Ultimately, they're felons or at best guilty of committing misdemeanors. It's not just a job, it's a job where they're being specifically paid to break the law and with great frequency.
That's mostly inevitable when you allow one agency to both define the problem it's there to solve and solve the problem. Without something to force the agency to restrain its growth you're not generally going to see it stopping.
So, we should stop prosecuting Nazis that were only following orders and issue formal apologies to the ones that weren't issuing the orders?
Cancer sucks, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for anybody that got cancer as a direct result of following criminal orders and sexually abusing random citizens.
I agree with Trout007, the politicians aren't the only problem, if people refused to work for the TSA there would be no TSA abuses of power. It's the fact that all those pedo freaks and general scum are willing to work for the TSA that we have problems.
A government agency that can't get employees has an extremely limited ability to commit acts, good, evil or otherwise.
Personally, I don't really care what happens to a bunch of perverts, it's they're own damn fault for being willing to stand near the equipment.
The point is that the only problem we have with oil consumption at the present time is that people aren't being required to pay the full cost of consumption. We're allowing for cost to be spread amongst even those that can't or won't drive and don't drive either. If people were paying the full cost of gas we wouldn't be using as much of it and we'd be moving to alternatives already. The subsidies for gas and the lack of pricing for externalities are precisely why gas is so much less expensive than the alternatives.
Anybody that claims that to be ethical or worthwhile has some splainin' to do.As for freedom only a libertarian would suggest that charging the whole cost for a commodity infringes upon ones freedom.
As for your conclusion, the problem is that it does get in the way of my pursuit of happiness. I have asthma and being constantly exposed to other people's pollution has a very definite negative impact on my health. It's rather amazing how people can suggest that exposing other people to the results of their pollution is somehow their right or ethical. Some pollution is inevitable, but there's nothing ethical about allowing the markets to misprice a commodity and imposing the externalities on innocent bystanders.
I'd like to live in such a system as it's better than what we have currently. What we have currently is a system where most people's income goes up less slowly than inflation and the various costs of living and a tiny minority's income sky rockets during a recession.
Compared to your alternative where ones income would be going up at roughly the same rate as inflation, I know what I would take.
Which is one of the reasons why it's good to be in a country with a guaranteed standard of living and why it sucks to be poor in America.
We spend so much money ensuring that people won't get more than they've earned that we end up ensuring that most people end up getting a lot less than they've earned. What's worse is we don't pay any attention to people plundering the economy when they do it via white collar crime.
Yes, but if they're just reporting an average salary half of the people will be getting below average salaries. It's a lot more informative if you get mean, median and standard deviate. Preferably with some indication of how the samples are distributed.
A mean alone is of very little value unless you've also sorting things in a way that makes sense. For instance a mean that covers the entire country is going to be somewhat worthless as one could be making a good salary in one part of the country and effectively impoverished someplace like NYC, and be making the same amount of money.
Why shouldn't they get to? The problem we currently have is that the cost doesn't cover all the costs involved. It doesn't cover cleaning up the mess and it doesn't encourage people to figure out how to reduce their consumption. If a few percent of the people out there buy their way out of it, the people who can't afford to still benefit in terms of pollution and general quality of life.
And you're living in poverty? If you're a field engineer and you're living in poverty you've nobody but yourself to blame.
The vast majority of employees out there commute to a fixed location every day and do their work. Sure there are many jobs where that isn't the case, but honestly, how many of those pay the minimum wage?
That's bunk. If you raise fuel costs it doesn't necessarily mean that the vehicles are going to be less safe. Safety is a separate function and is supposed to be dealt with before the vehicles are on the market.
If you raise the price of gas the easiest ways of minimizing the cost are to either drive less or to drive slower and both of those are going to result in fewer fatalities. You don't magically remove safety features just because gas gets more expensive.
If they really worried about the poor, they would tax the hell out of gas and use the proceeds to fund mass transit. The only reason why the poor drive is because there aren't reasonable alternatives. I remember a few years back needing to be downtown early on sundays for work and having absolutely and completely options other than, taxi, private car or bike. The fact that there are times during the week when you have no transit options and that those times of day are more likely to have low income people commuting speaks volumes about the priorities of society.
This is a well known phenomenon and it's why you see such incredible fleet efficiency in Seattle compared with most of the rest of the country. Simply put between taxes and oil company gouging we pay more for our gas than they do in most of the rest of the country.
Simply put if you don't tax the fuel sufficient to make up for the cost reduction you tend to get more fuel being consumed rather than less. There are limits to it, you're not going to suddenly start commuting 1000mi a day simply because of cheap gas, but it's less likely that you'll work close to home than if the gas was really expensive.
It's the TSA, they don't have the legal right to detain or arrest people except under the same ones that you or I can. Basically unless your activity falls into whatever qualifies one to make a citzen's arrest they can't legally detain you.
Any effort on their part to detain is a felony and at least on paper they can be sent to prison for it. TSA agents are just private security and they have no more rights than ordinary private security has.
That's something I wish more people understood. TSA does not have the legal rights that law enforcement officers have, and that includes conducting searches and detaining people. Of course the courts tend to be somewhat squeamish telling the executive branch that they can't do whatever they want, but the reality is that TSA has no more authority to operate than any other group of private security officers.
True, but the people that are best at solving those sorts of puzzles aren't necessarily the ones that you want. You want spread out through the company the ability to solve those sorts of problems, that does not necessitate that any one person be capable of solving them and in many cases having people solving the problems individually is the least efficient way of doing things.
Honestly, I'd recommend hiring only those that are clearly lying, the ones that don't appear to be lying are hardly the sort you want to have working with you.
Also, unless the job is specifically working with people, the ones that are best aren't necessarily going to be good at answering bullshit questions like that.
No, the internet around here isn't any faster than the internet was a decade ago. And it regularly takes a long time because the update process isn't very well thought out. It will insist upon downloading patches and software and then downloading ones that supercede them when just downloading the most up to date software would have done just fine.
And I've got little to complain about compared with the people around here who only have a 1.5mbps connection.
I'm from the US to, but that doesn't mean that I'd move to Iran and start badmouthing the Iranian authorities. Same goes for any other countries.
Even the US has its standards and if as somebody here on a visa one does something that pisses off the government one shouldn't be surprised if one isn't offered a renewal.
If one feels that strongly about it, one probably shouldn't be taking a job there. Pissing off the government in somebody elses country then accepting deportation as punishment is hardly something that's going to do much for the quality of life of the people living there.
The DxOMark is a complete joke and comparing sensors with that fine of a difference in score is a losing proposition. The only legitimate way of comparing sensors is with 100% crops and actual field testing of the system. Yes, it's going to be somewhat arbitrary, but if a professional with experience can't rank one better than the other then there's really no reason to worry about it.
And at the end of the day, once you buy the first body you're mostly stuck with that system anyway. It gets to be quite expensive switching systems after that point typically.
Which comes at a cost, it's a lot easier to manually focus using the older system than it is with an EVF. True they will often times give a bit of help, but there just isn't enough pixels in the display to make that a viable option. Additionally, you give up battery life that could be used for other things like taking more photos or using a slightly smaller battery.
I definitely think that there's room in the market for 4/3 gear, but I definitely don't think that there's any reason for the dSLR design to get completely replaced as it just brings way too much to the table at this point to ditch. Not to mention the huge array of lenses that have been developed for it over the years.
Yes, but back then the alternatives weren't so capable.
Yes, I do get better images with a dSLR than I do with my new camera, but the difference isn't anywhere near large enough to justify dragging around that much equipment on a vacation. Unless my whole point in going is to take photos, and even then it gets hard to justify at times as you're having to make decisions based upon where you're willing to lug the gear to.
Beyond that, back then the discussion definitely happened, it's just that rather than arguing between a 35mm and a P&S, you were probably arguing between a large or medium format camera and a 35mm camera. Had P&S cameras been as functional then as they are now, it probably would have been an even larger argument.
The OP was asking specifically about a camera for travel that's not too technical and given the results that can be had with a quality P&S, it seems rather hard to suggest much more than that at this point in time. Give some time to learn composition and develop a love of photography before wasting a lot of money on lenses and bodies. My current camera cost almost exactly what my first lens cost nearly a decade ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Ultimately, they're felons or at best guilty of committing misdemeanors. It's not just a job, it's a job where they're being specifically paid to break the law and with great frequency.
That's mostly inevitable when you allow one agency to both define the problem it's there to solve and solve the problem. Without something to force the agency to restrain its growth you're not generally going to see it stopping.
So, we should stop prosecuting Nazis that were only following orders and issue formal apologies to the ones that weren't issuing the orders?
Cancer sucks, but I have a hard time feeling sorry for anybody that got cancer as a direct result of following criminal orders and sexually abusing random citizens.
I agree with Trout007, the politicians aren't the only problem, if people refused to work for the TSA there would be no TSA abuses of power. It's the fact that all those pedo freaks and general scum are willing to work for the TSA that we have problems.
A government agency that can't get employees has an extremely limited ability to commit acts, good, evil or otherwise.
Personally, I don't really care what happens to a bunch of perverts, it's they're own damn fault for being willing to stand near the equipment.
The point is that the only problem we have with oil consumption at the present time is that people aren't being required to pay the full cost of consumption. We're allowing for cost to be spread amongst even those that can't or won't drive and don't drive either. If people were paying the full cost of gas we wouldn't be using as much of it and we'd be moving to alternatives already. The subsidies for gas and the lack of pricing for externalities are precisely why gas is so much less expensive than the alternatives.
Anybody that claims that to be ethical or worthwhile has some splainin' to do.As for freedom only a libertarian would suggest that charging the whole cost for a commodity infringes upon ones freedom.
As for your conclusion, the problem is that it does get in the way of my pursuit of happiness. I have asthma and being constantly exposed to other people's pollution has a very definite negative impact on my health. It's rather amazing how people can suggest that exposing other people to the results of their pollution is somehow their right or ethical. Some pollution is inevitable, but there's nothing ethical about allowing the markets to misprice a commodity and imposing the externalities on innocent bystanders.
I'd like to live in such a system as it's better than what we have currently. What we have currently is a system where most people's income goes up less slowly than inflation and the various costs of living and a tiny minority's income sky rockets during a recession.
Compared to your alternative where ones income would be going up at roughly the same rate as inflation, I know what I would take.
Which is one of the reasons why it's good to be in a country with a guaranteed standard of living and why it sucks to be poor in America.
We spend so much money ensuring that people won't get more than they've earned that we end up ensuring that most people end up getting a lot less than they've earned. What's worse is we don't pay any attention to people plundering the economy when they do it via white collar crime.
Yes, but if they're just reporting an average salary half of the people will be getting below average salaries. It's a lot more informative if you get mean, median and standard deviate. Preferably with some indication of how the samples are distributed.
A mean alone is of very little value unless you've also sorting things in a way that makes sense. For instance a mean that covers the entire country is going to be somewhat worthless as one could be making a good salary in one part of the country and effectively impoverished someplace like NYC, and be making the same amount of money.
Why shouldn't they get to? The problem we currently have is that the cost doesn't cover all the costs involved. It doesn't cover cleaning up the mess and it doesn't encourage people to figure out how to reduce their consumption. If a few percent of the people out there buy their way out of it, the people who can't afford to still benefit in terms of pollution and general quality of life.
And you're living in poverty? If you're a field engineer and you're living in poverty you've nobody but yourself to blame.
The vast majority of employees out there commute to a fixed location every day and do their work. Sure there are many jobs where that isn't the case, but honestly, how many of those pay the minimum wage?
That's bunk. If you raise fuel costs it doesn't necessarily mean that the vehicles are going to be less safe. Safety is a separate function and is supposed to be dealt with before the vehicles are on the market.
If you raise the price of gas the easiest ways of minimizing the cost are to either drive less or to drive slower and both of those are going to result in fewer fatalities. You don't magically remove safety features just because gas gets more expensive.
If they really worried about the poor, they would tax the hell out of gas and use the proceeds to fund mass transit. The only reason why the poor drive is because there aren't reasonable alternatives. I remember a few years back needing to be downtown early on sundays for work and having absolutely and completely options other than, taxi, private car or bike. The fact that there are times during the week when you have no transit options and that those times of day are more likely to have low income people commuting speaks volumes about the priorities of society.
This is a well known phenomenon and it's why you see such incredible fleet efficiency in Seattle compared with most of the rest of the country. Simply put between taxes and oil company gouging we pay more for our gas than they do in most of the rest of the country.
It's been known since the 19th century: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
Simply put if you don't tax the fuel sufficient to make up for the cost reduction you tend to get more fuel being consumed rather than less. There are limits to it, you're not going to suddenly start commuting 1000mi a day simply because of cheap gas, but it's less likely that you'll work close to home than if the gas was really expensive.
It's the TSA, they don't have the legal right to detain or arrest people except under the same ones that you or I can. Basically unless your activity falls into whatever qualifies one to make a citzen's arrest they can't legally detain you.
Any effort on their part to detain is a felony and at least on paper they can be sent to prison for it. TSA agents are just private security and they have no more rights than ordinary private security has.
That's something I wish more people understood. TSA does not have the legal rights that law enforcement officers have, and that includes conducting searches and detaining people. Of course the courts tend to be somewhat squeamish telling the executive branch that they can't do whatever they want, but the reality is that TSA has no more authority to operate than any other group of private security officers.
True, but the people that are best at solving those sorts of puzzles aren't necessarily the ones that you want. You want spread out through the company the ability to solve those sorts of problems, that does not necessitate that any one person be capable of solving them and in many cases having people solving the problems individually is the least efficient way of doing things.
Honestly, I'd recommend hiring only those that are clearly lying, the ones that don't appear to be lying are hardly the sort you want to have working with you.
Also, unless the job is specifically working with people, the ones that are best aren't necessarily going to be good at answering bullshit questions like that.
No, the internet around here isn't any faster than the internet was a decade ago. And it regularly takes a long time because the update process isn't very well thought out. It will insist upon downloading patches and software and then downloading ones that supercede them when just downloading the most up to date software would have done just fine.
And I've got little to complain about compared with the people around here who only have a 1.5mbps connection.
That's true, but somehow I suspect that a button that resets the computer isn't really aimed at the enterprise market.
I could be wrong about it, but I doubt that any sysadmin would be buying computers with that functionality without being forced to.
I'm from the US to, but that doesn't mean that I'd move to Iran and start badmouthing the Iranian authorities. Same goes for any other countries.
Even the US has its standards and if as somebody here on a visa one does something that pisses off the government one shouldn't be surprised if one isn't offered a renewal.
If one feels that strongly about it, one probably shouldn't be taking a job there. Pissing off the government in somebody elses country then accepting deportation as punishment is hardly something that's going to do much for the quality of life of the people living there.
It's probably best not to write bad things about the Emperor.
Seriously, when you're in somebody elses country you need to be really mindful about what you say or do that's likely to upset the government.
The DxOMark is a complete joke and comparing sensors with that fine of a difference in score is a losing proposition. The only legitimate way of comparing sensors is with 100% crops and actual field testing of the system. Yes, it's going to be somewhat arbitrary, but if a professional with experience can't rank one better than the other then there's really no reason to worry about it.
And at the end of the day, once you buy the first body you're mostly stuck with that system anyway. It gets to be quite expensive switching systems after that point typically.
Which comes at a cost, it's a lot easier to manually focus using the older system than it is with an EVF. True they will often times give a bit of help, but there just isn't enough pixels in the display to make that a viable option. Additionally, you give up battery life that could be used for other things like taking more photos or using a slightly smaller battery.
I definitely think that there's room in the market for 4/3 gear, but I definitely don't think that there's any reason for the dSLR design to get completely replaced as it just brings way too much to the table at this point to ditch. Not to mention the huge array of lenses that have been developed for it over the years.
Yes, but back then the alternatives weren't so capable.
Yes, I do get better images with a dSLR than I do with my new camera, but the difference isn't anywhere near large enough to justify dragging around that much equipment on a vacation. Unless my whole point in going is to take photos, and even then it gets hard to justify at times as you're having to make decisions based upon where you're willing to lug the gear to.
Beyond that, back then the discussion definitely happened, it's just that rather than arguing between a 35mm and a P&S, you were probably arguing between a large or medium format camera and a 35mm camera. Had P&S cameras been as functional then as they are now, it probably would have been an even larger argument.
The OP was asking specifically about a camera for travel that's not too technical and given the results that can be had with a quality P&S, it seems rather hard to suggest much more than that at this point in time. Give some time to learn composition and develop a love of photography before wasting a lot of money on lenses and bodies. My current camera cost almost exactly what my first lens cost nearly a decade ago.