The guy who posted the link to the statutes was the guy who posted the original story.
But the comment you made regarded being ordered to stay while the plates were being run, and the person telling the story did not say he was ordered to stay. You made that part up yourself.
Oh, it's the guy who tries to hide behind semantics now, is it? What do you think the cop meant when he said, "You weren't going to drive off while I'm running your plates, were you?" Yeah sure, it he was just making a joke, he wasn't threatening the man at all.
Or start outing the assholes that drive companies that do this. Why help hide his behavior? What company is it so we can research and boycott/class action this kind of behavior into extinction?
I dunno, never bothered to find out. He'll just shut it down and open a new one in a year or two anyway.
I wonder how a bunch of Muslims would feel if I moved into their neighborhoods and decided to have a pig roast every weekend, or if my GF went walking around in a mini-skirt and tank-top? I can see how their culture might find those things offensive.
Tough shit for them. Any complaints they have about half naked women are just as un-American as any complaint you have about fully-bagged women.
They will simply steal your idea anyway, then if you try to sue them, they will keep the case tied up in court long enough for the legal costs to drive you out of business.
I know a guy (well, my niece is dating him, although I wish she wouldn't) who is a real asshole. He's made millions of dollars by taking some poor schmuck's copyrighted and/or trademarked designs & artwork and putting them on the clothes he sells. He knows what he's doing, he even brags about it. The way he's made so much money at it is that by the time the owner of a design is able to sue him and the court system finally rolls around to awarding the poor schmuck the damages, this asshole has raked in way more money than he has to pay out in damages. He'll then just turn around with a new shell company and do the same thing to some other schmuck.
The guy is in his 40s but he has a set of ethics, and general social behavior level, of a frat-boy. I see him as a paragon of modern corporate management in America today.
So, I can personally attest that what you describe happens with copyrights and trademarks, it should be no surprise it happens with patents too. Since I believe we will never rid the world of assholes like that guy, I think the only solution is to stop promoting systems that enable them in the first place.
To be a conspiracy it needs to be accepted by a fringe minority, with little to no evidence, while a majority rejects it, with their own evidence. Again, those things are not conspiracies. They are covert intelligence actions.
No, they are not simply covert intelligence actions. They are covert intelligence (or agent provocateur) actions for which some evidence was available for a period of time before the majority of evidence became generally known. During the period between which some evidence was available and believed in by a 'fringe minority' (and disputed or otherwise ignored by the majority for lack of complete evidence) and the time in which the the full evidence became available they were conspiracy theories.
But, before you judge an authoritarian, you really should understand who and what he is. You'll find no better a defender of your liberties.
Lol. Really. Twice now in this thread you have delivered lines of such massive irony that I could not help but to laugh out loud at your spectacular lack of self awareness. According to the good folks at Yale, that's classic full-of-himself/authoritarian behavior.
Maybe you'd like to try defining leadership, without wandering off to Google to learn what Yale may have had to say on the subject?
Yes, I will certainly go do some completely irrelevant research so that you can feel better about yourself. What a great coach you are!
At that point in time, you don't have the right to be left ALONE, because you have brought yourself to the attention of AUTHORITY.
Again, here we are back again to the that one in a million case. You have capitulated you just don't have strength of ego to admit it.
It is funny that you so heavily emphasize authority, I had you pegged as precisely one of those "respect mah authoritae!" guys from the start. I suggest moving to North Korea where that attitude is enshrined, in this country the watch phrase is "respect mah libertae!"
I don't think you need a fringe community on the scale of 911-truthers or the kennedy assination guys to qualify as a conspiracy theory. Its not like Watergate all came out at once, there was plenty of speculation from the first leak through the impeachment. Similarly the COINTELPRO stuff was widely speculated on until the details were made public. The greek phone tapping scandal is in the middle of that process - we definitely know it happened, we just don't know who did it for sure - we can be sure that least on of the theories around their identity is true, we just don't which theory it is yet.
Were each of the bomb materials going to be sold as innocuous items to separate buyers, or was he planning to illegally blow up _something_? Sounds like a nice save to me. Granted, TSA has no business outside of the airport, but someone somewhere owes them a debt of gratitude.
The official story is that he was going to blow up something in Jamaica, sounded like a drug gang fight. What the real story is, we'll probably never know. In either case, zip to do with airplane safety.
I think that to sum up what the parent is saying, negative cultural traits have no place coming to America. In America, we believe in advancement of an egalitarian society.
Lol, you are reading waaaay too much into what is clearly just simple cultural bigotry,
Burkas are rooted in the idea that women are worth less than men.
They are rooted in the idea that men are impulsive beasts of base instinct with no self control. That they are frequently associated with the oppression of women in countries that have a whole host of additional problems with the rights of women is a completely separate factor and in a relatively free country like America is unlikely to be a significant issue.
Furthermore burkas are only the most extreme form - there are plenty of other variations that are not complete body coverings but that still veil the face.
In short, you have not obfuscated enough to get away with your little dipshit argument. Admit, you are full of shit, arguing for the sake of argument. I can respect the devil's advocate, but only if he admits he's arguing for the devil.
So basically you have absolutely zero response to the fact that one of the most basic American values is the right to be left alone. Your theory of being required to go out in public with a bare face is not codified in any significant law, all you've got is "you are full of shit." I'm not surprised, your circular reasoning has been apparent from your first post, you are just too self-righteous to realize your own hypocrisy.
And, you would be extremely stupid to cash a check for a woman who refused to show her face to you. You would be even stupider to accept an ID and insurance information after an accident, if the other driver refused to show his/her face to you. You would be far beyond stupid if you were looking for an escaped convict, and failed to check the "little old lady" wearing a burqha.
Nice bob and weave. You do realize you've now completed changed your argument, right? You've admitted you were wrong and retreated from a complete mandate -- "If you can't show your naked face, don't go out in public," to the teeny tiny little area of certain highly specific cases that account for less than 1 out of a million of the interactions people have in public.
Anyone who refuses to show their face cannot claim to be an American. I don't give a rat's ass what their excuse is. In America, we don't hide our identities,
Said 'Runaway1956' the irony is so strong, it burns.
Call me arrogant - but this is MY LAND, not Islam's land.
No, I won't call you arrogant, I'll call you ignorant. This is not YOUR land. It is OUR land.
You would be extremely stupid to take offense if women hide their faces here because its not your face. You can do what you want with your face, but not anyone else's.
I didn't say 1/3 require it, I said it is rational to one third of the population. Just like it is rational to most americans to wear jeans, but not everybody does wear jeans.
Sorry, but you lose me with the face covering thing. I just don't CARE about the "rights" of those who CHOOSE to cover their faces. If you can't show your naked face, don't go out in public, and don't expect to use any infrastructure or any facilities where the people just MIGHT want to see your naked face.
Funny, all those societies where it is the custom don't have a particular problem with it. Furthermore, when its perfectly rational to roughly one third of the world's population your argument that only backwater podunk societies do it kinda falls apart.
You don't state it, but if you are like all the others singing that same old song, you think that law-abiding people need to prostate themselves before some public good of being identifiable when they are in public. That's a hairs-breadth away from advocating a surveillance state and completely contrary to the idea of freedom and liberty for the just and the good.
Don't get me wrong, there have been more than a few nice saves by real security,
Really?
I try to pay attention and I haven't seen a single one in the news.
What I have seen are people getting busted for drugs and people stupid enough to forget they have a gun or knife in carry-on. They even busted a guy in florida for having bomb materials - unassembled and in his checked luggage. They even chalked that one up as a win to this SPOT program - despite the fact the guy had no intent or ability to harm the flight, my guess is that he was baked and they cued in on that, expecting another drug bust.
Fine. Observing passengers for potential cues is security theater.
No. Observing passengers for MEANINGLESS cues is security theater,
Finally, for an insight into how and why it works, look at the security at the Tel Aviv airport.
Yes, let's look at what happens at Tel Aviv - they extensively interview every passenger. SPOT does not even come close to what happens in an israeli airport. Nor do we face the threat that israeli airports face either. They have a much higher risk and a much lower number of passengers - roughly one day's worth of passengers through Kennedy is equal to a year's worth of passengers through Tel Aviv.
So basically the behavioural profiling that is applied to israeli flyers has nothing in common with SPOT- and it never will because applying the same techniques to flyers in the USA would require tens of billions of dollars.
Another example of who NOT to vote for. Hello I'm running for office and support using loopholes to get around the intended restrictions our current laws are trying to enforce. Oh and I'm running to be a judge too.
It's really no surprise. Finding loopholes to circumvent the intent of the law is practically the definition of a lawyer. Most judges are former lawyers.
For one thing, you'll notice that the conspiracy nuts are, well, always wrong.
That's only because when a conspiracy is proven its no longer considered to be in the realm of "conspiracy nuts."
I'm sure there are hundreds like that, I can think of a few off the top of my head - COINTELPRO, Watergate, Iran-Contra. Tuskegee experiments, Greek Wiretapping Scandal.
I doubt it was that troll mod. I think the system is just broken. I'm a regular poster, nearly daily, good karma, decent number of up-modded posts. I don't meta-moderate anymore because they changed it to require javascript and I noscript the crap out of the web and refuse to make exceptions for lazy web designers.
People do pick specific machines for its feel or luck. Some are even known to be cursed and people avoid them. Choosing one and hoping for the best out of it is very much a part of it.
The whole idea of machines being cursed or loose is something that players feel they have control over because they make the decision based on their experiences or talking story with other players. That's nothing like evaluating whether a machine will give you a false jackpot.
MS tried the same thing with their "passport" single-sign-on-shopping system back in the dotcom boom days. It didn't work then either. People only used it for the money and ignored it otherwise. You would think they could learn from their own mistakes. I'm surprised it took them 2 years to figure it out this time around, it must have been a massive cash suck the way people like those on fatwallet have been milking it. Funny thing about that - the only reason I even knew about bing cashback is because of fatwallet. Whatever other means of advertising they used, it sure didn't make it to my ears.
Somehow a subtraction lacked a bounds check and it underflowed to be UINT_MAX cents. And for that they should pay out 200,000 times her largest possible theoretical winnings? Sorry, but I'll side with the casino on this one.
And they were too lazy to have a range check in the "display winnings" routine? And what if it were some highly intricate bug, would they then deserve to be penalized? If anything the straight-forward nature of the bug, as you have described it, points to serious negligence which is all the more reason they should be penalized for it. If they are so sloppy to let such a simple error through their engineering and QA processes, imagine just how many other more complicated failures exist in the system - wonder how many of them work out to be in favor of the casino and so go unnoticed?
Slashdot Mirror
The guy who posted the link to the statutes was the guy who posted the original story.
But the comment you made regarded being ordered to stay while the plates were being run, and the person telling the story did not say he was ordered to stay. You made that part up yourself.
Oh, it's the guy who tries to hide behind semantics now, is it?
What do you think the cop meant when he said, "You weren't going to drive off while I'm running your plates, were you?"
Yeah sure, it he was just making a joke, he wasn't threatening the man at all.
Or start outing the assholes that drive companies that do this. Why help hide his behavior? What company is it so we can research and boycott/class action this kind of behavior into extinction?
I dunno, never bothered to find out.
He'll just shut it down and open a new one in a year or two anyway.
I wonder how a bunch of Muslims would feel if I moved into their neighborhoods and decided to have a pig roast every weekend, or if my GF went walking around in a mini-skirt and tank-top? I can see how their culture might find those things offensive.
Tough shit for them. Any complaints they have about half naked women are just as un-American as any complaint you have about fully-bagged women.
They will simply steal your idea anyway, then if you try to sue them, they will keep the case tied up in court long enough for the legal costs to drive you out of business.
I know a guy (well, my niece is dating him, although I wish she wouldn't) who is a real asshole. He's made millions of dollars by taking some poor schmuck's copyrighted and/or trademarked designs & artwork and putting them on the clothes he sells. He knows what he's doing, he even brags about it. The way he's made so much money at it is that by the time the owner of a design is able to sue him and the court system finally rolls around to awarding the poor schmuck the damages, this asshole has raked in way more money than he has to pay out in damages. He'll then just turn around with a new shell company and do the same thing to some other schmuck.
The guy is in his 40s but he has a set of ethics, and general social behavior level, of a frat-boy. I see him as a paragon of modern corporate management in America today.
So, I can personally attest that what you describe happens with copyrights and trademarks, it should be no surprise it happens with patents too. Since I believe we will never rid the world of assholes like that guy, I think the only solution is to stop promoting systems that enable them in the first place.
To be a conspiracy it needs to be accepted by a fringe minority, with little to no evidence, while a majority rejects it, with their own evidence. Again, those things are not conspiracies. They are covert intelligence actions.
No, they are not simply covert intelligence actions. They are covert intelligence (or agent provocateur) actions for which some evidence was available for a period of time before the majority of evidence became generally known. During the period between which some evidence was available and believed in by a 'fringe minority' (and disputed or otherwise ignored by the majority for lack of complete evidence) and the time in which the the full evidence became available they were conspiracy theories.
But, before you judge an authoritarian, you really should understand who and what he is. You'll find no better a defender of your liberties.
Lol. Really. Twice now in this thread you have delivered lines of such massive irony that I could not help but to laugh out loud at your spectacular lack of self awareness. According to the good folks at Yale, that's classic full-of-himself/authoritarian behavior.
Maybe you'd like to try defining leadership, without wandering off to Google to learn what Yale may have had to say on the subject?
Yes, I will certainly go do some completely irrelevant research so that you can feel better about yourself. What a great coach you are!
At that point in time, you don't have the right to be left ALONE, because you have brought yourself to the attention of AUTHORITY.
Again, here we are back again to the that one in a million case. You have capitulated you just don't have strength of ego to admit it.
It is funny that you so heavily emphasize authority, I had you pegged as precisely one of those "respect mah authoritae!" guys from the start.
I suggest moving to North Korea where that attitude is enshrined, in this country the watch phrase is "respect mah libertae!"
I don't think you need a fringe community on the scale of 911-truthers or the kennedy assination guys to qualify as a conspiracy theory. Its not like Watergate all came out at once, there was plenty of speculation from the first leak through the impeachment. Similarly the COINTELPRO stuff was widely speculated on until the details were made public. The greek phone tapping scandal is in the middle of that process - we definitely know it happened, we just don't know who did it for sure - we can be sure that least on of the theories around their identity is true, we just don't which theory it is yet.
Were each of the bomb materials going to be sold as innocuous items to separate buyers, or was he planning to illegally blow up _something_? Sounds like a nice save to me. Granted, TSA has no business outside of the airport, but someone somewhere owes them a debt of gratitude.
The official story is that he was going to blow up something in Jamaica, sounded like a drug gang fight. What the real story is, we'll probably never know.
In either case, zip to do with airplane safety.
I think that to sum up what the parent is saying, negative cultural traits have no place coming to America. In America, we believe in advancement of an egalitarian society.
Lol, you are reading waaaay too much into what is clearly just simple cultural bigotry,
Burkas are rooted in the idea that women are worth less than men.
They are rooted in the idea that men are impulsive beasts of base instinct with no self control.
That they are frequently associated with the oppression of women in countries that have a whole host of additional problems with the rights of women is a completely separate factor and in a relatively free country like America is unlikely to be a significant issue.
Furthermore burkas are only the most extreme form - there are plenty of other variations that are not complete body coverings but that still veil the face.
In short, you have not obfuscated enough to get away with your little dipshit argument. Admit, you are full of shit, arguing for the sake of argument. I can respect the devil's advocate, but only if he admits he's arguing for the devil.
So basically you have absolutely zero response to the fact that one of the most basic American values is the right to be left alone.
Your theory of being required to go out in public with a bare face is not codified in any significant law, all you've got is "you are full of shit."
I'm not surprised, your circular reasoning has been apparent from your first post, you are just too self-righteous to realize your own hypocrisy.
Jeans aren't rooted in female oppression. See when you take a step back you can understand why these stupid contrarion arguments fall apart.
High heels are. Its still a matter of personal choice.
And, you would be extremely stupid to cash a check for a woman who refused to show her face to you. You would be even stupider to accept an ID and insurance information after an accident, if the other driver refused to show his/her face to you. You would be far beyond stupid if you were looking for an escaped convict, and failed to check the "little old lady" wearing a burqha.
Nice bob and weave. You do realize you've now completed changed your argument, right? You've admitted you were wrong and retreated from a complete mandate -- "If you can't show your naked face, don't go out in public," to the teeny tiny little area of certain highly specific cases that account for less than 1 out of a million of the interactions people have in public.
Anyone who refuses to show their face cannot claim to be an American. I don't give a rat's ass what their excuse is. In America, we don't hide our identities,
Said 'Runaway1956' the irony is so strong, it burns.
Call me arrogant - but this is MY LAND, not Islam's land.
No, I won't call you arrogant, I'll call you ignorant. This is not YOUR land. It is OUR land.
You would be extremely stupid to take offense if women hide their faces here because its not your face. You can do what you want with your face, but not anyone else's.
I didn't say 1/3 require it, I said it is rational to one third of the population. Just like it is rational to most americans to wear jeans, but not everybody does wear jeans.
Sorry, but you lose me with the face covering thing. I just don't CARE about the "rights" of those who CHOOSE to cover their faces. If you can't show your naked face, don't go out in public, and don't expect to use any infrastructure or any facilities where the people just MIGHT want to see your naked face.
Funny, all those societies where it is the custom don't have a particular problem with it. Furthermore, when its perfectly rational to roughly one third of the world's population your argument that only backwater podunk societies do it kinda falls apart.
You don't state it, but if you are like all the others singing that same old song, you think that law-abiding people need to prostate themselves before some public good of being identifiable when they are in public. That's a hairs-breadth away from advocating a surveillance state and completely contrary to the idea of freedom and liberty for the just and the good.
Don't get me wrong, there have been more than a few nice saves by real security,
Really?
I try to pay attention and I haven't seen a single one in the news.
What I have seen are people getting busted for drugs and people stupid enough to forget they have a gun or knife in carry-on. They even busted a guy in florida for having bomb materials - unassembled and in his checked luggage. They even chalked that one up as a win to this SPOT program - despite the fact the guy had no intent or ability to harm the flight, my guess is that he was baked and they cued in on that, expecting another drug bust.
Fine. Observing passengers for potential cues is security theater.
No. Observing passengers for MEANINGLESS cues is security theater,
Finally, for an insight into how and why it works, look at the security at the Tel Aviv airport.
Yes, let's look at what happens at Tel Aviv - they extensively interview every passenger. SPOT does not even come close to what happens in an israeli airport. Nor do we face the threat that israeli airports face either. They have a much higher risk and a much lower number of passengers - roughly one day's worth of passengers through Kennedy is equal to a year's worth of passengers through Tel Aviv.
So basically the behavioural profiling that is applied to israeli flyers has nothing in common with SPOT- and it never will because applying the same techniques to flyers in the USA would require tens of billions of dollars.
Another example of who NOT to vote for. Hello I'm running for office and support using loopholes to get around the intended restrictions our current laws are trying to enforce. Oh and I'm running to be a judge too.
It's really no surprise.
Finding loopholes to circumvent the intent of the law is practically the definition of a lawyer.
Most judges are former lawyers.
For one thing, you'll notice that the conspiracy nuts are, well, always wrong.
That's only because when a conspiracy is proven its no longer considered to be in the realm of "conspiracy nuts."
I'm sure there are hundreds like that, I can think of a few off the top of my head - COINTELPRO, Watergate, Iran-Contra. Tuskegee experiments, Greek Wiretapping Scandal.
Looks like bare assertion to me.
I doubt it was that troll mod. I think the system is just broken.
I'm a regular poster, nearly daily, good karma, decent number of up-modded posts.
I don't meta-moderate anymore because they changed it to require javascript and I noscript the crap out of the web and refuse to make exceptions for lazy web designers.
I get mod points about once a year.
People do pick specific machines for its feel or luck. Some are even known to be cursed and people avoid them. Choosing one and hoping for the best out of it is very much a part of it.
The whole idea of machines being cursed or loose is something that players feel they have control over because they make the decision based on their experiences or talking story with other players. That's nothing like evaluating whether a machine will give you a false jackpot.
MS tried the same thing with their "passport" single-sign-on-shopping system back in the dotcom boom days. It didn't work then either. People only used it for the money and ignored it otherwise. You would think they could learn from their own mistakes. I'm surprised it took them 2 years to figure it out this time around, it must have been a massive cash suck the way people like those on fatwallet have been milking it. Funny thing about that - the only reason I even knew about bing cashback is because of fatwallet. Whatever other means of advertising they used, it sure didn't make it to my ears.
Somehow a subtraction lacked a bounds check and it underflowed to be UINT_MAX cents. And for that they should pay out 200,000 times her largest possible theoretical winnings? Sorry, but I'll side with the casino on this one.
And they were too lazy to have a range check in the "display winnings" routine? And what if it were some highly intricate bug, would they then deserve to be penalized?
If anything the straight-forward nature of the bug, as you have described it, points to serious negligence which is all the more reason they should be penalized for it. If they are so sloppy to let such a simple error through their engineering and QA processes, imagine just how many other more complicated failures exist in the system - wonder how many of them work out to be in favor of the casino and so go unnoticed?