid of? Explain how you'd reconcile the censorship you desire with the first amendment. But you'll pretend, once again, that you didn't see anyone asking you to face the music. Pretty childish way of admitting you're wrong, but I guess it's one way for you to do it. Glad you've come to your senses.
No you didn't. But you're pretending you did so that you can avoid having to actually do what you're being challenged to do: come up with your version of a government law that limits speech while not violating the first amendment. You know you can't do it, so you're pretending you didn't see that part.
Everything else you're saying is you trying to distract from the fact that what you want is irreconcilable with the constitution. So that you can avoid confronting that reality, you're just blathering. This is exactly what you did when presented with contextual facts surrounding the second amendment. The moment you're asked to reconcile your agenda with the constitution, you have a fit and leave, so that you don't have to demonstrate that your position is untenable.
Too bad. Not letting you off the hook. Try again:
How would you write a law that empowers the government to prevent speech, without changing the first amendment? Be specific.
Slashdot Mirror
Im sure some dogs DO detect drugs
Thousands of them, trained by some very serious, very passionate people who don't even begin to fit the cartoon caricature description of cops who fake drug busts
but the above scenario has been reported a number of times
How many is a "number," relative to the all day, every day work these dogs and their handlers do?
So you think that dogs that have been mis-trained into being incorrect about detecting something are ... being abused? What, their self esteem will end up really low, and that's abuse, to you? What are you talkign about?
Which makes the dog a placebo ... how?
wouldn't you want a furry friend with an addiction to powerful drugs to keep you company?
The only thing search/detection dog is addicted to is the simple pleasure of working. They're descended from wolves, who live to hunt. They're bred to be incredibly sensitive, nose-wise, and have had their pack instincts morphed into a very gratifying (for them, and their handlers) pleasure in their essentially symbiotic relationship with humans. They love to go out and do stuff, and are raised as pups to get some good clean joy out of accurately differentiating between being right and wrong with their noses. They're addicted to being part of a well organized pack, just like many social animals. Addicted to the drugs or other materials they've learned to identify by the parts-per-billion in the air? Nonsense. They want a pat on the head, their favorite toy as a reward, and a chance to go do it again.
This is why it's important to yell loudly and repeatedly "AM I BEING DETAINED?!?!" whenever speaking to a cop.
Yes, because being obnoxious and shouting at cops is a super way to show that you're not trying to distract/deflect. Do you do your job better when someone is screaming in your face? Really? Fascinating.
The dogs are consistently abused
Please cite some actual examples of police dogs being constantly abused. You have no idea what you're talking about.
The dogs are demonstrably a placebo that "triggers" when the handling cop signals the dog to do so.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. About dogs generally, or about their use in quickly showing awareness of explosives, drugs, and other items. They are uncannily accurate once they've been shown the difference between placebos and the real thing. Oh, and you also have no understanding of how the word "placebo" is used.
Yes. And I truly hope you're right. Responsive, though, can be a huge PITA for content designers, but there are plenty of responsive frameworks out there, and they do actually work. Full-on mobile-only only content is generally awful, except for very specific scenarios (track your package, check your balance, etc).
A complete disregard for the customers because there is ZERO penalty for producing a shitty product.
Do you purchase their products? Will you in the future? Will you be recommending their products to any people or businesses that you know? Will you be praising or condemning them in venues like this?
What penalty did you have mind beyond them losing sales?
Should we criminalize imperfect software? Let's see some of your code.
They didn't need to record my search queries or selections for the first 15+ years of operation. Why now?
More competition and plummeting ad revenue.
They are engaging in a war on privacy.
Or, they're trying to make a viable business out of operating mammoth server farms so you can get stuff you don't have to pay for.
I don't believe you actually need a pilot's license to fly anything characterized as an "ultralight" aircraft, as these tape-and-balsawood gyrocopters appear to be. Doesn't mean the FAA can't fine your ass, of course, when you do dumb crap like flying a possibly deadly set of large rotors right past crowds of tourists at low altitudes in an urban area like DC.
OK, so you're ANOTHER person who hasn't read the summary or the article. OK, just another one.
That is a fantastic diagnosis, doctor - I'm sure you didn't leap to any conclusions there at all.
Have you considered watching what Assange does, and listening to what he says? Coming to any OTHER conclusion would be the fantastic leap.
Actually have you found any private details in the publicized materials or are you just theorizing?
Why aren't you asking the author of the article that question? Regardless, prior leaks of this info show communications with HR, discussions of paychecks, etc.
Yeah, you would not BELIEVE how much money I get from the Tri-Lateral Commission. You can too! Just follow my simple 5-step plan, which I lay out in my seminars, which I host annually at the Rothschilds. They always let me stay in their pool house.
For those of the geological persuasion, 50 000 years is certainly 'right now'.
But it's not the same "right now" that includes driving cars.
Keepin' in classy, Wikileaks.
Nothing like proving your critics right while also accomplishing a lot of nothing.
McCain-Feingold was not an attempt to "prevent people from gathering together in a group, pooling their resources, and using those resources to express an opinion about politics"
That's exactly what it was. How else would you characterize you being subject to felony federal charges if you (personally, or as part of a group) run an issue or party advocacy ad in the week before an election? It wasn't about the size or loudness of the "megaphone," it was about political speech, period. Unless you are part of one of the groups that the law allowed to continue. Which is the second reason why the law was struck down - unequal protection. The law abridged free speech, and applied the law unevenly to different parties. Unconstitutional right out of the gate on both counts.
The DC FRZ is indeed there to cut down on the need to deal with a bunch of yahoos buzzing very high-profile targets. But the who decided to fly his gyrocopter right past crowds after a low-level pass over an urban area is up for reckless operation charges from the FAA either way. That bit of idiocy is idiocy whether it's done around people in DC or around people in downtown Miami.
Being subjected to over paid messages is NOT free speech it PAID for speech
It would be great if you can point out where, in the First Amendment, it says that your rights to say what you want about politics is taken away if you do it by, say, paying a printer to copy your message onto 500 pieces of paper you want to hand out. Paid speech! Paid speech! The government must censor that, since it took money to reproduce the message and spread it around!
Do you even listen to yourself?
We don't even have to get IN to whether or to what degree one ad or another does or doesn't feel "fair" to you. Because it all comes down to what you want: censorship. Until you just plainly say what you want, there's no point getting into the rest of it. And you won't come out and say it because you know that the control you want is not compatible with the constitution.
So, indeed, you want government censorship of political speech. Yes or no?
There! Just like always, you run away because you can't reconcile your desire for control of other people with the constitution's limits on the government doing so.
You want the government to limit speech, but you don't have the personal integrity to say it out loud. What are you afraid of? Explain how you'd reconcile the censorship you desire with the first amendment. But you'll pretend, once again, that you didn't see anyone asking you to face the music. Pretty childish way of admitting you're wrong, but I guess it's one way for you to do it. Glad you've come to your senses.
i stopped reading here
No you didn't. But you're pretending you did so that you can avoid having to actually do what you're being challenged to do: come up with your version of a government law that limits speech while not violating the first amendment. You know you can't do it, so you're pretending you didn't see that part.
Everything else you're saying is you trying to distract from the fact that what you want is irreconcilable with the constitution. So that you can avoid confronting that reality, you're just blathering. This is exactly what you did when presented with contextual facts surrounding the second amendment. The moment you're asked to reconcile your agenda with the constitution, you have a fit and leave, so that you don't have to demonstrate that your position is untenable.
Too bad. Not letting you off the hook. Try again:
How would you write a law that empowers the government to prevent speech, without changing the first amendment? Be specific.