Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco? The assumption is that they are going to be met with automatic weapons fire, potentially from multiple locations. The majority of criminals today do not trust the police and assume they are there to kill them. They figure they might as well take a few down along the way. A significant number of citizens also do not trust the police and assume every encounter is going to escalate into a Ruby Ridge type shootout.
The end result is that every interaction with the police is assumed to be potentially deadly. Because that is how the world works today.
Congratulations. You just proved the point you were arguing against.
If the police arrive with the mindset that there is going to be a shoot-out that they cannot afford to lose, the criminal develops a mindset that the police are there to kill them. If the criminal has the mindset that the police are there to kill them, they are going to fight back with everything they have. If the criminal fights back with everything he has, the police end up in a shoot-out that they can't afford to lose. Do you see the problem here? In short, everyone involved is acting out of fear rather than reason. That's a problem. The solution is for the police to respond with appropriate force rather than bringing the kitchen sink. In this case, unless there was information to indicate that the suspect was also heavily armed and ready to fight to the death, a SWAT raid was clearly over the top.
...and I for one would not be crazy about living in a city where somebody other than the police is able to bring sufficient "kinetic resistance" to settle disputes...
Ummm...how heavily armed do you have to be in order to bring "sufficient 'kinetic resistance'?"
I am by no means comparable to a paramilitary organization, but I do own a couple of firearms, including some rather potent handguns and rifles (a.44 Mag, a.300 Win-Mag, and two 12-gauge shotguns). Any of those guns is able to provide some rather potent "kinetic resistance" and what my handgun of choice lacks in hitting power, it makes up for in number of shots fired (3 x 15 rounds of 9mm before having to reload a magazine). Personally, I'm glad I live in a society where this is possible. Our Founding Fathers knew full well what happens to a populace who has no ability to push back against an increasingly abusive government, and consequently, they added a provision to the Constitution to address that fact.
</Off-Topic>
While I would never intentionally harm a police officer, if someone were to kick in my doors in the middle of the night without telling me who they were and why they were there, I would have absolutely NO qualms about shooting first and asking questions later. <shrug> If the police really want to go home at night, perhaps they should bear in mind that while there are times and places that do, in fact, require a SWAT raid, those should be exceptions rather than the rule. Using the least amount of force necessary to get the job done is probably a better S.O.P. than treating every arrest as a terrorist interdiction.
I'm not a woman (nor do I play one on the Internet), I have never been -- nor have I ever claimed to have been -- stalked, but I was able to buy a handgun in a couple of hours recently.
Or at least provide a checkbox on the upload page that lets you turn the EXIF data on and off.
Personally, I kind of like having EXIF data on *some* of the photos I post -- for example, if I take a morning cruise around the mountains where I live on my motorcycle, I don't see the problem with posting a photo to Picassa with EXIF data of where I was at. In fact, sometimes, that's kind of the point: "here's something nifty I found, and here's where it's at so you can find it, too!" On Picassa, I have intentionally turned on the mapping data for selected photos for just that reason.
However, it does require some thinking on the part of the person who is posting the photos. As has been mentioned already, posting photos of your home with EXIF data and posting public (i.e., not just to your inner circle of friends who you trust) photos of your vacation 3000 miles away while you are still away is probably not a good idea...
I'm on the fence on the 3G vs. WiFi debate. Where I live, you don't have to go very far to no longer have cellular coverage of any kind, so that kind of limits its usefulness for me. There also aren't a lot of options for 3G providers where I live -- there's one national carrier (AT&T) and two statewide carriers. One of the statewide carriers is CDMA and the other is GSM, so if the device uses a SIM card, that narrows my options even further. OTOH, the whole idea behind tablets is that they are mobile, and I'm paranoid enough not to want to use just any open WiFi network around. In fact, when I visit the local coffee shops at lunch, I usually tether my laptop to my Android phone rather than trust the free WiFi, so unless I'm at home or at work, I'd *rather* use 3G than WiFi. Consequently, I'd probably have to go with WiFi built-in and 3G as an option.
You have a 5th Amendment right not to provide testimony against yourself. IANAL, etc., so I don't know if answering whether or not you have a cell phone would qualify, but I kind of doubt it. It's a completely moot point when I'm on my motorcycle, because I have my phone mounted on my handlebars for a more accurate speedometer (mines off by 10% give or take) and navigation. I don't have to answer the question. If the cop's eyes are good enough to pass a driving test, he can see it.
When I heard about the crap Sony was pulling with DRM on the Blu-ray platform, I vowed to avoid it like the plague. Couple the DRM nonsense with the fact that I have a DVD drive in my Mac and in my Linux machines, but don't have a Blu-ray player in any of my PCs (are they even available? I've never specifically looked, but I'd expect to have seen them at $Big_Box_Store if they were even remotely common...) and I'm quite happy to stick with DVDs despite the lower quality.
Maybe once DVDs are obsolete and my choice is limited to Blu-ray or nothing at all, I'll think about picking up a Blu-ray player. Until then, I'll stick with DVDs.
214.97.20.172.in-addr.arpa name = websense214.corp.<our company network>.
So there it is my companies IM filter box, webnonsense (apparently there are at least 214 of them)...
Perhaps, but did you notice that the first octet of the IP address is also 214? "websense214..." might just be a reference to the IP addy it lives on...or there might be at least 214 of them...or both:)
You haven't been paying attention, have you? TSA/DHS has also been investigating using the AIT technology on the effing STREET, too (source: epic.org -- look it up). For that matter, I can print whatever I want on the ticket to an event I host, but if I were to try to force people to submit to either an AIT scanner or "enhanced pat downs" you and I both know I'd end up in jail.
Nice try, but go back to your high school civics class, kid.
Which means I'll have to have a passport if I ever want to visit the rest of my country again (I live in Alaska). Could be worse: if I lived in Hawaii, there aren't any borders to drive to.
You and me both. My wife is still pissed at me because I told I won't take the family to Hawaii this year. She'll get over it...or not. But if I go to the airport, I've got a reasonable expectation that I'll end up in jail.
So we should just bend over and take it -- just so we can move along as quickly as possible? I'm not criticizing you if that's your choice, but, well, I'm not wired that way...
Go read the parent post of your comment again: "Since we have had zero attacks on alternate targets, its (sic) clear the TSA isn't protecting airplanes from anyone." QED.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, I guess. I just can't see how a "good person" could fondle people in an airport without puking.
They are annoyed by it because someone is making their day harder.
Cry me a river. I'm annoyed because even though I'd be one of the first ones up to defend an airliner from someone trying to blow it up, TSA wants to treat me -- and every other law-abiding citizen -- like one of the statistical anomalies who actually *does* want to bring down an airliner. That reaction is so far out of proportion to the scope of the problem that I'm continuously amazed that we are literally throwing billions of dollars at such a farce.
I don't know about G.P.P., but I have yet to attack or bully a TSO. However, I most definitely speak out about TSA policies to anyone who will listen, on-line on my blog (warning -- shameless plug for my own blog), in comments to other articles (like here) or in person.
...schmucks like you who think you're entitled to do whatever you want the constitution (sic) to say.
Yeah, at least it's only us "bullies" interpreting the Constitution so that it says what we want, and not someone with real power like, say, the Executive Branch doing so. Can you say, "warrantless wiretapping", "habeas corpus", "1st Amendment rights", "2nd Amendment rights", "4th Amendment rights" just as off-the-top-of-my-head examples?
If you choose to act out, be disruptive and incite a riot at the airport, you open yourself to being detained just like any other crazy person.
:rolleyes: How, exactly, do you think we got the freedoms you so readily throw away? Civil disobedience has a long and distinguished reputation in this country. You might say the U.S. kinda even got it's start that way. Do you think Washington, Revere, Adams, Jefferson, Henry, et al were model citizens and the British just handed over sovereignty to them because they asked nicely? How about MLK, Jr.? Rosa Parks? I don't know about you, but personally, I'd feel more than just a little honored to be a "crazy person" like them.
I'm guessing you'd be one of the first in line to complain about the TSA being "too stupid to fall for a simple SE trick."
That sentence doesn't even make logical sense -- how would it even be possible to be "too stupid to fall for a...SE trick"?!?! I think you were trying to say that if someone were to bluster their way through a checkpoint by "arrogant complaining", G.P.P. (and, I presume, anyone who agrees with him, like myself) would be first in line to complain about it, no? No, if TSA were actually taking reasonable and intelligent steps to provide for-real security (rather than security theater) and weren't trampling our liberties to do so, I'd actually be rushing to their defense if something slipped through the cracks. Excrement occurs. There's no way to provide 100% security, and it's unrealistic to expect it. However, since TSA has become so far removed from the ideals this country is supposed to stand for, I'd have to say, yes, I would be first in line to complain about -- to the extent that it serves to dismantle this abomination.
Boiling water is stone age comparatively - no matter how efficient.
Ummm...with all due respect, so what?
I'm results oriented. If you can as-good-as or better efficiency with stone-age tech, then why not go with what works? If there was a high-tech way to directly generate electric power from a nuclear reactor, but it only worked at, say, 5% efficiency, but you could boil water to generate electricity at 10% efficiency (and I have no idea what realistic numbers are; I'm just making these up) then why on earth would you choose the high-tech method instead (unless the high tech method had the advantage of being less complicated/more reliable/more clean/etc.)? That's just asinine.
Slashdot Mirror
Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco? The assumption is that they are going to be met with automatic weapons fire, potentially from multiple locations. The majority of criminals today do not trust the police and assume they are there to kill them. They figure they might as well take a few down along the way. A significant number of citizens also do not trust the police and assume every encounter is going to escalate into a Ruby Ridge type shootout.
The end result is that every interaction with the police is assumed to be potentially deadly. Because that is how the world works today.
Congratulations. You just proved the point you were arguing against.
If the police arrive with the mindset that there is going to be a shoot-out that they cannot afford to lose, the criminal develops a mindset that the police are there to kill them. If the criminal has the mindset that the police are there to kill them, they are going to fight back with everything they have. If the criminal fights back with everything he has, the police end up in a shoot-out that they can't afford to lose. Do you see the problem here? In short, everyone involved is acting out of fear rather than reason. That's a problem. The solution is for the police to respond with appropriate force rather than bringing the kitchen sink. In this case, unless there was information to indicate that the suspect was also heavily armed and ready to fight to the death, a SWAT raid was clearly over the top.
...and I for one would not be crazy about living in a city where somebody other than the police is able to bring sufficient "kinetic resistance" to settle disputes...
Ummm...how heavily armed do you have to be in order to bring "sufficient 'kinetic resistance'?"
.44 Mag, a .300 Win-Mag, and two 12-gauge shotguns). Any of those guns is able to provide some rather potent "kinetic resistance" and what my handgun of choice lacks in hitting power, it makes up for in number of shots fired (3 x 15 rounds of 9mm before having to reload a magazine). Personally, I'm glad I live in a society where this is possible. Our Founding Fathers knew full well what happens to a populace who has no ability to push back against an increasingly abusive government, and consequently, they added a provision to the Constitution to address that fact.
</Off-Topic>
I am by no means comparable to a paramilitary organization, but I do own a couple of firearms, including some rather potent handguns and rifles (a
While I would never intentionally harm a police officer, if someone were to kick in my doors in the middle of the night without telling me who they were and why they were there, I would have absolutely NO qualms about shooting first and asking questions later. <shrug> If the police really want to go home at night, perhaps they should bear in mind that while there are times and places that do, in fact, require a SWAT raid, those should be exceptions rather than the rule. Using the least amount of force necessary to get the job done is probably a better S.O.P. than treating every arrest as a terrorist interdiction.
I'll stay where I'm at, then.
I'm not a woman (nor do I play one on the Internet), I have never been -- nor have I ever claimed to have been -- stalked, but I was able to buy a handgun in a couple of hours recently.
Ohm my ${DIETY}...this thread is getting very, VERY painful.
So swcast is the villain here, not soundexchange.
The true villain here is the US legal system...
I'm not convinced that's an "either-or" proposition. Seems to me you're both right.
Or at least provide a checkbox on the upload page that lets you turn the EXIF data on and off.
Personally, I kind of like having EXIF data on *some* of the photos I post -- for example, if I take a morning cruise around the mountains where I live on my motorcycle, I don't see the problem with posting a photo to Picassa with EXIF data of where I was at. In fact, sometimes, that's kind of the point: "here's something nifty I found, and here's where it's at so you can find it, too!" On Picassa, I have intentionally turned on the mapping data for selected photos for just that reason.
However, it does require some thinking on the part of the person who is posting the photos. As has been mentioned already, posting photos of your home with EXIF data and posting public (i.e., not just to your inner circle of friends who you trust) photos of your vacation 3000 miles away while you are still away is probably not a good idea...
I'm on the fence on the 3G vs. WiFi debate. Where I live, you don't have to go very far to no longer have cellular coverage of any kind, so that kind of limits its usefulness for me. There also aren't a lot of options for 3G providers where I live -- there's one national carrier (AT&T) and two statewide carriers. One of the statewide carriers is CDMA and the other is GSM, so if the device uses a SIM card, that narrows my options even further. OTOH, the whole idea behind tablets is that they are mobile, and I'm paranoid enough not to want to use just any open WiFi network around. In fact, when I visit the local coffee shops at lunch, I usually tether my laptop to my Android phone rather than trust the free WiFi, so unless I'm at home or at work, I'd *rather* use 3G than WiFi. Consequently, I'd probably have to go with WiFi built-in and 3G as an option.
In response, I say...
"TSA"
QED.
You have a 5th Amendment right not to provide testimony against yourself. IANAL, etc., so I don't know if answering whether or not you have a cell phone would qualify, but I kind of doubt it. It's a completely moot point when I'm on my motorcycle, because I have my phone mounted on my handlebars for a more accurate speedometer (mines off by 10% give or take) and navigation. I don't have to answer the question. If the cop's eyes are good enough to pass a driving test, he can see it.
Ditto.
When I heard about the crap Sony was pulling with DRM on the Blu-ray platform, I vowed to avoid it like the plague. Couple the DRM nonsense with the fact that I have a DVD drive in my Mac and in my Linux machines, but don't have a Blu-ray player in any of my PCs (are they even available? I've never specifically looked, but I'd expect to have seen them at $Big_Box_Store if they were even remotely common...) and I'm quite happy to stick with DVDs despite the lower quality.
Maybe once DVDs are obsolete and my choice is limited to Blu-ray or nothing at all, I'll think about picking up a Blu-ray player. Until then, I'll stick with DVDs.
nslookup on the error IP gives me:
214.97.20.172.in-addr.arpa name = websense214.corp.<our company network>.
So there it is my companies IM filter box, webnonsense (apparently there are at least 214 of them)...
Perhaps, but did you notice that the first octet of the IP address is also 214? "websense214..." might just be a reference to the IP addy it lives on...or there might be at least 214 of them...or both :)
On the street, where you have no contract, nobody from the government can search you.
You mean like this? Glad they can't do that </sarc>
You haven't been paying attention, have you? TSA/DHS has also been investigating using the AIT technology on the effing STREET, too (source: epic.org -- look it up). For that matter, I can print whatever I want on the ticket to an event I host, but if I were to try to force people to submit to either an AIT scanner or "enhanced pat downs" you and I both know I'd end up in jail.
Nice try, but go back to your high school civics class, kid.
Which means I'll have to have a passport if I ever want to visit the rest of my country again (I live in Alaska). Could be worse: if I lived in Hawaii, there aren't any borders to drive to.
It's worth it for the link. That's...disturbing. Very, very disturbing.
The fact that there exist people more evil than TSA does not make TSA good.
Blogger Bob refused to print my last comment, at least as of the last time I checked.
You and me both. My wife is still pissed at me because I told I won't take the family to Hawaii this year. She'll get over it...or not. But if I go to the airport, I've got a reasonable expectation that I'll end up in jail.
So we should just bend over and take it -- just so we can move along as quickly as possible? I'm not criticizing you if that's your choice, but, well, I'm not wired that way...
No. They are tools of those that have -- and want to show that they have -- authority.
Go read the parent post of your comment again: "Since we have had zero attacks on alternate targets, its (sic) clear the TSA isn't protecting airplanes from anyone." QED.
...since most TSA employees are good people...
Well, you're entitled to your opinion, I guess. I just can't see how a "good person" could fondle people in an airport without puking.
They are annoyed by it because someone is making their day harder.
Cry me a river. I'm annoyed because even though I'd be one of the first ones up to defend an airliner from someone trying to blow it up, TSA wants to treat me -- and every other law-abiding citizen -- like one of the statistical anomalies who actually *does* want to bring down an airliner. That reaction is so far out of proportion to the scope of the problem that I'm continuously amazed that we are literally throwing billions of dollars at such a farce.
Fascism? You're an idiot.
Pot? Kettle? Black?
I don't know about G.P.P., but I have yet to attack or bully a TSO. However, I most definitely speak out about TSA policies to anyone who will listen, on-line on my blog (warning -- shameless plug for my own blog), in comments to other articles (like here) or in person.
...schmucks like you who think you're entitled to do whatever you want the constitution (sic) to say.
Yeah, at least it's only us "bullies" interpreting the Constitution so that it says what we want, and not someone with real power like, say, the Executive Branch doing so. Can you say, "warrantless wiretapping", "habeas corpus", "1st Amendment rights", "2nd Amendment rights", "4th Amendment rights" just as off-the-top-of-my-head examples?
If you choose to act out, be disruptive and incite a riot at the airport, you open yourself to being detained just like any other crazy person.
:rolleyes: How, exactly, do you think we got the freedoms you so readily throw away? Civil disobedience has a long and distinguished reputation in this country. You might say the U.S. kinda even got it's start that way. Do you think Washington, Revere, Adams, Jefferson, Henry, et al were model citizens and the British just handed over sovereignty to them because they asked nicely? How about MLK, Jr.? Rosa Parks? I don't know about you, but personally, I'd feel more than just a little honored to be a "crazy person" like them.
I'm guessing you'd be one of the first in line to complain about the TSA being "too stupid to fall for a simple SE trick."
That sentence doesn't even make logical sense -- how would it even be possible to be "too stupid to fall for a...SE trick"?!?! I think you were trying to say that if someone were to bluster their way through a checkpoint by "arrogant complaining", G.P.P. (and, I presume, anyone who agrees with him, like myself) would be first in line to complain about it, no? No, if TSA were actually taking reasonable and intelligent steps to provide for-real security (rather than security theater) and weren't trampling our liberties to do so, I'd actually be rushing to their defense if something slipped through the cracks. Excrement occurs. There's no way to provide 100% security, and it's unrealistic to expect it. However, since TSA has become so far removed from the ideals this country is supposed to stand for, I'd have to say, yes, I would be first in line to complain about -- to the extent that it serves to dismantle this abomination.
Boiling water is stone age comparatively - no matter how efficient.
Ummm...with all due respect, so what?
I'm results oriented. If you can as-good-as or better efficiency with stone-age tech, then why not go with what works? If there was a high-tech way to directly generate electric power from a nuclear reactor, but it only worked at, say, 5% efficiency, but you could boil water to generate electricity at 10% efficiency (and I have no idea what realistic numbers are; I'm just making these up) then why on earth would you choose the high-tech method instead (unless the high tech method had the advantage of being less complicated/more reliable/more clean/etc.)? That's just asinine.
Your sig is quite appropriate to this thread. Unfortunately, my friend, you and I are the grass...