Wow, your use of the word 'dumbass' really shows off your brilliant intellect.
It has become quite obvious that you are an anthropogenic global warming fanatic and unable comprehend reason and logic.
You are not even able to allow yourself the possiblity that forces other than man MAY be affecting the climate. You are not able to admit that you don't even know the end result of said 'warming'.
To you, in your infinite wisdom, all is known about climate change and to disagree with the 'consensus' would be something a dumbass would do.
Well my friend, if that's how you define a dumbass, count me in because at least I still have my wits about me and I'm not just touting the party line...
Ahh, so I am a dumbass because I'm simply not convinced that global warming is a man-made phenomenon? Name calling is the first defense of an indefensible position. Nice.
I have never stated that we should just keep going the way we have been. I've never even stated that I don't believe global warming is happening. That's your prejudice creeping in again. You have made an assumption not based on any facts whatsoever.
You seem to be missing the entire point and just want to call yourself superior because you agree with a 'scientific consensus'. All I've ever said this entire time is that THE JURY IS STILL OUT!
How hard is that? You know what, I bet if you asked all the people that think you are wrong, if you are wrong, they would say yes. Look! I have a consensus! You must be wrong then and it would be asinine to question otherwise. So as a result many people who might not think you are wrong would say 'heh, the consensus is that he's wrong, he must be'.
Do you see how blindly following the 'consensus' can be dangerous?
What's wrong with a little critical thinking?
I made no assumptions that you were an idiot, yet you jumped all over me like white on rice. The fact that you jumped to conclusions so rapidly and easily still leads me to believe that you are still a follower, not a leader, or even a questioning/skeptical follower.
Finally, the scientific processs is not a matter of gathering a consensus, it is process for hypothisizing and testing. http://scienceforfamilies.allinfo-about.com/featur es/scientificprocess.html It is not the process of nodding your head in agreement because most of the people in the room are nodding their heads too.
Wow. I'm impressed with your knowledge of what is stunningly stupid.
We should not just be critical when there is consensus, we should be critical all the time. It is a fundamental principle of science. Question, question, question. It's what makes science work!!!
Tell me exactly what things science considers "truth". Science is notorious for NOT being able to prove anything with complete certainty.
"So when do you go from being "more critical" to accepting something as being true? Never? When there is no consensus? When there is unanimous consensus?"
You can't accept something as 'true', only 'likely'; especially when confronted with processes and a whole field of science that has an infinite number of unknowns.
"The idea that we should be more critical when there is scientific consensus is stunningly stupid."
And the logic of your statement here says: if there is consensus, don't question, don't be critical.
What!?!? Now I know we CAN'T have a sane discussion! You are a lemming, my friend.
First, the onus is on the scientific community to agree or disagree with the calculations. If you are so complicated that nobody else can duplicate them, they'll simply call you a quack, as you say.
Second, we're talking about people that AREN'T applying the scientific process. The scientific process means you approach every experiment, every process without prejudice. People are doing research on the atmosphere, publishing papers, making claims, etc. going in with the belief that man is causing global warming. Just like statistics (which is a large part of their research anyway) where you can prove any point including the opposite of what you just proved, prejudiced research will always yield the result you desire.
But what he is talking about is scientific assumptions not based on scientific evidence or where the evidence is insufficient to prove any point at all.
Many other people have done Einstein's equations and arrived at the same result. Many other people have measured the distance to the sun and arrived at the same conclusion.
People were dismissing pellagra as being related to malnutrition, yet they were not using the scientific method to dispute Goldberger, just their guess that it must be a germ. Not only that but even worse, they were prejudiced that it must be a germ because they didn't want to have to make social changes for some medical epidemic.
Same as today where the scientists are saying "It must be the humans!" because humans are Bad for the Earth(tm) when there is not near enough evidence to in any way conclusively state that.
"Because that's what the consensus tells him." And what has the consensus told you?
Noooo, nice try. It just means we need to be more critical and not exercise 'democratic science'. Saying we should dismiss *any* scientific consensus sarcastically does not help the discussion.
But, you gave yourself away when you mentioned Limbaugh.
Too bad, maybe this could have been a compelling discussion.
Uhhh, that's the point of those examples and many others. This 'consensus' among the scientific community that man made global warming is a fact is dangerous and un-scientific. I think the letter sent by the 'scientific community' to Bush about globabl warming is a perfect example; nuclear physicists going along with the consensus even though the jury is still out on our atmosphere.
"Anyway, who were these mysterious "consensus"es which appeared to be against them ?"
Uhhh again. Read your scientific history books. Usually it is a process of being ostracized by the scientific community, not getting your papers printed in journals, etc.
" Michael Crichton - a man famous for science fiction ?"
Should we disregard anything Asamov said about robotics because he wrote science fiction? It's very dismissive...
It would seem to me, without researching either this post or the parent that the US produces 25% of the emissions and 31% of the output. That seems like a highly efficient process to me, but then it might just be a deliberate sarcasm propogated for rhetorical purpose.
Like you, I'm not convinced either way right now, but I believe in treating the environment well.
What makes me the most irritated though is the fact that human caused global warming is the assumption going into every one of these studies. Isn't that the point of studying the environment? Doesn't that contradict the scientific process? Why has the entire scientific community bought into this when we can't even acurately predict the weather more than 48 hours out?
It was like all those Nobel laureates signing that protest letter to Bush. Tell me how a Nuclear Physicist is an authority on global warming? He's just going along with the scientific party line and not actually contributing anything to the understanding of the environment.
Wow, Mugsey Bogues is incredibly physically gifted. How else could you dunk at 5' 3" or whatever height he is.
I'm 6' and can barely touch the rim.
Having said that, being in the right place at the right time can make or break a career in anything. The interesting part is that people that work hard seem to be in the right place at the right time a lot more often than slackers.
A propensity for logic and math can be genetic, but the logic and math that 99.9% of us need to excel in life can be learned. It is more of a rarity that people DON'T have the ablity to learn math and logic successfully. Most people just don't like math for whatever reason (social pressures, not challenged enough, not shown the life relevance) and therefore learn/use as little as possible.
The paradox for him is, he may be an Australian citizen, but he was capture fighting for the Taliban/Al Queda. DUH! Everyone fighting for the Taliban, Al Queda, etc. is a citizen of *some* country!
The main thing is, if he's an American, he gets our civil justice system, otherwise he's in a different category altogether. While they will still receive justice, that system is not designed for war criminals or non-nationalized combatants. I would expect the same treatment for an American fighting Australians who was subsequently captured by Australia.
What if an American was the one who perpetrated the bombing in Bali that killed some many Australians? If he was charged in an Australian military tribunal, etc. would you be complaining?
Excuse me, but where does it say in that line that those rights continue to exist for those who break the law, let alone declare unconventional warfare against the US?
LOL!
Besides, jail in the US is still better conditions than many middle eastern countries anyway.
Maher Arar is an intersting case. While a citizen of Canada, he had dual citizenship in Syria as well. The *Canadians* provided the information that he was connected to terrorist organizations in Canada. Once he was deported, they said "well, gee, we didn't think that was going to happen!". What did they think was going to happen? Well why didn't they arrest him in Canada then?
As for his alleged torture, I am reticent to believe him becase of Syria's extreme dislike for the US. It makes no sense that they would torture him just because he had alleged ties to terrorist organizations. Instead, I would think they would have treated him royally. If the torture was true, they only reason they did was to make the US look bad by 'martyring' him.
As for Jose Padilla, his due process is working. He has a lawyer now, and the Supreme Court is going to hear his case to move him to civilian authority which I am quite confident will happen. While slow, the system of checks and balances is working to keep justice on the right track.
Remember, these institutions are composed of humans, and while some may have good intentions, sometimes they're ultimately at odds with the founding principles, rules, and checks. The US system may be slow at times, but I'd much rather have a few mistakes that get corrected than totalitarian control and rapid resolutions and I think that by-and-large the system works well.
In principle, sure. In practice, recent events have demonstrated that, even in the USA, people can be arrested and held without charge or trial
Except that none of the people in Guantanamo were captured in the US. They were arrested because they were part of organizations that perpetrate killing and destruction, yet have no governmental umbrella that can be negotiated/reasoned with and therefore Geneva POW status does not apply to them. They are slowly being sorted and distributed either back to their country or origin/capture after no longer being deemed a direct threat, or charged with crimes in their home country. The fact is though, they are being treated quite well.
-- even if they are citizens.
Not true either. John Walker Lindh never went to Guantanamo.
Until the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights are consistently respected, without being transgressed under the guise of 'security',
People continually talk of rights being "transgressed under the guise of 'security'", but I actually see very few examples ever of what they mean. Otherwise, it just sounds like rhetoric. I know you believe the issues we are talking about are an example, but what are some others?
then I don't think its fair to say that the US is more 'free' than, say, your average European country
I would tend to agree that most western European countries are very 'free' except the previous poster did not specify Europe. I would not say that all of Europe is free (largely Eastern Europe is not in many ways) however, and that leaves a large portion of the globe with few of the same rights as Americans and Western Europeans.
LOL, if whoever doctored these pictures is liable for libel charges, isn't the Nation Enquirer, Globe, et.al. also liable for libel. They have doctored pictures of famous people in there magazines every day.
On a side note, doesn't John Kerry look like Jay Leno in that profile?
Nah, all those chairs do is make your knees/shins get sore (at least the ones I've sat in). What's better is a yoga/birthing ball. You still build up your trunk muscles, plus you have a lot more fun. When you want to move it, just roll it wherever. Need to be higher or lower? Just pump it up a little more or let a little air out. When you are completely done, it deflates and folds up into nothing. I'd like to see any Swedish kneeler do that.
Plus, it's *way* more cushy than any standard office chair at 1/20th the price.
A lady at my work uses one, and now I'm considering getting one for *my* desk.
After a quick scan of some posts, here are a few programs others have recommended:
avast! 4 for Linux Currently in beta so I have no idea what the cost will be. Windows versions are $399 US for a single server.
Clam AV A GPL'd virus scanner. Looks like pretty good AV software for open-source. Definitions are updated many times a week through submissions from the community. I think I'm going to have to check this one out myself as it looks promising.
Kaspersky Anti-Virus Pricing is per-user. $10.05/user for 100 users. Unfortunately, they don't have a direct page for the Linux mail server software. I had to go to the online store for pricing.
I've been using both the desktop version of RAV Anti-Virus as well as the sendmail version. Both were really great products for great prices. Needless to say, I was *extremely* disappointed when Micro$oft acquired RAV's intellectual property.
Worst part is they basically left their customers high and dry. Sure, they are honoring the remaining life of their update licenses, but now I'm forced to find a replacement. Kaspersky Labs, who then acquired the RAV coding team is offering a 50% discount to former RAV users, but their mail server anti-virus software doesn't work the same way RAV did. It works on a per seat basis (basically only licensed to specific names to the left of the '@') whereas RAV licensed on per-domain name basis.
Kaspersky does have an excellent track record for catching the latest virii before any of the other big commercial virus scanners though.
If anybody knows of a better replacement than Kaspersky, I'd like to hear about it.
I only meant more extensible than without. Or, for example, compared to CVS. I'm not familiar with Arch, although I am a little bit now and I'm sure it's a fine VCS. Having it as a server module does allow you to do things that you can't do with WebDAV alone. *Somewhat* like the difference between, say, perl CGI and mod_perl.
To me, this only seems like a necesary measure considering the current geo-political climate.
The Brazilians were so pissed off about their passengers being fingerprinted that they started finger printing only American passengers. (Then, somebody flipped them off in their id photo and they fined him over $12,000 US, LOL. A bit harsh me thinks.) Problem is, how can you trust that a passport from Brazil is truly official given the state of affairs in Brazil? Or any country for that matter?
It's a bit like racial profiling. While you may agree or disagree with it socially, it's statistically an effective method for flagging criminals in certain instances. Here's an example which is probably different than what you usually consider racial profiling: a couple of fresh-faced white kids cruising around a low-income black or hispanic part of town. Any ideas why they're there? It would only be too sad to ignore those kids when you know exactly why they're there, but you can't even question them because you 'racially profiled' them.
Slashdot Mirror
Wow, your use of the word 'dumbass' really shows off your brilliant intellect.
It has become quite obvious that you are an anthropogenic global warming fanatic and unable comprehend reason and logic.
You are not even able to allow yourself the possiblity that forces other than man MAY be affecting the climate. You are not able to admit that you don't even know the end result of said 'warming'.
To you, in your infinite wisdom, all is known about climate change and to disagree with the 'consensus' would be something a dumbass would do.
Well my friend, if that's how you define a dumbass, count me in because at least I still have my wits about me and I'm not just touting the party line...
Ahh, so I am a dumbass because I'm simply not convinced that global warming is a man-made phenomenon? Name calling is the first defense of an indefensible position. Nice.
r es/scientificprocess.html
I have never stated that we should just keep going the way we have been. I've never even stated that I don't believe global warming is happening. That's your prejudice creeping in again. You have made an assumption not based on any facts whatsoever.
You seem to be missing the entire point and just want to call yourself superior because you agree with a 'scientific consensus'. All I've ever said this entire time is that THE JURY IS STILL OUT!
How hard is that? You know what, I bet if you asked all the people that think you are wrong, if you are wrong, they would say yes. Look! I have a consensus! You must be wrong then and it would be asinine to question otherwise. So as a result many people who might not think you are wrong would say 'heh, the consensus is that he's wrong, he must be'.
Do you see how blindly following the 'consensus' can be dangerous?
What's wrong with a little critical thinking?
I made no assumptions that you were an idiot, yet you jumped all over me like white on rice. The fact that you jumped to conclusions so rapidly and easily still leads me to believe that you are still a follower, not a leader, or even a questioning/skeptical follower.
Finally, the scientific processs is not a matter of gathering a consensus, it is process for hypothisizing and testing. http://scienceforfamilies.allinfo-about.com/featu
It is not the process of nodding your head in agreement because most of the people in the room are nodding their heads too.
See?
Wow. I'm impressed with your knowledge of what is stunningly stupid.
We should not just be critical when there is consensus, we should be critical all the time. It is a fundamental principle of science. Question, question, question. It's what makes science work!!!
Tell me exactly what things science considers "truth". Science is notorious for NOT being able to prove anything with complete certainty.
"So when do you go from being "more critical" to accepting something as being true? Never? When there is no consensus? When there is unanimous consensus?"
You can't accept something as 'true', only 'likely'; especially when confronted with processes and a whole field of science that has an infinite number of unknowns.
"The idea that we should be more critical when there is scientific consensus is stunningly stupid."
And the logic of your statement here says: if there is consensus, don't question, don't be critical.
What!?!? Now I know we CAN'T have a sane discussion! You are a lemming, my friend.
That really wasn't intended to be a troll post.
I'm just not convinced about many claims about the environment when our most accurate models can't predict the weather more than 48 hours out.
Science used to be well known for its skepticism; I just don't see that when we have these discussions about the environment.
First, the onus is on the scientific community to agree or disagree with the calculations. If you are so complicated that nobody else can duplicate them, they'll simply call you a quack, as you say.
Second, we're talking about people that AREN'T applying the scientific process. The scientific process means you approach every experiment, every process without prejudice. People are doing research on the atmosphere, publishing papers, making claims, etc. going in with the belief that man is causing global warming. Just like statistics (which is a large part of their research anyway) where you can prove any point including the opposite of what you just proved, prejudiced research will always yield the result you desire.
But what he is talking about is scientific assumptions not based on scientific evidence or where the evidence is insufficient to prove any point at all.
Many other people have done Einstein's equations and arrived at the same result. Many other people have measured the distance to the sun and arrived at the same conclusion.
People were dismissing pellagra as being related to malnutrition, yet they were not using the scientific method to dispute Goldberger, just their guess that it must be a germ. Not only that but even worse, they were prejudiced that it must be a germ because they didn't want to have to make social changes for some medical epidemic.
Same as today where the scientists are saying "It must be the humans!" because humans are Bad for the Earth(tm) when there is not near enough evidence to in any way conclusively state that.
"Because that's what the consensus tells him."
And what has the consensus told you?
Noooo, nice try. It just means we need to be more critical and not exercise 'democratic science'. Saying we should dismiss *any* scientific consensus sarcastically does not help the discussion.
But, you gave yourself away when you mentioned Limbaugh.
Too bad, maybe this could have been a compelling discussion.
Uhhh, that's the point of those examples and many others. This 'consensus' among the scientific community that man made global warming is a fact is dangerous and un-scientific. I think the letter sent by the 'scientific community' to Bush about globabl warming is a perfect example; nuclear physicists going along with the consensus even though the jury is still out on our atmosphere.
"Anyway, who were these mysterious "consensus"es which appeared to be against them ?"
Uhhh again. Read your scientific history books. Usually it is a process of being ostracized by the scientific community, not getting your papers printed in journals, etc.
" Michael Crichton - a man famous for science fiction ?"
Should we disregard anything Asamov said about robotics because he wrote science fiction? It's very dismissive...
Mod parent down please.
5 insightful?
It would seem to me, without researching either this post or the parent that the US produces 25% of the emissions and 31% of the output. That seems like a highly efficient process to me, but then it might just be a deliberate sarcasm propogated for rhetorical purpose.
Very well said.
Like you, I'm not convinced either way right now, but I believe in treating the environment well.
What makes me the most irritated though is the fact that human caused global warming is the assumption going into every one of these studies. Isn't that the point of studying the environment? Doesn't that contradict the scientific process? Why has the entire scientific community bought into this when we can't even acurately predict the weather more than 48 hours out?
It was like all those Nobel laureates signing that protest letter to Bush. Tell me how a Nuclear Physicist is an authority on global warming? He's just going along with the scientific party line and not actually contributing anything to the understanding of the environment.
Wow, Mugsey Bogues is incredibly physically gifted. How else could you dunk at 5' 3" or whatever height he is.
I'm 6' and can barely touch the rim.
Having said that, being in the right place at the right time can make or break a career in anything. The interesting part is that people that work hard seem to be in the right place at the right time a lot more often than slackers.
A propensity for logic and math can be genetic, but the logic and math that 99.9% of us need to excel in life can be learned. It is more of a rarity that people DON'T have the ablity to learn math and logic successfully. Most people just don't like math for whatever reason (social pressures, not challenged enough, not shown the life relevance) and therefore learn/use as little as possible.
The paradox for him is, he may be an Australian citizen, but he was capture fighting for the Taliban/Al Queda. DUH! Everyone fighting for the Taliban, Al Queda, etc. is a citizen of *some* country!
The main thing is, if he's an American, he gets our civil justice system, otherwise he's in a different category altogether. While they will still receive justice, that system is not designed for war criminals or non-nationalized combatants. I would expect the same treatment for an American fighting Australians who was subsequently captured by Australia.
What if an American was the one who perpetrated the bombing in Bali that killed some many Australians? If he was charged in an Australian military tribunal, etc. would you be complaining?
Excuse me, but where does it say in that line that those rights continue to exist for those who break the law, let alone declare unconventional warfare against the US?
LOL!
Besides, jail in the US is still better conditions than many middle eastern countries anyway.
Maher Arar is an intersting case. While a citizen of Canada, he had dual citizenship in Syria as well. The *Canadians* provided the information that he was connected to terrorist organizations in Canada. Once he was deported, they said "well, gee, we didn't think that was going to happen!". What did they think was going to happen? Well why didn't they arrest him in Canada then?
As for his alleged torture, I am reticent to believe him becase of Syria's extreme dislike for the US. It makes no sense that they would torture him just because he had alleged ties to terrorist organizations. Instead, I would think they would have treated him royally. If the torture was true, they only reason they did was to make the US look bad by 'martyring' him.
As for Jose Padilla, his due process is working. He has a lawyer now, and the Supreme Court is going to hear his case to move him to civilian authority which I am quite confident will happen. While slow, the system of checks and balances is working to keep justice on the right track.
Remember, these institutions are composed of humans, and while some may have good intentions, sometimes they're ultimately at odds with the founding principles, rules, and checks. The US system may be slow at times, but I'd much rather have a few mistakes that get corrected than totalitarian control and rapid resolutions and I think that by-and-large the system works well.
In principle, sure. In practice, recent events have demonstrated that, even in the USA, people can be arrested and held without charge or trial
Except that none of the people in Guantanamo were captured in the US. They were arrested because they were part of organizations that perpetrate killing and destruction, yet have no governmental umbrella that can be negotiated/reasoned with and therefore Geneva POW status does not apply to them. They are slowly being sorted and distributed either back to their country or origin/capture after no longer being deemed a direct threat, or charged with crimes in their home country. The fact is though, they are being treated quite well.
-- even if they are citizens.
Not true either. John Walker Lindh never went to Guantanamo.
Until the freedoms enshrined in the Bill of Rights are consistently respected, without being transgressed under the guise of 'security',
People continually talk of rights being "transgressed under the guise of 'security'", but I actually see very few examples ever of what they mean. Otherwise, it just sounds like rhetoric. I know you believe the issues we are talking about are an example, but what are some others?
then I don't think its fair to say that the US is more 'free' than, say, your average European country
I would tend to agree that most western European countries are very 'free' except the previous poster did not specify Europe. I would not say that all of Europe is free (largely Eastern Europe is not in many ways) however, and that leaves a large portion of the globe with few of the same rights as Americans and Western Europeans.
This is a proprietary product, why is it being reviewed on Slashdot? I read a good book on Active Directory, can I post my review?
Sigh...
Good ol' slashdot. I post it, and it's rejected. An AC posts, and it's accepted.
I'm starting to wonder why I bother...
LOL, if whoever doctored these pictures is liable for libel charges, isn't the Nation Enquirer, Globe, et.al. also liable for libel. They have doctored pictures of famous people in there magazines every day.
On a side note, doesn't John Kerry look like Jay Leno in that profile?
Nah, all those chairs do is make your knees/shins get sore (at least the ones I've sat in). What's better is a yoga/birthing ball. You still build up your trunk muscles, plus you have a lot more fun. When you want to move it, just roll it wherever. Need to be higher or lower? Just pump it up a little more or let a little air out. When you are completely done, it deflates and folds up into nothing. I'd like to see any Swedish kneeler do that.
Plus, it's *way* more cushy than any standard office chair at 1/20th the price.
A lady at my work uses one, and now I'm considering getting one for *my* desk.
After a quick scan of some posts, here are a few programs others have recommended:
avast! 4 for Linux Currently in beta so I have no idea what the cost will be. Windows versions are $399 US for a single server.
Clam AV A GPL'd virus scanner. Looks like pretty good AV software for open-source. Definitions are updated many times a week through submissions from the community. I think I'm going to have to check this one out myself as it looks promising.
F-Prot Anti-Virus for Linux Pricing is based on number of users; $299 for 1-24, $399 25-49, $499 50-99.
Kaspersky Anti-Virus Pricing is per-user. $10.05/user for 100 users. Unfortunately, they don't have a direct page for the Linux mail server software. I had to go to the online store for pricing.
If anybody knows more, post them here.
I've been using both the desktop version of RAV Anti-Virus as well as the sendmail version. Both were really great products for great prices. Needless to say, I was *extremely* disappointed when Micro$oft acquired RAV's intellectual property.
Worst part is they basically left their customers high and dry. Sure, they are honoring the remaining life of their update licenses, but now I'm forced to find a replacement. Kaspersky Labs, who then acquired the RAV coding team is offering a 50% discount to former RAV users, but their mail server anti-virus software doesn't work the same way RAV did. It works on a per seat basis (basically only licensed to specific names to the left of the '@') whereas RAV licensed on per-domain name basis.
Kaspersky does have an excellent track record for catching the latest virii before any of the other big commercial virus scanners though.
If anybody knows of a better replacement than Kaspersky, I'd like to hear about it.
I only meant more extensible than without. Or, for example, compared to CVS. I'm not familiar with Arch, although I am a little bit now and I'm sure it's a fine VCS. Having it as a server module does allow you to do things that you can't do with WebDAV alone. *Somewhat* like the difference between, say, perl CGI and mod_perl.
Yes, because it uses WebDAV for file transfers. This requires more overhead obviously, but it also makes it more extensible.
So these weapons will float up there without an enemy (at the moment)
How about China?
In case anyone hasn't noticed, they're picking up where the USSR left off. They're just doing it more subvertly than the North Koreans.
To me, this only seems like a necesary measure considering the current geo-political climate.
The Brazilians were so pissed off about their passengers being fingerprinted that they started finger printing only American passengers. (Then, somebody flipped them off in their id photo and they fined him over $12,000 US, LOL. A bit harsh me thinks.) Problem is, how can you trust that a passport from Brazil is truly official given the state of affairs in Brazil? Or any country for that matter?
It's a bit like racial profiling. While you may agree or disagree with it socially, it's statistically an effective method for flagging criminals in certain instances. Here's an example which is probably different than what you usually consider racial profiling: a couple of fresh-faced white kids cruising around a low-income black or hispanic part of town. Any ideas why they're there? It would only be too sad to ignore those kids when you know exactly why they're there, but you can't even question them because you 'racially profiled' them.
Know what I mean?