any police officer can take you and have you strip searched for any reason whatsoever (let's say you're arrested for resisting arrest)
Actually resisting arrest is a relatively serious crime. The guy in the case was arrested because someone else driving his car had previously gotten a traffic ticket. The ticket had been paid and the man had a letter from the court stating that it had been paid. So he was arrested for the crime of being a citizen in good standing with the law. Then he was strip searched twice once while with several other prisoners. Both occasions involved the visual inspection of his genitals and anus.
So the Supreme Court ruled that it is perfectly reasonable to arrest someone for absolutely no reason hold her for a few days and repeatedly sexually humiliate her. I use the pronoun "her" in this case to get you thinking about how you would feel if it were your wife or daughter though it should bother you just as much if it were your son. Imagine that your 19 year old daughter had gotten a speeding ticket, paid it a bit late, but paid it in full, and was carrying proof, was then forcibly taken into custody for a few days and required to spread her legs and hold open her vagina while an officer shined a flashlight inside while several others stood around, then repeat for her anus; and again before going to court where the judge orders her released on her own recognizance. This is what the Supreme Court ruled in favor of.
I will say this now. Cops will abuse this (hell they have doing this for years only then sometimes they would get sued). If they don't like you they are now allowed to sexually assault you repeatedly. This ruling was vague enough that cops will probably push the boundaries (they always do) and begin using penetrating cavity searches.
I hope it happens to each of these justices kids and grandkids.
If they really want to reduce distracted driving this is what they should do: Whenever there is an accident both drivers' phone records for the previous minute should be automatically subpoenaed and reviewed. If either driver was talking or texting and is even partially at fault then arrest that person and treat it as a similarly serious crime as causing an accident while drunk. Since it has been shown that talking/texting while driving impairs driving as much as being legally drunk, the penalty should be comparable including loss of driving privileges, jail time, and massive exposure to tort liability. That might actually make a difference, since the current regime of drunken driving laws and the associated stigma have actually reduced drunken driving accidents.
Banning GPS displays will only force the directionally challenged back to using mapquest printouts, which means leafing through pages and trying to read a poorly labeled map while driving, which is unquestionably worse than a GPS.
Tariffs also can support a local fledgling industry against foreign predatory practices. So yes a consumer might pay more, but if the local economy is improved as a result then it may make it harder for YOU to get something you want, but it lifts our whole society to a more prosperous level. Also when you think you are paying less because of a lack of tariffs it is only because the transaction is ignoring external costs such as damage to the environment, and harm to human lives. The whole world eventually has to pay for those costs. So even within your own economic religious beliefs it is easy to cast doubt on your anti-tariff assertion.
But that wasn't my point. It is dogma. It may be logical when you accept the assumptions of the Washington Consensus, but when you choose a different set of assumption that logical structure falls apart. My point was that the economic system we have CHOSEN is just that, a choice. The Washington Consensus, and corporate/financial capitalism is a choice, not the result of natural laws. It is a system that is designed to benefit non-human agents (corporations, banks, certain governments) and a highly select few humans (those that are already very wealthy) at the expense of general human welfare. We could choose differently. In fact if our civilization is to survive, and liberty is to survive, we will soon have to choose differently.
Sarcasm noted. However, amost anyone who knows anything about Economics knows that the idea of tariff is a bad idea. Cure your ignorance: Read "Spin-free Economics" by Behravesh or any other good basic Economics book.
Not quite correct. Almost anyone who has been trained in the current economic dogma believes that a tariff is a bad idea. Economics is NOT science. It doesn't even really resemble science. It is a system of choices that are based on some very twisted values. We can make different choices. We can choose different values. As long as we continue to believe that Economics is a set of proven laws like physics we will be trapped in a world where a few people are fabulously wealthy, most just get by, and the rest are starving.
I'm not saying that tariffs will fix much. I am saying that you are simply quoting from a doctrine that is sold as truth, when it is really dogma.
With a SeeMe constellation, we hope to directly support warfighters in multiple deployed overseas locations simultaneously with no logistics or maintenance costs beyond the warfighters' handhelds," said Dave Barnhart, the programme's manager.
So somehow purchasing and launching 24 new satellites every 60 to 90 days counts as "no maintenance or logistics costs." No wonder the military budget is about a trillion dollars a year. sheesh.
I see your point, but calling Atheism a religion is the same as calling "not collecting stamps" a hobby.
True enough. The website I cited was trying to measure the relative population of people based on their self-identification as to religious affiliation. If someone asked me what religion I belonged to I would say, "I'm an atheist." So maybe it wasn't the best source for data to support my point. Of course to be fair someone who identifies as "Jewish" these days isn't necessarily making a claim to religious belief, that person could be making a statement of cultural or racial affiliation
What's the big problem with speed cameras? I don't see it.
Speed cameras register speeding offenses, nothing else. Whether, and to what extent, that's met by fines is determined by local politics (which everyone of us has a say in).
...
The essence of the problem seems to be that people simply distrust their local government to set a reasonable policy for those cameras. And isn't that a far more serious problem than mere cameras?
Actually the essence of the problem is that the local government almost never sets the policy for the cameras. The cameras are set up and administered by a for-profit corporation that gets a substantial cut of each fine. They then proceed to engage in all sorts of shady practices like changing the timing of yellow lights to less than State required times; sending out fake tickets that are similar to real tickets for many instances hoping that people will assume that it is an official summons and just pay the fine; configuring the cameras so that they ticket for stop-and-go right turns on red; and coercing car owners to provide evidence against the driver of a car by threatening legal action. Perhaps you believe this is all hyperbole? Please check out this lawyer's website. You'll be shocked at the documented cases of borderline criminal behavior that the red-light camera companies engage in.
highwayrobbery.net
Sorry dude, but I've read those. The popular mechanics article was just a series of strawman attacks. They chose the most absurd and laughable of the 9/11 theories, and shot those down.
I did read the NIST report on WTC7, believe it or not, in its entirety. I am a registered mechanical engineer in the state of california, and I have to say the the NIST report was poor science. What they did was build a computer model of the building (which they will not share) and the fiddled with the inputs until the model showed the beginning of a collapse. They also fail to share all the inputs that they used. In other words their explanation was a black box with unknown inputs, and they expect people to accept the results. That works for people who haven't read it, and it works for people without the training to see what shoddy work they did. But I've found that when real engineers and real architects actually confront the facts they join the chorus demanding a real investigation. I don't know what actually happened that day, but the NIST report on WTC7 isn't worth the paper it is printed on.
I would suggest that people who don't get all foaming at the mouth when the official story is questions, check this out:
Personally I find using chemicals to alter water chemistry in brewing purposeless and distasteful.
You know you are adding salts, sure they are chemicals, but saying "adding chemicals" makes it sound like you are adding polychlorinated biphenyls or something horrible like that. Calcium carbonate, sodium chloride, magnesium sulphate, etc... these are all salts, and are found naturally in water.
I personally love playing with the salts to improve the quality of my beer. It's not because I am trying to emulate the water from some particular place, but because different beer styles turn out better when the salts in the water support the chemistry of the brewing process. for instance the the hop flavor and aroma just works better in really hard water.
Higher sugar content during the boil can result in more caramelization. So if you are attempting a light colored beer you will end up with something darker by boiling some lesser volume then adding water to hit your target OG. Also adding water that isn't sterilized increased the possibility of non-yeast bugs eating your sugars and making your beer yucky.
a $20 billion per year business, with average recipients charged $750,000 for a transplant
Seriously, if this is such a big business, I want to be paid for my organs. Why should some medical institution or insurance company profit from my flesh? Obviously I won't be around to enjoy it, but I hope my son will. I would be very happy to know that my heart, liver, kidneys, eyes, etc. provided funding for his college education. I can't figure out any other way I'm going to be able to put him through school. Hell the state universities cost more than the private ones did in the late '80's.
Considering the 3 of the main religions on earth(christianity, islam, and judaism)
Whoa! Dude your facts are a bit off. Judaism doesn't even make the top ten!
Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.5 billion
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
primal-indigenous: 300 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
Slow, expensive, crappy, no porn, etc. are all good reasons Viewtron failed. But the biggest failure was it didn't connect people to people. It could connect people to institutions but that is about as fun as paying bills. The best applications on the early internet were about connecting people to each other. I discovered the internet in the late 80s when I went to college and Usenet was a revelation. There were discussions on every topic imaginable. It was like having a living encyclopedia. You could ask experts about subatomic particle at sci.physics or join in a debate about whether hamstering is an urban ledgend in alt.sex.bondage. It was that critical mass and diversity of people connected together that provided the vitality for the internet to hit the big time.
My GTI's motor was from Germany, the transmission was from So. America, and it was assembled in Mexico. It has been the most reliable car I've ever had, and I don't baby my cars.
I'd even go so far as to say you could use any weapon that you *BUILT* from raw materials during your hunt, i.e. sticks, spears, bows, arrows, etc
yada yada yada
I have no problem with hunting, even with high powered rifles. But what those people were doing wasn't hunting. They take live pigeons in cages, release them, and shoot at them while they flee captivity. Not even hunters really believe this is hunting or they wouldn't call it a "live pigeon shoot."
If you fly your aircraft low enough to be in shotgun range, I'd say they would be acting in self-defense shooting your stupid ass down.
Watch the video, linked on this page in a few places. It was way too high to be in shotgun range. Tree cover is quite thick for over 100 feet around the highway, but probably more like 200 feet (it's all in the video). This helicopter was WAY out of shotgun range. The eight reports I heard sounded like small caliber rifles reports to me. Regardless of what type of firearm it was, it is against the law to fire at or across a highway. Period. Every hunter knows this.
Oh and please explain to us all how a remote control helicopter with a video camera posed even the slightest threat to the life of the shooter.
And if women didn't walk around dressed like sluts, they wouldn't get raped.
That's true, but how does this relate to the conversation?
If I read the above correctly, there are at least two/.ers that believe that part or all of the blame for rape falls on the victim for not wearing a full birka. I'm ashamed of you. I ashamed for you. I'm ashamed that we look at the same website.
Mr. Oxford Comma Lover thoroughly debunks your right to shoot down airplanes over your property. But regardless, this helicopter was over a US Highway. Where I grew up (and learned about hunting) it is a pretty serious crime to shoot over a highway or towards a highway when you are within a certain range of it. IN FACT, if I recall correctly shooting AT ALL when you are within, I think, 300 yards of a Highway was a crime.
Slashdot Mirror
any police officer can take you and have you strip searched for any reason whatsoever (let's say you're arrested for resisting arrest)
Actually resisting arrest is a relatively serious crime. The guy in the case was arrested because someone else driving his car had previously gotten a traffic ticket. The ticket had been paid and the man had a letter from the court stating that it had been paid. So he was arrested for the crime of being a citizen in good standing with the law. Then he was strip searched twice once while with several other prisoners. Both occasions involved the visual inspection of his genitals and anus.
So the Supreme Court ruled that it is perfectly reasonable to arrest someone for absolutely no reason hold her for a few days and repeatedly sexually humiliate her. I use the pronoun "her" in this case to get you thinking about how you would feel if it were your wife or daughter though it should bother you just as much if it were your son. Imagine that your 19 year old daughter had gotten a speeding ticket, paid it a bit late, but paid it in full, and was carrying proof, was then forcibly taken into custody for a few days and required to spread her legs and hold open her vagina while an officer shined a flashlight inside while several others stood around, then repeat for her anus; and again before going to court where the judge orders her released on her own recognizance. This is what the Supreme Court ruled in favor of.
I will say this now. Cops will abuse this (hell they have doing this for years only then sometimes they would get sued). If they don't like you they are now allowed to sexually assault you repeatedly. This ruling was vague enough that cops will probably push the boundaries (they always do) and begin using penetrating cavity searches.
I hope it happens to each of these justices kids and grandkids.
If they really want to reduce distracted driving this is what they should do: Whenever there is an accident both drivers' phone records for the previous minute should be automatically subpoenaed and reviewed. If either driver was talking or texting and is even partially at fault then arrest that person and treat it as a similarly serious crime as causing an accident while drunk. Since it has been shown that talking/texting while driving impairs driving as much as being legally drunk, the penalty should be comparable including loss of driving privileges, jail time, and massive exposure to tort liability. That might actually make a difference, since the current regime of drunken driving laws and the associated stigma have actually reduced drunken driving accidents.
Banning GPS displays will only force the directionally challenged back to using mapquest printouts, which means leafing through pages and trying to read a poorly labeled map while driving, which is unquestionably worse than a GPS.
Tariffs also can support a local fledgling industry against foreign predatory practices. So yes a consumer might pay more, but if the local economy is improved as a result then it may make it harder for YOU to get something you want, but it lifts our whole society to a more prosperous level. Also when you think you are paying less because of a lack of tariffs it is only because the transaction is ignoring external costs such as damage to the environment, and harm to human lives. The whole world eventually has to pay for those costs. So even within your own economic religious beliefs it is easy to cast doubt on your anti-tariff assertion.
But that wasn't my point. It is dogma. It may be logical when you accept the assumptions of the Washington Consensus, but when you choose a different set of assumption that logical structure falls apart. My point was that the economic system we have CHOSEN is just that, a choice. The Washington Consensus, and corporate/financial capitalism is a choice, not the result of natural laws. It is a system that is designed to benefit non-human agents (corporations, banks, certain governments) and a highly select few humans (those that are already very wealthy) at the expense of general human welfare. We could choose differently. In fact if our civilization is to survive, and liberty is to survive, we will soon have to choose differently.
Sarcasm noted. However, amost anyone who knows anything about Economics knows that the idea of tariff is a bad idea. Cure your ignorance: Read "Spin-free Economics" by Behravesh or any other good basic Economics book.
Not quite correct. Almost anyone who has been trained in the current economic dogma believes that a tariff is a bad idea. Economics is NOT science. It doesn't even really resemble science. It is a system of choices that are based on some very twisted values. We can make different choices. We can choose different values. As long as we continue to believe that Economics is a set of proven laws like physics we will be trapped in a world where a few people are fabulously wealthy, most just get by, and the rest are starving.
I'm not saying that tariffs will fix much. I am saying that you are simply quoting from a doctrine that is sold as truth, when it is really dogma.
More Private than Facebook!?!
How about more stable than Windows.95
Better multiprocessing than DOS.
Better mileage than a Hummer.
More than Less than and excess of
High voter turn out is a sign of a healthy democracy.
With a SeeMe constellation, we hope to directly support warfighters in multiple deployed overseas locations simultaneously with no logistics or maintenance costs beyond the warfighters' handhelds," said Dave Barnhart, the programme's manager.
So somehow purchasing and launching 24 new satellites every 60 to 90 days counts as "no maintenance or logistics costs." No wonder the military budget is about a trillion dollars a year. sheesh.
I see your point, but calling Atheism a religion is the same as calling "not collecting stamps" a hobby.
True enough. The website I cited was trying to measure the relative population of people based on their self-identification as to religious affiliation. If someone asked me what religion I belonged to I would say, "I'm an atheist." So maybe it wasn't the best source for data to support my point. Of course to be fair someone who identifies as "Jewish" these days isn't necessarily making a claim to religious belief, that person could be making a statement of cultural or racial affiliation
What's the big problem with speed cameras? I don't see it.
Speed cameras register speeding offenses, nothing else. Whether, and to what extent, that's met by fines is determined by local politics (which everyone of us has a say in).
Actually the essence of the problem is that the local government almost never sets the policy for the cameras. The cameras are set up and administered by a for-profit corporation that gets a substantial cut of each fine. They then proceed to engage in all sorts of shady practices like changing the timing of yellow lights to less than State required times; sending out fake tickets that are similar to real tickets for many instances hoping that people will assume that it is an official summons and just pay the fine; configuring the cameras so that they ticket for stop-and-go right turns on red; and coercing car owners to provide evidence against the driver of a car by threatening legal action. Perhaps you believe this is all hyperbole? Please check out this lawyer's website. You'll be shocked at the documented cases of borderline criminal behavior that the red-light camera companies engage in. highwayrobbery.net
Sorry dude, but I've read those. The popular mechanics article was just a series of strawman attacks. They chose the most absurd and laughable of the 9/11 theories, and shot those down. I did read the NIST report on WTC7, believe it or not, in its entirety. I am a registered mechanical engineer in the state of california, and I have to say the the NIST report was poor science. What they did was build a computer model of the building (which they will not share) and the fiddled with the inputs until the model showed the beginning of a collapse. They also fail to share all the inputs that they used. In other words their explanation was a black box with unknown inputs, and they expect people to accept the results. That works for people who haven't read it, and it works for people without the training to see what shoddy work they did. But I've found that when real engineers and real architects actually confront the facts they join the chorus demanding a real investigation. I don't know what actually happened that day, but the NIST report on WTC7 isn't worth the paper it is printed on.
I would suggest that people who don't get all foaming at the mouth when the official story is questions, check this out:
ae911truth.org
Personally I find using chemicals to alter water chemistry in brewing purposeless and distasteful.
You know you are adding salts, sure they are chemicals, but saying "adding chemicals" makes it sound like you are adding polychlorinated biphenyls or something horrible like that. Calcium carbonate, sodium chloride, magnesium sulphate, etc... these are all salts, and are found naturally in water.
I personally love playing with the salts to improve the quality of my beer. It's not because I am trying to emulate the water from some particular place, but because different beer styles turn out better when the salts in the water support the chemistry of the brewing process. for instance the the hop flavor and aroma just works better in really hard water.
Higher sugar content during the boil can result in more caramelization. So if you are attempting a light colored beer you will end up with something darker by boiling some lesser volume then adding water to hit your target OG. Also adding water that isn't sterilized increased the possibility of non-yeast bugs eating your sugars and making your beer yucky.
a $20 billion per year business, with average recipients charged $750,000 for a transplant
Seriously, if this is such a big business, I want to be paid for my organs. Why should some medical institution or insurance company profit from my flesh? Obviously I won't be around to enjoy it, but I hope my son will. I would be very happy to know that my heart, liver, kidneys, eyes, etc. provided funding for his college education. I can't figure out any other way I'm going to be able to put him through school. Hell the state universities cost more than the private ones did in the late '80's.
Calm down dude, and explain why WTC7 came down.
Considering the 3 of the main religions on earth(christianity, islam, and judaism)
Whoa! Dude your facts are a bit off. Judaism doesn't even make the top ten!
Christianity: 2.1 billion
Islam: 1.5 billion
Secular/Nonreligious/Agnostic/Atheist: 1.1 billion
Hinduism: 900 million
Chinese traditional religion: 394 million
Buddhism: 376 million
primal-indigenous: 300 million
African Traditional & Diasporic: 100 million
Sikhism: 23 million
Juche: 19 million
Spiritism: 15 million
Judaism: 14 million
from adherents.com
Slow, expensive, crappy, no porn, etc. are all good reasons Viewtron failed. But the biggest failure was it didn't connect people to people. It could connect people to institutions but that is about as fun as paying bills. The best applications on the early internet were about connecting people to each other. I discovered the internet in the late 80s when I went to college and Usenet was a revelation. There were discussions on every topic imaginable. It was like having a living encyclopedia. You could ask experts about subatomic particle at sci.physics or join in a debate about whether hamstering is an urban ledgend in alt.sex.bondage. It was that critical mass and diversity of people connected together that provided the vitality for the internet to hit the big time.
The CX-5 (and every car for that matter) is a THNEED!
Some neat special effects can;t cover up the fact that Avatar was simply a blatant plagarism of Pocahontas.
Which in turn was a blatant plagiarism of Dances With Wolves.
Which in turn was a blatant plagiarism of the Mission.
Some neat special effects can;t cover up the fact that Avatar was simply a blatant plagarism of Pocahontas.
Which in turn was a blatant plagiarism of Dances With Wolves.
In other news Astrolabe sues Little Orphan Annie for failing to pay royalties for the use of database in the song Tomorrow.
"The sun 'll come out tomorrow! Bet your bottom dollar that tomorrow, there'll be sun...."
My GTI's motor was from Germany, the transmission was from So. America, and it was assembled in Mexico. It has been the most reliable car I've ever had, and I don't baby my cars.
I'd even go so far as to say you could use any weapon that you *BUILT* from raw materials during your hunt, i.e. sticks, spears, bows, arrows, etc
yada yada yada
I have no problem with hunting, even with high powered rifles. But what those people were doing wasn't hunting. They take live pigeons in cages, release them, and shoot at them while they flee captivity. Not even hunters really believe this is hunting or they wouldn't call it a "live pigeon shoot."
If you fly your aircraft low enough to be in shotgun range, I'd say they would be acting in self-defense shooting your stupid ass down.
Watch the video, linked on this page in a few places. It was way too high to be in shotgun range. Tree cover is quite thick for over 100 feet around the highway, but probably more like 200 feet (it's all in the video). This helicopter was WAY out of shotgun range. The eight reports I heard sounded like small caliber rifles reports to me. Regardless of what type of firearm it was, it is against the law to fire at or across a highway. Period. Every hunter knows this.
Oh and please explain to us all how a remote control helicopter with a video camera posed even the slightest threat to the life of the shooter.
And if women didn't walk around dressed like sluts, they wouldn't get raped.
That's true, but how does this relate to the conversation?
If I read the above correctly, there are at least two /.ers that believe that part or all of the blame for rape falls on the victim for not wearing a full birka. I'm ashamed of you. I ashamed for you. I'm ashamed that we look at the same website.
Mr. Oxford Comma Lover thoroughly debunks your right to shoot down airplanes over your property. But regardless, this helicopter was over a US Highway. Where I grew up (and learned about hunting) it is a pretty serious crime to shoot over a highway or towards a highway when you are within a certain range of it. IN FACT, if I recall correctly shooting AT ALL when you are within, I think, 300 yards of a Highway was a crime.