This is no different then a UC prostitute standing out on the corner, if the prostitute was not there then the John would not break the law. All the FBI is doing is giving the means to commit the crime not enticing people to commit them.
Besides, I think you'd find the ultra-conservative "homosexuality is a choice" crowd more upset with the research than the liberal "homosexuality is innate" crowd.
Ultra-conservatives may be different where you come from, but in my country they're spilt between the camps of "homosexuality is ungodly and needs to be burned out" and "homosexuality is a disease that needs to be cured". To them saying it's a choice is like admitting it's normal, like the choice between chocolate or strawberry.
BTW, nothing against gays mind you.
You forgot the more prevalent third group, they don't give a shit what you do just stay out of their wallet.
So your saying that instead of the research being about a disability that millions of parents fear and hundreds of thousands of children are diagnosed with, the research would be about who someone is sexually attracted to? I'd call it a waste of money, but not much beyond that; I don't understand why researching the normal ranges of human sexuality would be interesting.
Because they refuse to accept that the problem and the solution lies with them instead and not a "disease." I'm not talking about real aspergers, just the socially inept douche nozzles that try to hide behind a self diagnosis of it.
So a person who is socially awkward but does not have aspergers, self diagnoses themselves so they don't feel as bad about their ineptitude, how awful. Looks like the douche nozzle is pointing back at you.
Well, while you're ignoring it, the politicians will be citing it for why we more and tougher IP legislation, both at home and abroad.
What motivation does a country have to get off of double secret probation, no trade embargoes will placed on countries listed on the report. This report has less teeth then a UN resolution, it is merely finger wagging in the hopes of pressuring other nations into abiding by foreign rules.
Considering that low levels of autism-like symptoms seem to be prevalent in engineering disciplines, is this something that could be used to turn your dreamy/artistic/social child into more of a nerd/engineer type?
Also, I wonder what sort of reaction there would be if instead of autism, this paper was dealing with a potential to detect/fix some more politically sensitive group such as the GLBT community
People with severe gayness can still function in the world, autism not so much, some can not even talk, they simply communicate through pointing and grunting.
If you broadcast your voice over public airwaves it is legal to intercept it. It doesn't matter if you *think* it's a landline, it simply does not have the same protection.
Cordless phones many of which are unencrypted fall into your description, yet it is illegal in every state for a third party to monitor the phone call without consent of all participants. Most state laws also specify cellular and cordless calls, and others use all “electronic” communications, to cover ANY phone call. The protection is for any phone calls no matter how they are made.
So if I leave the door to my house unlocked it's OK for you to go in and take what ever you want? How much responsibility falls on the home owner? If they lock their doors and arm a security system but the system is old and easy to bypass and the thief has a bump key is it the owners fault. Google identifying open wifi while driving around is not the problem it's that they went into the network and collected data. If they sniffed any VOIP traffic then they committed a felony the only reason they have not been charged is that email and other communication are not protected under law.
Politician don't represent the people and they shouldn't, they are elected because the majority of the voting population thinks they can do a better job. The problem with politicians today is that they try to represent the population which leads to pandering and appeasement instead of solutions. The best sports teams don't follow the fans advice the saying goes "If you listen to the fans you will soon be sitting with the fans".
Even so, these changes are wholly dependent on these machines - remove the wind fans and the weather will revert to its previous state. This has nothing to do with climate change, which is a change to the underlying system.
What would you define as climate change then, if you take the extra CO2 and other man made gasses out of the air weather will revert back to its previous state as well as the removal of these giant structures littered across the country side.
Don't get your hopes up, they still can ruin it. Remember Life, they decided that Attenborough was not a good narrator and to have Opera do it. Then they doubled down on this with Frozen Planet with one of the Baldwins.
So any established police force and enforcement of laws will inevitably lead to a police state? Or do you think there might be a few shades of grey possible?
Socialism can not exist with out a group in charge of determining who gets what resources, that job falls to the government, with out government control socialism can not work. When the governments are lax on controlling resources you get many people cheating the system and there are not enough resources to go around, because it is human nature to want more. The shades of greys of enforcement are directly correlated to the greys of socialism, the more the population wants everyone to get the same amount the more government has to control it.
If your router is compromised you are vulnerable to MITM attacks, MD5 the standard encryption method for SSL and HTTPS has been show to be broken in a few seconds using an ordinary computer so faking certs is possible in a few seconds. You are in the clear as long as you don't bank on-line or do anything else where you want your communications encrypted.
That's the problem. When was the last time you saw ONE TSA rent-a-cop at a security check point.
Your actions while noble will likely be short lived and you will get to make a new personal friend with a glove on in the back room. It's the standard toughguy scenario we all suffer from. Yes I would defend my daughter. No I would not go apeshit at a group of armed people just because they patted her down while she was having a tantrum.
Remember, you're no good to her dead or in prison.
The TSA do not have the power or authority to detain anyone they are not officers, they are not qualified to carry weapons, or make arrests, typically there is an officer there and you would get tased and put in the back of a squad car and driven to jail, but not before you got more then a few good shots in . If you told the screener to stop threatening your daughter and to not touch her after they make their intentions clear that they intend on molesting your daughter and they still continued. A group of peers could reasonably assume that you were protecting your daughter, that's all you need.
Don't know about you, but I can't forget the numerous stories of terrorist strapping explosives to women and sending them out to be blown up.
There have been women suicide bombers, but you're implying that these women had no agency in the bombing. Please cite an incident that shows otherwise.
But the obvious solution in this case is to have the child go through the scanners again. Why the pat down? Either the scanners are good enough to detect anything that could have been passed from an unscreened passenger to a screened passenger, or they're not. Unless they are implicitly acknowledging that latter...
This is why the procedure says that is a person goes though security and is cleared then comes in contact with another person, that is a suspicious activity and they must be patted down, the preferential place for the pat downs is in a secluded room, out of site of cell phone cameras, to give them "privacy" when they are groped by a stranger. The screeners are treated like mindless robots and are told to follow the procedures to a T and to never think on their own. They hire unqualified staff and make up for it by trying to take away the thinking, this is bureaucracy at it's finest.
So it's not really a stretch to think that someone would be depraved enough to hide a bomb on their little daughter and sacrifice their mother in law. Same for e.g. the neighbor's little daughter and her grandmother. Illustrates nicely why racial profiling doesn't work, either.
Despite having a little daughter - if you have a TSA at all I can see why they might want to pat down a girl her age. However if they want to do that, it must be done in a humane way. Someone shouting at a little child in that situation needs to be fired and fined.
There are two problems leading to situations like this, firstly the TSA screeners have little more then a high-school diploma and a weeks training, because of this, management, in true government from, treats them like idiots. They give them no room for interpretation or leeway on how to respond to any incident their choices are control the situation and get the person to submit to the screening or let them slide and loose their job. Do we need some form of screening absolutely YES, is using unqualified staff and a bureaucratic policies they way to achieve this, the results speak for themselves. If they truly cared about security they would have higher qualifications for the screeners, and trust them to make decisions on the ground instead of micromanaging from Washington. The problem is not that the screeners need new rules that children should be treated differently, it's that Napolitano shouldn't be making these decisions in Washington for screeners in Wichita.
I don't think you know what fascism is, some companies could defiantly be accused of being authoritarian but fascists absolutely not. Larger companies which employ a little less then half the workforce may fall under this category though many strive to keep employees happy, small companies which employ over half the workforce would have even fewer examples that fall under your ignorant stereotypes. I'm sorry you work in a shitty job where management sees you as nothing more then a number but your experience is not what the majority of people experience.
Business are democratic, all the share holders vote for a group of people, the board, to make decisions an their behalf for the company.
When you have an organization with only one goal (profit) and a group of people (shareholders) with the same goal who vote on issues that can have an effect on people who are not shareholders and cannot vote, that's not a democracy.
Is the US democratic because minors which are bound by laws can not vote, or how about other countries they may receive aid or other things from the US they don't vote in US elections?
Also, most shareholders are actually just mutual fund holders who don't have any real power over the actual real world decsions of any company or who the board is. They own a ridiculously small piece of 100 companies Sounds real democratic.
Your ignorance strikes again most share holders are not mutual fund holders, mutual funds held 23% of all publicly traded stock in 2005.
Your failing to understand socialism comes from a simple issue. In order for socialism to work you need people to control all the different industries, with out control over the different industries you CAN NOT have socialism. In order for socialism to work you need a totalitarian government otherwise people will find a way to have more then their fair share which can not happen with socialism.
It's all about error bounds, the error bounds of Global warming predictions can't even be defined because we currently do not have enough information to determine them, many of the predictions assumed sun intensity was constant, there are hundreds of factors that go into the average global temperature, many of which scientist still don't have a grasp on. The problem with the GW issue is simple alarmist scared people into believing that there was going to be drastic climate changes unless huge changes were made, some even intentionally used data that stopped at 2005 (the warmest year on record due to el nino), but their predictions proved to be wrong. Another group came along and stated that there is no effect of increased CO2 levels on the climate which is just as wrong but garnered support because there was no evidence that the sky was falling. Unfortunately the debate has been among these two groups of zealots and actually finding out what is happening is not important to either group, scientists on both sides have let their personal beliefs shape the results. The only thing I am certain about the climate change debate is that the system for determining the truth is broken due to scientist pandering to politicians for money and accolades, no matter what happens the truth will never be believed.
Slashdot Mirror
This is no different then a UC prostitute standing out on the corner, if the prostitute was not there then the John would not break the law. All the FBI is doing is giving the means to commit the crime not enticing people to commit them.
Besides, I think you'd find the ultra-conservative "homosexuality is a choice" crowd more upset with the research than the liberal "homosexuality is innate" crowd.
Ultra-conservatives may be different where you come from, but in my country they're spilt between the camps of "homosexuality is ungodly and needs to be burned out" and "homosexuality is a disease that needs to be cured". To them saying it's a choice is like admitting it's normal, like the choice between chocolate or strawberry. BTW, nothing against gays mind you.
You forgot the more prevalent third group, they don't give a shit what you do just stay out of their wallet.
So your saying that instead of the research being about a disability that millions of parents fear and hundreds of thousands of children are diagnosed with, the research would be about who someone is sexually attracted to? I'd call it a waste of money, but not much beyond that; I don't understand why researching the normal ranges of human sexuality would be interesting.
Do you find porn interesting?
Because they refuse to accept that the problem and the solution lies with them instead and not a "disease." I'm not talking about real aspergers, just the socially inept douche nozzles that try to hide behind a self diagnosis of it.
So a person who is socially awkward but does not have aspergers, self diagnoses themselves so they don't feel as bad about their ineptitude, how awful. Looks like the douche nozzle is pointing back at you.
Well, while you're ignoring it, the politicians will be citing it for why we more and tougher IP legislation, both at home and abroad.
What motivation does a country have to get off of double secret probation, no trade embargoes will placed on countries listed on the report. This report has less teeth then a UN resolution, it is merely finger wagging in the hopes of pressuring other nations into abiding by foreign rules.
Considering that low levels of autism-like symptoms seem to be prevalent in engineering disciplines, is this something that could be used to turn your dreamy/artistic/social child into more of a nerd/engineer type?
Also, I wonder what sort of reaction there would be if instead of autism, this paper was dealing with a potential to detect/fix some more politically sensitive group such as the GLBT community
People with severe gayness can still function in the world, autism not so much, some can not even talk, they simply communicate through pointing and grunting.
If you broadcast your voice over public airwaves it is legal to intercept it. It doesn't matter if you *think* it's a landline, it simply does not have the same protection.
Cordless phones many of which are unencrypted fall into your description, yet it is illegal in every state for a third party to monitor the phone call without consent of all participants. Most state laws also specify cellular and cordless calls, and others use all “electronic” communications, to cover ANY phone call. The protection is for any phone calls no matter how they are made.
Where should I look that up? It's not in the Constitution or any other legal document.
There is no mandate that politicians do what voters want them to do.
So if I leave the door to my house unlocked it's OK for you to go in and take what ever you want? How much responsibility falls on the home owner? If they lock their doors and arm a security system but the system is old and easy to bypass and the thief has a bump key is it the owners fault. Google identifying open wifi while driving around is not the problem it's that they went into the network and collected data. If they sniffed any VOIP traffic then they committed a felony the only reason they have not been charged is that email and other communication are not protected under law.
Politician don't represent the people and they shouldn't, they are elected because the majority of the voting population thinks they can do a better job. The problem with politicians today is that they try to represent the population which leads to pandering and appeasement instead of solutions. The best sports teams don't follow the fans advice the saying goes "If you listen to the fans you will soon be sitting with the fans".
Even so, these changes are wholly dependent on these machines - remove the wind fans and the weather will revert to its previous state. This has nothing to do with climate change, which is a change to the underlying system.
What would you define as climate change then, if you take the extra CO2 and other man made gasses out of the air weather will revert back to its previous state as well as the removal of these giant structures littered across the country side.
You are assuming that the missile would destroy both wings, where the gas is stored.
Don't get your hopes up, they still can ruin it. Remember Life, they decided that Attenborough was not a good narrator and to have Opera do it. Then they doubled down on this with Frozen Planet with one of the Baldwins.
So any established police force and enforcement of laws will inevitably lead to a police state? Or do you think there might be a few shades of grey possible?
Socialism can not exist with out a group in charge of determining who gets what resources, that job falls to the government, with out government control socialism can not work. When the governments are lax on controlling resources you get many people cheating the system and there are not enough resources to go around, because it is human nature to want more. The shades of greys of enforcement are directly correlated to the greys of socialism, the more the population wants everyone to get the same amount the more government has to control it.
If your router is compromised you are vulnerable to MITM attacks, MD5 the standard encryption method for SSL and HTTPS has been show to be broken in a few seconds using an ordinary computer so faking certs is possible in a few seconds. You are in the clear as long as you don't bank on-line or do anything else where you want your communications encrypted.
That's the problem. When was the last time you saw ONE TSA rent-a-cop at a security check point.
Your actions while noble will likely be short lived and you will get to make a new personal friend with a glove on in the back room. It's the standard toughguy scenario we all suffer from. Yes I would defend my daughter. No I would not go apeshit at a group of armed people just because they patted her down while she was having a tantrum.
Remember, you're no good to her dead or in prison.
The TSA do not have the power or authority to detain anyone they are not officers, they are not qualified to carry weapons, or make arrests, typically there is an officer there and you would get tased and put in the back of a squad car and driven to jail, but not before you got more then a few good shots in . If you told the screener to stop threatening your daughter and to not touch her after they make their intentions clear that they intend on molesting your daughter and they still continued. A group of peers could reasonably assume that you were protecting your daughter, that's all you need.
Don't know about you, but I can't forget the numerous stories of terrorist strapping explosives to women and sending them out to be blown up.
There have been women suicide bombers, but you're implying that these women had no agency in the bombing. Please cite an incident that shows otherwise.
But the obvious solution in this case is to have the child go through the scanners again. Why the pat down? Either the scanners are good enough to detect anything that could have been passed from an unscreened passenger to a screened passenger, or they're not. Unless they are implicitly acknowledging that latter...
This is why the procedure says that is a person goes though security and is cleared then comes in contact with another person, that is a suspicious activity and they must be patted down, the preferential place for the pat downs is in a secluded room, out of site of cell phone cameras, to give them "privacy" when they are groped by a stranger. The screeners are treated like mindless robots and are told to follow the procedures to a T and to never think on their own. They hire unqualified staff and make up for it by trying to take away the thinking, this is bureaucracy at it's finest.
Well, not exactly what you were asking for, but Hindawi packed the bomb into the carry-on bag of his pregnant Irish fiancee.
So it's not really a stretch to think that someone would be depraved enough to hide a bomb on their little daughter and sacrifice their mother in law. Same for e.g. the neighbor's little daughter and her grandmother. Illustrates nicely why racial profiling doesn't work, either.
Despite having a little daughter - if you have a TSA at all I can see why they might want to pat down a girl her age. However if they want to do that, it must be done in a humane way. Someone shouting at a little child in that situation needs to be fired and fined.
There are two problems leading to situations like this, firstly the TSA screeners have little more then a high-school diploma and a weeks training, because of this, management, in true government from, treats them like idiots. They give them no room for interpretation or leeway on how to respond to any incident their choices are control the situation and get the person to submit to the screening or let them slide and loose their job. Do we need some form of screening absolutely YES, is using unqualified staff and a bureaucratic policies they way to achieve this, the results speak for themselves. If they truly cared about security they would have higher qualifications for the screeners, and trust them to make decisions on the ground instead of micromanaging from Washington. The problem is not that the screeners need new rules that children should be treated differently, it's that Napolitano shouldn't be making these decisions in Washington for screeners in Wichita.
I don't think you know what fascism is, some companies could defiantly be accused of being authoritarian but fascists absolutely not. Larger companies which employ a little less then half the workforce may fall under this category though many strive to keep employees happy, small companies which employ over half the workforce would have even fewer examples that fall under your ignorant stereotypes. I'm sorry you work in a shitty job where management sees you as nothing more then a number but your experience is not what the majority of people experience.
Business are democratic, all the share holders vote for a group of people, the board, to make decisions an their behalf for the company.
When you have an organization with only one goal (profit) and a group of people (shareholders) with the same goal who vote on issues that can have an effect on people who are not shareholders and cannot vote, that's not a democracy.
Is the US democratic because minors which are bound by laws can not vote, or how about other countries they may receive aid or other things from the US they don't vote in US elections?
Also, most shareholders are actually just mutual fund holders who don't have any real power over the actual real world decsions of any company or who the board is. They own a ridiculously small piece of 100 companies Sounds real democratic.
Your ignorance strikes again most share holders are not mutual fund holders, mutual funds held 23% of all publicly traded stock in 2005.
the problem is that with enough CFC's the creation rate of ozone is slower then the breakdown of the ozone.
Your failing to understand socialism comes from a simple issue. In order for socialism to work you need people to control all the different industries, with out control over the different industries you CAN NOT have socialism. In order for socialism to work you need a totalitarian government otherwise people will find a way to have more then their fair share which can not happen with socialism.
Business are democratic, all the share holders vote for a group of people, the board, to make decisions an their behalf for the company.
It's all about error bounds, the error bounds of Global warming predictions can't even be defined because we currently do not have enough information to determine them, many of the predictions assumed sun intensity was constant, there are hundreds of factors that go into the average global temperature, many of which scientist still don't have a grasp on. The problem with the GW issue is simple alarmist scared people into believing that there was going to be drastic climate changes unless huge changes were made, some even intentionally used data that stopped at 2005 (the warmest year on record due to el nino), but their predictions proved to be wrong. Another group came along and stated that there is no effect of increased CO2 levels on the climate which is just as wrong but garnered support because there was no evidence that the sky was falling. Unfortunately the debate has been among these two groups of zealots and actually finding out what is happening is not important to either group, scientists on both sides have let their personal beliefs shape the results. The only thing I am certain about the climate change debate is that the system for determining the truth is broken due to scientist pandering to politicians for money and accolades, no matter what happens the truth will never be believed.