Right. To conduct what's commonly referred to as a "Terry Stop" (after the Terry v. Ohio SCOTUS case) a cop has to have "reasonable suspicion" (lower standard than PC) that a crime is taking place.
Good for your friend's father! We need more people who are willing to stand up for their liberties and fewer sheep who meekly comply with the cops.
Now, this is easy to SAY and damned hard to actually DO. I think we're naturally cooperative, and well conditioned to fear the police. I have a little note card that I keep with my registration just in case.
When the cops demand "your papers please" for no apparent reason, answer their questions with questions:
Am I being detained? Am I free to go? Do you have reasonable suspicion that I'm involved in criminal activity? If yes, what's the crime? If no, am I free to go?
Go to 'copblock.org' for some good videos of people standing up for themselves during random BS stops by the authorities.
If I may, it was not an attempt to equate airport security with concentration camps. Merely debunking the "only doing their jobs" or "only following orders" justification for abuses in general.
How many dangerous explosive components or poisons could you DRINK without experiencing immediate side effects? Couldn't that be the 'test' for the liquid in a cup, bottle or thermos?
Synthesizing nitric esters requires concentrated acids. Drinking bleach and ammonia would be painful as hell and the odor emanating from an open container would be easily recognized. If you had a high tolerance for pain, I guess you could probably chug down a concentrated solution of potassium chlorate, then dump it on the floor of the plain and let it dry out during your flight.
I think this whole TSA thing is BS security theater and is simply conditioning people for obedience. I'm boycotting air travel until this nonsense ends.
"A fair and honest society recognises this and makes an adjustment,"
Men with guns stealing from people, paying themselves exorbitant salaries and benefits, handing out favors to their rich and well connected friends, and then throwing some table scraps to the poor?
There will ALWAYS be wealth inequality, but things like hard work, raw talent and innovation in a competitive marketplace should be what garners disproportionate wealth. In the contemporary USA, government-granted special privileges, monetary manipulation, handouts and subsidies drive wealth inequality. It's no coincidence that the DEGREE of wealth inequality has grown just as government has grown.
Monetary manipulation is probably the most insidious driver of wealth inequality. Since the inception of the Federal Reserve system, we've had a century of relentless monetary expansion and price inflation. Productivity growth should naturally result in price deflation. Labor could then enjoy some of the gains by an increase in their real wages and savers would be rewarded with more purchasing power. The Fed STEALS this wealth.
The fractional reserve banking system is another driver of wealth inequality because banks get the privilege of manipulating the money supply. For anyone else, this is called "counterfeiting".
Forget the 99% vs. 1% bullshit. There is a big difference between people who EARN their wealth by real economic activity and people who "accumulate" wealth based on government sanctioned special privileges.
Without the central planners in the government and The Fed, wealth inequality never would have grown to such ridiculous proportions.
It's the first week of September. Why the hell should I have to know who I'm voting for already?
I'm leaning towards Gary Johnson, but I'm also considering voting for Ron Paul as a write-in or simply not voting.
Gary Johnson would be 100X better than Obama or Romney. However, I have serious problems with his foreign policy views, his opinions on the U.S. banking and financial system and some other things. I'll probably vote for him however because his votes will at least be counted.
Tragically, I think the best case scenario would be for Romney to lose with the perception that Johnson garnered enough support from Ron Paul Republicans to deny Romney a victory.
"People do not have to work this hard to survive."
Imagine how hard you'd be working if you had to acquire food, clothing and shelter for yourself in the hunter/gatherer sense, perhaps with some basic agriculture?
How hard do you think your average farm family worked back in the early 1800s? I'll bet that a 60 hour work week was the norm and vacations were practically unheard of. I guess you're not a slave if you're working for yourself though. There's also something to be said for a simple life and natural food.
I know what you mean about the trends, but throughout human history, the vast majority of our labor has been spent just trying to fulfill basic needs.
If the USA had schools where the student bodies consisted of white, middle-class kids who grew up speaking English, I'm sure that our education system would look much better.
"get your kids to do one page of math a day for 300 days of the year and they will be way ahead."
I don't understand the point of that unless you're also introducing new concepts. Once your kids have mastered + - * / what's the point in giving them more pages of problems? How does this get them ahead?
You can only drill someone to the point where they've mastered a certain skill. After that it's just meaningless work. Like many geeks, I was a good mathematics student and I got bored as hell with the pace of my public school math education. Last thing I needed was my parents giving me more of the stuff I was already bored with.
I think the "popular belief" that public schools suck is based on a compilation of anecdotal evidence that most of us gather by our day to day dealings with the people who graduated from public schools. That and the growth rate of our annual tax bills to fund the damned things.
Schools are already ridiculously over-priced. We don't need a 10% tax increase to fund a 10% longer school year.
I think the effect of summer sort of depends on how you use it:
'as one fifth-grader, happy to be back at school in August, declared, 'Sometimes summer is really boring. We just sit there and watch TV.'
It's the TV, not the time off from school that turns you into an idiot.
When I was in 5th grade, I'd be outside most of the day every day. Especially weekdays. When I was older, summer was for working and saving money. I was NEVER happy to be back at school.
More guns = more GUN deaths, but not necessarily more deaths, and certainly not more violent crime.
The majority of GUN deaths in the USA are suicides. Well over 15,000 per year. Banning guns obviously doesn't mean that all, or even most of those suicides could be prevented. That's why focusing only on GUN deaths is an absurdity.
Firearms are used in self defense approximately as often as they are used in crime. Defensive firearms use rarely involves shots being fired, and even more rarely results in death. Doesn't make for good national news.
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."
I'm guessing that a good 75-80% of Americans fall into the former category. The dichotomy of "liberals" and "conservatives" just defines "how" and in what ways they want other people to be controlled.
On this issue, you're unfortunately correct. Many people who would vocally defend firearms freedom would be happy to ban same sex marriage and burning the American flag.
"I would trust a stranger with a gun over anyone sanctioned by government"
The difference is that it is illegal for your average (non-government) stranger to use force except in defense against an imminent threat. Government employees by contrast are legally sanctioned to use violent force in any number of situations.
I agree with the OP entirely. I'm much more wary of armed government employees (cops) than armed citizens.
"It's extremely easy to invest that same cash into something that pays more than [2%] interest."
If you had $10,000 right now, where would you invest to make an "easy" 2% ?
Money markets are paying 1%. 10 year T-notes are paying less than 2%. The only "easy" 2% I could find was a five year CD from my bank @ 2.08%. I consider having my money tied up for five years a hard way to earn 2%.
Wouldn't that already fall under the provisions of existing law? AFAIK, fraudulent misrepresentation of a product is already a crime. It seems like damages arising from the use of an app would fall under provisions of tort law.
If some medical service provider is going to deploy a smart phone app as a diagnostic or treatment tool, then it's up to the app developer and the user to negotiate a contract and the terms of liability issues. I don't see why Big Brother needs to be involved.
They should be subject to provisions of existing law, such as fraudulent misrepresentation of the product. For instance, I read about an app that claimed it could make your phone cure acne or something. That's no different than digital snake oil.
What "enormous benefits" are there to a 20-something with a healthy lifestyle that gets put into the same risk pool as a morbidly obese chain smoker?
If the US government would repeal the ban on re-importation of prescription drugs, they would already be much cheaper. Government doesn't need to "negotiate" they just need to stop artificially propping up prices.
Is 'SS' a retirement program or a welfare program for old people? If it's a "retirement program" (as it's often described) it's a total scam. I say that because if new contributions stopped, the SS fund would not have enough assets to pay off the liabilities. Classic Ponzi scheme. If we admit that it's just another welfare program, the comparison is meaningless.
REAL Solution: Get the damned government and their stupid laws and stupid mandates out of the system entirely.
1. Consumers aren't stupid. If the person buying medical services had a direct relationship with the provider and complete price transparency in a competitive market, they are capable of making their own decisions. Auto mechanics and many other service providers operate on a fee per service basis
2. Good idea.
3. Get the government out of the equation. Make prices transparent and use health insurance more like auto collision insurance. Get rid of government mandates on what MUST be covered by a policy so that people can negotiate contracts for their unique situation.
4. Repeal EMTALA. Negotiate payment terms with the provider or go to a charity hospital.
In other words **** the government!
Private, for-profit businesses deliver millions of goods and services to people with high quality and at affordable prices. Competition and innovation decrease costs and increase quality. Governments never do.
Thanks. Very relevant and interesting information.
The REAL costs of government run healthcare in the USA are even higher. Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates are mandated by government. Everyone else then gets stuck paying higher prices so that the providers can make up for the losses they take by treating Medicare/Medicaid patients.
Then we have the ban on re-importation of drugs and medical devices so that US citizens are forced to subsidize the rest of the world's medication and medical device usage.
We've also got another wonderful Federal mandate called EMTALA so that hospitals are forced to treat everyone that shows up at the door, regardless of their willingness or ability to pay. Who eats that cost? Not the government.
IMO, our government has totally screwed up the healthcare system in the US, so there's no way I'm going to let them take over the whole thing.
I think it's just one of those cases where the demands for new features and capabilities have created problems that the original spec never anticipated or intended to solve.
The 'CAN' bus spec has been around seemingly forever. It was developed to solve wiring issues. A single serial data bus which all systems and peripherals could be connected to was a great idea at the time. I'm guessing that it probably just became SOP to tie every new system into the CAN bus and nobody stopped to wonder why the MP3 player was on the same bus as the ABS.
Slashdot Mirror
sed "s/communist/terrorist"/g fear_rhetoric.old > fear_rhetoric.new
Right. To conduct what's commonly referred to as a "Terry Stop" (after the Terry v. Ohio SCOTUS case) a cop has to have "reasonable suspicion" (lower standard than PC) that a crime is taking place.
Good for your friend's father! We need more people who are willing to stand up for their liberties and fewer sheep who meekly comply with the cops.
Now, this is easy to SAY and damned hard to actually DO. I think we're naturally cooperative, and well conditioned to fear the police. I have a little note card that I keep with my registration just in case.
When the cops demand "your papers please" for no apparent reason, answer their questions with questions:
Am I being detained?
Am I free to go?
Do you have reasonable suspicion that I'm involved in criminal activity? If yes, what's the crime? If no, am I free to go?
Go to 'copblock.org' for some good videos of people standing up for themselves during random BS stops by the authorities.
If I may, it was not an attempt to equate airport security with concentration camps. Merely debunking the "only doing their jobs" or "only following orders" justification for abuses in general.
How many dangerous explosive components or poisons could you DRINK without experiencing immediate side effects? Couldn't that be the 'test' for the liquid in a cup, bottle or thermos?
Synthesizing nitric esters requires concentrated acids. Drinking bleach and ammonia would be painful as hell and the odor emanating from an open container would be easily recognized. If you had a high tolerance for pain, I guess you could probably chug down a concentrated solution of potassium chlorate, then dump it on the floor of the plain and let it dry out during your flight.
I think this whole TSA thing is BS security theater and is simply conditioning people for obedience. I'm boycotting air travel until this nonsense ends.
"A fair and honest society recognises this and makes an adjustment,"
Men with guns stealing from people, paying themselves exorbitant salaries and benefits, handing out favors to their rich and well connected friends, and then throwing some table scraps to the poor?
There will ALWAYS be wealth inequality, but things like hard work, raw talent and innovation in a competitive marketplace should be what garners disproportionate wealth. In the contemporary USA, government-granted special privileges, monetary manipulation, handouts and subsidies drive wealth inequality. It's no coincidence that the DEGREE of wealth inequality has grown just as government has grown.
Monetary manipulation is probably the most insidious driver of wealth inequality. Since the inception of the Federal Reserve system, we've had a century of relentless monetary expansion and price inflation. Productivity growth should naturally result in price deflation. Labor could then enjoy some of the gains by an increase in their real wages and savers would be rewarded with more purchasing power. The Fed STEALS this wealth.
The fractional reserve banking system is another driver of wealth inequality because banks get the privilege of manipulating the money supply. For anyone else, this is called "counterfeiting".
Forget the 99% vs. 1% bullshit. There is a big difference between people who EARN their wealth by real economic activity and people who "accumulate" wealth based on government sanctioned special privileges.
Without the central planners in the government and The Fed, wealth inequality never would have grown to such ridiculous proportions.
I know I'm NOT voting for Obama or Romney.
It's the first week of September. Why the hell should I have to know who I'm voting for already?
I'm leaning towards Gary Johnson, but I'm also considering voting for Ron Paul as a write-in or simply not voting.
Gary Johnson would be 100X better than Obama or Romney. However, I have serious problems with his foreign policy views, his opinions on the U.S. banking and financial system and some other things. I'll probably vote for him however because his votes will at least be counted.
Tragically, I think the best case scenario would be for Romney to lose with the perception that Johnson garnered enough support from Ron Paul Republicans to deny Romney a victory.
"People do not have to work this hard to survive."
Imagine how hard you'd be working if you had to acquire food, clothing and shelter for yourself in the hunter/gatherer sense, perhaps with some basic agriculture?
How hard do you think your average farm family worked back in the early 1800s? I'll bet that a 60 hour work week was the norm and vacations were practically unheard of. I guess you're not a slave if you're working for yourself though. There's also something to be said for a simple life and natural food.
I know what you mean about the trends, but throughout human history, the vast majority of our labor has been spent just trying to fulfill basic needs.
You think that's bad? I recently encountered a HS kid that couldn't do $40.25 - $39.25 without using a calculator.
If the USA had schools where the student bodies consisted of white, middle-class kids who grew up speaking English, I'm sure that our education system would look much better.
"get your kids to do one page of math a day for 300 days of the year and they will be way ahead."
I don't understand the point of that unless you're also introducing new concepts. Once your kids have mastered + - * / what's the point in giving them more pages of problems? How does this get them ahead?
You can only drill someone to the point where they've mastered a certain skill. After that it's just meaningless work. Like many geeks, I was a good mathematics student and I got bored as hell with the pace of my public school math education. Last thing I needed was my parents giving me more of the stuff I was already bored with.
Thanks for the post. What data support #1?
I think the "popular belief" that public schools suck is based on a compilation of anecdotal evidence that most of us gather by our day to day dealings with the people who graduated from public schools. That and the growth rate of our annual tax bills to fund the damned things.
Schools are already ridiculously over-priced. We don't need a 10% tax increase to fund a 10% longer school year.
I think the effect of summer sort of depends on how you use it:
'as one fifth-grader, happy to be back at school in August, declared, 'Sometimes summer is really boring. We just sit there and watch TV.'
It's the TV, not the time off from school that turns you into an idiot.
When I was in 5th grade, I'd be outside most of the day every day. Especially weekdays. When I was older, summer was for working and saving money. I was NEVER happy to be back at school.
More guns = more GUN deaths, but not necessarily more deaths, and certainly not more violent crime.
The majority of GUN deaths in the USA are suicides. Well over 15,000 per year. Banning guns obviously doesn't mean that all, or even most of those suicides could be prevented. That's why focusing only on GUN deaths is an absurdity.
Firearms are used in self defense approximately as often as they are used in crime. Defensive firearms use rarely involves shots being fired, and even more rarely results in death. Doesn't make for good national news.
To quote Heinlein:
"The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire."
I'm guessing that a good 75-80% of Americans fall into the former category. The dichotomy of "liberals" and "conservatives" just defines "how" and in what ways they want other people to be controlled.
On this issue, you're unfortunately correct. Many people who would vocally defend firearms freedom would be happy to ban same sex marriage and burning the American flag.
"the government doesnt give a shit about your little hobby."
Oh really? Try making a few guns and then selling them. Post back here when you're out on bail.
The OP stated he would trust 'A' OVER 'B'
"I would trust a stranger with a gun over anyone sanctioned by government"
The difference is that it is illegal for your average (non-government) stranger to use force except in defense against an imminent threat. Government employees by contrast are legally sanctioned to use violent force in any number of situations.
I agree with the OP entirely. I'm much more wary of armed government employees (cops) than armed citizens.
"... call a government agency that you can reasonably trust."
I wouldn't trust a government agency to look after my lunch money, let alone my safety.
"there are no 'islands' of plastic garbage"
Not 'islands' in the sense that you could walk across them.
There are however vast areas where you can sail and see dozens of pieces of floating garbage in whichever direction you look.
"It's extremely easy to invest that same cash into something that pays more than [2%] interest."
If you had $10,000 right now, where would you invest to make an "easy" 2% ?
Money markets are paying 1%. 10 year T-notes are paying less than 2%. The only "easy" 2% I could find was a five year CD from my bank @ 2.08%. I consider having my money tied up for five years a hard way to earn 2%.
Wouldn't that already fall under the provisions of existing law? AFAIK, fraudulent misrepresentation of a product is already a crime. It seems like damages arising from the use of an app would fall under provisions of tort law.
If some medical service provider is going to deploy a smart phone app as a diagnostic or treatment tool, then it's up to the app developer and the user to negotiate a contract and the terms of liability issues. I don't see why Big Brother needs to be involved.
They should be subject to provisions of existing law, such as fraudulent misrepresentation of the product. For instance, I read about an app that claimed it could make your phone cure acne or something. That's no different than digital snake oil.
Creating an FDA type process for apps? Forget it.
What "enormous benefits" are there to a 20-something with a healthy lifestyle that gets put into the same risk pool as a morbidly obese chain smoker?
If the US government would repeal the ban on re-importation of prescription drugs, they would already be much cheaper. Government doesn't need to "negotiate" they just need to stop artificially propping up prices.
Is 'SS' a retirement program or a welfare program for old people? If it's a "retirement program" (as it's often described) it's a total scam. I say that because if new contributions stopped, the SS fund would not have enough assets to pay off the liabilities. Classic Ponzi scheme. If we admit that it's just another welfare program, the comparison is meaningless.
REAL Solution: Get the damned government and their stupid laws and stupid mandates out of the system entirely.
1. Consumers aren't stupid. If the person buying medical services had a direct relationship with the provider and complete price transparency in a competitive market, they are capable of making their own decisions. Auto mechanics and many other service providers operate on a fee per service basis
2. Good idea.
3. Get the government out of the equation. Make prices transparent and use health insurance more like auto collision insurance. Get rid of government mandates on what MUST be covered by a policy so that people can negotiate contracts for their unique situation.
4. Repeal EMTALA. Negotiate payment terms with the provider or go to a charity hospital.
In other words **** the government!
Private, for-profit businesses deliver millions of goods and services to people with high quality and at affordable prices. Competition and innovation decrease costs and increase quality. Governments never do.
Thanks. Very relevant and interesting information.
The REAL costs of government run healthcare in the USA are even higher. Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates are mandated by government. Everyone else then gets stuck paying higher prices so that the providers can make up for the losses they take by treating Medicare/Medicaid patients.
Then we have the ban on re-importation of drugs and medical devices so that US citizens are forced to subsidize the rest of the world's medication and medical device usage.
We've also got another wonderful Federal mandate called EMTALA so that hospitals are forced to treat everyone that shows up at the door, regardless of their willingness or ability to pay. Who eats that cost? Not the government.
IMO, our government has totally screwed up the healthcare system in the US, so there's no way I'm going to let them take over the whole thing.
I think it's just one of those cases where the demands for new features and capabilities have created problems that the original spec never anticipated or intended to solve.
The 'CAN' bus spec has been around seemingly forever. It was developed to solve wiring issues. A single serial data bus which all systems and peripherals could be connected to was a great idea at the time. I'm guessing that it probably just became SOP to tie every new system into the CAN bus and nobody stopped to wonder why the MP3 player was on the same bus as the ABS.