The part where you made it up. Watch the fucking video, she stops when asked to stop: That's not harassment.
Ah yes. That's why there's giant gaps in the footage. Because she just went away after that, and started being a good little girl.
here, have another glass of koolaid.
Harassment is you trolling this thread with your redundant bullshit.
Great, so in addition to having to explain the word "harassment" to you, I now have to explain "trolling" and "redundant"? I think your ESL teacher failed you.
so you think police are justified in arresting people because they are doing something that the policeman disagrees with on a personal level? Really? that's your argument?
I'm sorry, what part of "harassment" did you not understand? Need me to speak more slowly?
what if i find out a cop has a particular religious affinity? and i go out of my way to mock that affinity "God a fag" or something to that affect? would he be justified in arresting me then?
A good friend of mine is a cop, and I mock his religious affiliation on a regular basis. On the other hand, I wouldn't dream of running up to him as part of a giant crowd, while he's on duty, and screaming such insults in his face. If you don't see the difference, you're an idiot, and you deserve no sympathy when you get arrested.
Also, the female cop obviously saw the funny side of this, she was smirking quite a lot.
If she wants to goof off and chat with the crowd instead of doing her job, that's an issue for her and her supervisor to sort out.
Most of that isn't really worth responding to, but I will comment on one bit, for your benefit:
Which is the type of thing that only happens in a police state where you're allowed to arrest people for doing nothing and detain them for hours on end.
You already made a similar remark once, but I let it slip by. Now I'm starting to think that you really are too stupid to stay out of the cross-hairs. Since you clearly don't actually know what a police state is, you may be interested to know that police in ANY nation can arrest you without giving you a reason, and can detain you for varying periods of time without laying any charges. If you think that those powers are restricted to police states, you're delusional. For your own safety, I suggest you disabuse yourself of this notion ASAP.
That is all. You take care now. Try to stay out of trouble.
A cop is supposed to be able to put up with way, WAY worse things in a demonstration environment - they're trained to put up with that sort of crap
And then she'd sue you and the force for millions of dollars, claiming it caused horrible pain and permanent damage when it got in her eyes.
Then we could go play "juggle the cameras".
Yeah, it's a fun game, but unless you can guarantee that you've got ALL the cameras, you're just making things worse.
But, I wouldn't arrest you, if I had arresting powers. There are always interesting ways to solve problems.
I'm betting you've never worked in law enforcement. "interesting ways to solve the problem" usually end up causing more problems than just arresting the fucker. Or at least they do when there are witnesses around.
I endure insulting comments and inane questions at work all the time
Yeah, I'm sorry that your boss likes to point out your incompetence, but we're talking different orders of magnitude here.
A cop is supposed to be able to put up with way, WAY worse things in a demonstration environment - they're trained to put up with that sort of crap
No, actually, they're not. If you go out of your way to harass a cop, they can and will arrest you. There is no part of a cops job-description which states "must act as play-thing for every twit he meets", and so police are not trained to take your shit. I'm not sure where you got these weird ideas, but you've been lied to.
Yeah, yeah, and you raped a kid and curb-stomped a puppy. See, I can make up shit too!
I was in TO for the G20. It was a blast. Never got arrested, never got threatened, just had a fun time strolling around the streets and then hit the bars in the evenings with my friends. The only people getting arrested were the twits who were intentionally causing problems, or who were too stupid to stay out of the cross-hairs. If you fall into either of those categories, I don't have much sympathy for ya.
Why? Because he got pissed off with a couple of assholes who were intentionally baiting him?
Let me know where you work so I can drop by with a film crew and blow bubbles in your face while making insulting comments and asking inane questions. See how you respond.
Your definition of "soviet" seems muddled, and the rest is completely unsupported. You don't like the Conservatives, fine, that's your choice; there's no need to make up bullshit to try and justify your dislike of them.
Um, the "government" has been "dissolved" something like 120+ times since it was formed. And the G20 was great fun for all involved.
Also, your comment is completely off-topic, and the mods are smoking crack again. None of the things you brought up have anything to do with either the original article or what I was talking about.
Thing is, this is the least "soviet" government we've had in a LONG time.
The summary is pure hyperbole. There's nothing anti-science about the current government; people just stick that label on them because it's a conservative majority. The entire uproar is a manufactroversy - government funded scientists are still free to conduct their research and publish their findings free of interference, they're just limited in their contact with the media. Seeing as how pretty much every other arm of the government has the same limitations, I personally don't see an issue here.
I think it's just as important for them to understand what can be done, personally. I'd like to see more of a balance, so I don't have to run into so many people so completely convinced that nothing can ever improve and we've already explored every option available.
I dunno, I get the opposite - constantly running into people who insist that there must be purple leprechauns riding unicorns in heaven because "we don't know everything". I find it hard to believe that you've found a large number of people who are convinced that we've discovered everything there is to know about absolutely everything.
Anyway, analyses is the plural of analysis, FWIW.
Hah. That'll teach me to trust the firefox spellchecker. Stupid mozilla.
If you've ever seen the episode where they were doing washboard road driving speeds, and used deflection of the shocks as an indicator of ride smoothness, and got it completely backwards, you'd not be surprised that they get calls to redo their analyses frequently.
Actually, I'm not surprised that they "get calls to redo their analyses [sic] frequently" because there are plenty of stupid people out there who are more than happy to insist that their pet theory is correct, regardless of how thoroughly it's demolished. The fact that the mythbusters are non-experts, and therefore tend to make the occasional mistake, is irrelevant in comparison.
Personally I find it an interesting window into our culture that the most popular science-based show is based around tearing down ideas.
Given that 90% of what you hear on any given day is either outright wrong or flawed in some way, I'd expect nothing less. Educating people about new discoveries is all well and good, but it sure would be nice if we could get them to stop believing crap that was disproved 200 years ago.
I agree. "Parents at St. Vincent Euphrasia elementary school in Meaford, Ont., voted to ban Wi-Fi transmitters, after some students reported feeling ill after they were installed." Of course banning wifi is silly but I applaud the school for listening to the majority of the parents.
I have to question that article. I spent quite a bit of time in the Meaford area, and while the locals might not be the smartest folk in Canada, they're not a pack of knuckle-dragging troglodytes, either. As a gut-reaction, I'd say it's much more likely that the PTA is either lying through their teeth, or when they talk about "voting" they're referring to the 5 or 6 yokels who happen to show up for PTA meetings rather than the populace as a whole. Either way, I'd love to see more detail on how exactly this decision was reached.
Right. Given the choice between educating people and giving in to their irrational fears..... give in, every time! Oh noes, here comes another solar eclipse! Duck and cover!
*shrug* Ok, but if you actually informed people that "the definition" of peak oil is "when we decided to get it from overseas instead", you wouldn't be able to get away with all the fear-mongering that's attached to that term.
No, it's not a good analogy. We can ramp up nuclear any time we choose.
And we can ramp up oil any time we choose. If you're going to ignore the fiscal and political implications of ramping up nuclear plant construction, I can just as easily ignore the fiscal implications of ramping up oil production.
Bad analogy. "Peak nuclear" is merely due to a lack of construction of nuclear power plants, not lack a lack of nuclear fuel.
Yes, which is exactly why it's a good analogy. "Peak oil" in the US is also "merely due to a lack of construction" - there's still plenty of oil left in the ground.
lol. Well, yeah, that's true. In that case, the US also reached peak-nuclear a few decades ago. However, if that's your definition, it's just as useless as the one I suggested.
What Carter was discussing was resources in the USA
[citation needed]
Since we passed peak oil in the continental USA in the 70s
You did? Funny, I could have sworn that the US still has the worlds largest supply of oil shale. Plus oil sand. Plus coal. Plus plenty of offshore oil, and oil in Alaska. I guess "peak oil" to you just means "we have less than we used to"?
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's not just soap bubbles, it's crowd control.
The part where you made it up. Watch the fucking video, she stops when asked to stop: That's not harassment.
Ah yes. That's why there's giant gaps in the footage. Because she just went away after that, and started being a good little girl.
here, have another glass of koolaid.
Harassment is you trolling this thread with your redundant bullshit.
Great, so in addition to having to explain the word "harassment" to you, I now have to explain "trolling" and "redundant"? I think your ESL teacher failed you.
I watched the video...
... and you know everything about the situation. Bravo, Mr. Armchair Quarterback - you've saved the day again!
so you think police are justified in arresting people because they are doing something that the policeman disagrees with on a personal level? Really? that's your argument?
I'm sorry, what part of "harassment" did you not understand? Need me to speak more slowly?
what if i find out a cop has a particular religious affinity? and i go out of my way to mock that affinity "God a fag" or something to that affect? would he be justified in arresting me then?
A good friend of mine is a cop, and I mock his religious affiliation on a regular basis. On the other hand, I wouldn't dream of running up to him as part of a giant crowd, while he's on duty, and screaming such insults in his face. If you don't see the difference, you're an idiot, and you deserve no sympathy when you get arrested.
Also, the female cop obviously saw the funny side of this, she was smirking quite a lot.
If she wants to goof off and chat with the crowd instead of doing her job, that's an issue for her and her supervisor to sort out.
Hey, I tried to help. You want to play internet-lawyer with the cops, you'll only have yourself to blame. Good luck!
Most of that isn't really worth responding to, but I will comment on one bit, for your benefit:
Which is the type of thing that only happens in a police state where you're allowed to arrest people for doing nothing and detain them for hours on end.
You already made a similar remark once, but I let it slip by. Now I'm starting to think that you really are too stupid to stay out of the cross-hairs. Since you clearly don't actually know what a police state is, you may be interested to know that police in ANY nation can arrest you without giving you a reason, and can detain you for varying periods of time without laying any charges. If you think that those powers are restricted to police states, you're delusional. For your own safety, I suggest you disabuse yourself of this notion ASAP.
That is all. You take care now. Try to stay out of trouble.
A cop is supposed to be able to put up with way, WAY worse things in a demonstration environment - they're trained to put up with that sort of crap
And then she'd sue you and the force for millions of dollars, claiming it caused horrible pain and permanent damage when it got in her eyes.
Then we could go play "juggle the cameras".
Yeah, it's a fun game, but unless you can guarantee that you've got ALL the cameras, you're just making things worse.
But, I wouldn't arrest you, if I had arresting powers. There are always interesting ways to solve problems.
I'm betting you've never worked in law enforcement. "interesting ways to solve the problem" usually end up causing more problems than just arresting the fucker. Or at least they do when there are witnesses around.
I endure insulting comments and inane questions at work all the time
Yeah, I'm sorry that your boss likes to point out your incompetence, but we're talking different orders of magnitude here.
A cop is supposed to be able to put up with way, WAY worse things in a demonstration environment - they're trained to put up with that sort of crap
No, actually, they're not. If you go out of your way to harass a cop, they can and will arrest you. There is no part of a cops job-description which states "must act as play-thing for every twit he meets", and so police are not trained to take your shit. I'm not sure where you got these weird ideas, but you've been lied to.
Yeah, yeah, and you raped a kid and curb-stomped a puppy. See, I can make up shit too!
I was in TO for the G20. It was a blast. Never got arrested, never got threatened, just had a fun time strolling around the streets and then hit the bars in the evenings with my friends. The only people getting arrested were the twits who were intentionally causing problems, or who were too stupid to stay out of the cross-hairs. If you fall into either of those categories, I don't have much sympathy for ya.
Why? Because he got pissed off with a couple of assholes who were intentionally baiting him?
Let me know where you work so I can drop by with a film crew and blow bubbles in your face while making insulting comments and asking inane questions. See how you respond.
The G20 incident was just straight up totalitarianism in action
lol. Thanks, I almost took you seriously there for a minute :)
You do know that here in Canada we have free health care, including mental-health, right?
Your definition of "soviet" seems muddled, and the rest is completely unsupported. You don't like the Conservatives, fine, that's your choice; there's no need to make up bullshit to try and justify your dislike of them.
Um, the "government" has been "dissolved" something like 120+ times since it was formed. And the G20 was great fun for all involved.
Also, your comment is completely off-topic, and the mods are smoking crack again. None of the things you brought up have anything to do with either the original article or what I was talking about.
Thing is, this is the least "soviet" government we've had in a LONG time.
The summary is pure hyperbole. There's nothing anti-science about the current government; people just stick that label on them because it's a conservative majority. The entire uproar is a manufactroversy - government funded scientists are still free to conduct their research and publish their findings free of interference, they're just limited in their contact with the media. Seeing as how pretty much every other arm of the government has the same limitations, I personally don't see an issue here.
I think it's just as important for them to understand what can be done, personally. I'd like to see more of a balance, so I don't have to run into so many people so completely convinced that nothing can ever improve and we've already explored every option available.
I dunno, I get the opposite - constantly running into people who insist that there must be purple leprechauns riding unicorns in heaven because "we don't know everything". I find it hard to believe that you've found a large number of people who are convinced that we've discovered everything there is to know about absolutely everything.
Anyway, analyses is the plural of analysis, FWIW.
Hah. That'll teach me to trust the firefox spellchecker. Stupid mozilla.
If you've ever seen the episode where they were doing washboard road driving speeds, and used deflection of the shocks as an indicator of ride smoothness, and got it completely backwards, you'd not be surprised that they get calls to redo their analyses frequently.
Actually, I'm not surprised that they "get calls to redo their analyses [sic] frequently" because there are plenty of stupid people out there who are more than happy to insist that their pet theory is correct, regardless of how thoroughly it's demolished. The fact that the mythbusters are non-experts, and therefore tend to make the occasional mistake, is irrelevant in comparison.
Personally I find it an interesting window into our culture that the most popular science-based show is based around tearing down ideas.
Given that 90% of what you hear on any given day is either outright wrong or flawed in some way, I'd expect nothing less. Educating people about new discoveries is all well and good, but it sure would be nice if we could get them to stop believing crap that was disproved 200 years ago.
I agree. "Parents at St. Vincent Euphrasia elementary school in Meaford, Ont., voted to ban Wi-Fi transmitters, after some students reported feeling ill after they were installed." Of course banning wifi is silly but I applaud the school for listening to the majority of the parents.
I have to question that article. I spent quite a bit of time in the Meaford area, and while the locals might not be the smartest folk in Canada, they're not a pack of knuckle-dragging troglodytes, either. As a gut-reaction, I'd say it's much more likely that the PTA is either lying through their teeth, or when they talk about "voting" they're referring to the 5 or 6 yokels who happen to show up for PTA meetings rather than the populace as a whole. Either way, I'd love to see more detail on how exactly this decision was reached.
Right. Given the choice between educating people and giving in to their irrational fears ..... give in, every time! Oh noes, here comes another solar eclipse! Duck and cover!
This is why we don't put people like you in positions of power.
*shrug* Ok, but if you actually informed people that "the definition" of peak oil is "when we decided to get it from overseas instead", you wouldn't be able to get away with all the fear-mongering that's attached to that term.
No, it's not a good analogy. We can ramp up nuclear any time we choose.
And we can ramp up oil any time we choose. If you're going to ignore the fiscal and political implications of ramping up nuclear plant construction, I can just as easily ignore the fiscal implications of ramping up oil production.
Bad analogy. "Peak nuclear" is merely due to a lack of construction of nuclear power plants, not lack a lack of nuclear fuel.
Yes, which is exactly why it's a good analogy. "Peak oil" in the US is also "merely due to a lack of construction" - there's still plenty of oil left in the ground.
lol. Well, yeah, that's true. In that case, the US also reached peak-nuclear a few decades ago. However, if that's your definition, it's just as useless as the one I suggested.
What Carter was discussing was resources in the USA
[citation needed]
Since we passed peak oil in the continental USA in the 70s
You did? Funny, I could have sworn that the US still has the worlds largest supply of oil shale. Plus oil sand. Plus coal. Plus plenty of offshore oil, and oil in Alaska. I guess "peak oil" to you just means "we have less than we used to"?