Ok, now before techies start calling me an idiot, I know what a noise-cancelling microphone is, but I thought it sounds a little funny and contradictory. After all, aren't microphones supposed to *detect* noise?
The Attorney General should be going after parents who don't parent their children. But no politician has the balls to go after his own irresponsible constituents.
According to Hillary, lobbyists represent the people. Remember that question when someone asked her if she would keep taking money from lobbyists?.....She forgot to say ".....people representing corporations and special interests with lots and lots of money".
All of these Social Networking sites should put up a "gate" page where the visitor has to check a box stating that they are not affiliated with an educational institution and waive their right/ability to enforce the policies of their institutions, or the policies of other institutions.
"I state that I am not an employee of, or affilitated with an employee of any educational institution. I understand that any information acessed through (name of website) may not be used for the enforcement of any school/company/business/department/city law/code/policy/statute and I agree not to inform any school/company/business/department/city employee or affilliate of any information/data/statements contained within this site. I also agree/understand that this information is not to be used/acessed/copid/reproduced or utilized in any way in policy/code/conduct/disciplinary enforcement proceedings/actions against or for any persons photographed/mentioned/described in information/data/statements containd/stored within this site."
It's really not that hard. I'm suprised that nobody has done it yet. Not only that, it would be a massive boost for a social networking site that does something like this. Schools would hate it, since they waived their authority and agreed not to discipline anybody they found violating their "ethics" on the site.
Wouldn't inspecting a laptop without suspicion constitute unlawful search and seizure?
I mean, it's pretty much the same thing as a traffic stop, albeit regarding a laptop and not a car.
I've been pulled over and (usually warned, but occasionally ticketed) at all hours of the day and not been asked if it was O.K. to search my truck.
I have only once been asked if my car could be searched, and the officer had enough probable cause to search it without question, since I had 1500 rounds of ammunition sitting on my front seat. The fact that he asked me about the ammo wasn't suprising, but the fact he asked for permission to search was. Now, I completely understood the officer's request to search, given I had ammunition on the front seat and not a bag of chips. That alone resonably constitutes PC. He told me who he was, why he pulled me over (it was obvious to both of us), and took my DL, registration, and insurance info. After I handed it to him, he asked me about my ammunition. He asked if I had ever been arrested, if I could legally posses firearms or ammunition, and if I had firearms in my truck. Then he asked if he could search my car, and after I said "Yes", he had me step out of his car and sit in his (before you say anything, he pulled me over and found ammunition-alot of it, so it was prudent to have me sit in the car and not just stand behind him). No handcuffs or anything. Just a 5 minute wait. That's it, and I was on my way. Funny thing was, I had obviosly run a red light (the turn lane next to me had a green, but I had a red and went through the intersection with the cop facing me), yet all I got was a handshake and a "Have a nice day". No ticket.
Now, the officer that stopped and searched me OBVIOUSLY had probable cause to do everything that he did (I mean, 1500 rounds on the front seat?), but searching someone's laptop simply because they entered the country is NOT suspicious. It's not unusual for someone to enter the country nowadays with a laptop of somekind of electronic device.
However, if they swab it down with the little cloth wand (which is what they are supposed to do) that they then test in somekind of small mass analyzer and it comes up POSITIVE, then there is suspicion, but if they get a NEGATIVE reading, what suspicion is there?
Those agents need to get laid by a real woman, and not get their jollies from someone's steamy e-book instead.
When I buy a CD, I have PURCHASED the CD and the data contained on it. It is now my property. Period.
When you buy a cd, you puchase the disk and the music/data on it. You do NOT purchase a license to simply use the disk and listen to the music. That being said, if I buy a CD, then I should have the right to make as many copies of the music on it as I see fit, as long as I don't sell those copies to other people.
If the RIAA wants to start this whole EULA-esque crap, then they should state that you are not buying a CD, but rather purchasing a license.
1. Microwave it. 2. Stick it under an N50 strength magnet. 3. Overload the induction loop. 4. Overheat it (car dash, heat register) 5. Zap it with bursts of static (from a cheap static gun) 6. Place it in a very strong electromagnetic field.
Or, for a slightly more viible approach:
7. Drill a *very* small hole through the chip itself 8. Freeze it with a can of compressed "air" (the kind you buy in an electronics store) or butane (lighter refill) and then shatter the chip with a tack hammer 9. Hit the chip with a hammer and nail punch. 10. Damage the chip in some way with a hatpin.
*Disclaimer: This information is for informational and/or educational purposes only.
Not only that, but they have this spring-lock spout that you have to hold back in order for the gas to pour out. The spring is usually pretty strong, so holding it back while to balance a 5 gallon gas can is a bitch. Even more so, since the nozzles are so short, they won't go into the truck's fillpipe, which makes it *REALLY* hard to fill your truck tank. Funny how they make such a big deal redesigning and legislating something that is supposed to reduce evaporaive emissions, yet causes you to spill gasoline all over the ground, your car, and yourself. Way to go.
Try this link:
http://www.blitzusa.com/products/fuel/Containment/pfc5mc.htm
Fortunately, the old-school steel cans are still available.
Just because they have PhDs doesn't mean they are compensating for the Hawthone Effect, although they should be compensating for it.
If the researchers ARE ALSO the observers, then the Hawthorne Effect WILL affect the outcome of their results. If the researchers are NOT the observers, then the results will be closer to true.
CapsaicinBoy's immature comment is probably the result of Small Man Syndrome, but I can't conclusively diagnose that, since I am also an observer. If he had a brain, he'd realize that having an educational degree doesn't mean studies are without error.
It did compel a behavioral change in me: I smacked her, and the urge to smack her more and more never went away.
As to limiting the State use of power against criminals, are you saying that limiting the State's use of power against criminals is more important than law-abiding citizens using power against criminals?
"And as for throwing away the rights of law-abiding citizens, that is the whole idea of limiting State use of force against people: you never know when you are going to be the one on the receiving end of the force being used."
-----So the whole idea of limiting State use of power is to take rights away from law-abiding citizens? You *DO* know when you will be the one on the receiving end of the force being used: Be compliant with the law, compliant with officers if you break the law, and do not threaten or pose a danger to other citizens or officers. If an investigation is unlawful, then raise the issue in court. Therefore, they have no lawful reason to use force against me, you, or anyone.
How does taking away power from citizens to use against criminals limit the State's use of power against criminals? (What are you smoking??)
As for your "Thought experiment": You get tasered BEFORE you go to court, ONLY if you A) Assualt an officer during an investigation, B) Refuse to comply with lawful commands issued by an officer (stop, put your hands up, get on the ground) during a lawful investigation, C) Resist a lawful arrest, D) Become combative during lawful detention during a lawful investigation, or E) Threaten the safety of another citizen or officer.
Avoiding getting tasered isn't rocket science: Comply with the law. If you fail that, then comply with the officers. Do not assault/rob/beat/mug/rape/threaten people.
So, does this mean that the girl who pinched me in the 2nd grade (and I have several witnesses) can be brought before the Hague Tribunal and charged with torture?
How about the "mathematically masochistic" math teachers whose endless sermons gave me brain-wrenching migranes?
How about the next baseball pitcher who accidentally nails a batter with a fastball? Is EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO CAUSES the sensation of pain in another individual now a TORTURER? Interestingly enough, the UN also considers pepper spray and Mace (50% CS + 50% CN) to be illegal chemical weapons, even if used by civilians.
Would the UN like it better if we just shot criminals as a means of obtaining compliance whenever they are violent towards law-abiding citizens?
How can such "noble" organizations throw away the rights of law-abiding citizens, especially in terms of self defense, and support the rights of the criminals over the rights of those actually respecting the rule of law? The UN is just like California: The criminals are better off that law-abiding citizens.
It's better that Cookie Monster ate pipe, rather than layed pipe.
Seeing as how toys today are sanitized and regulated to the point of near-banishment, I'm amazed how I survived my childhood, especially since it was rife with chemistry sets,.22 rifles, BB guns, firecrackers, model rockets, tools, electronics, cars, and fishing rods. Everything but cruise missiles.
I'm not one to let the Government get away with doing stupid things, but releasing a site for the global release of sensitive information is equally as stupid.
Sometimes, people don't know what the government is doing, and it is best kept that way.
This site, although well-intentioned, is practicing the very stupidity and wrongdoing that it is claiming to be against and help prevent.
Now, people have a way of leaking and releasing VERY SENSITIVE information on a global scale ANONYMOUSLY. So, if some 'mole' starts leaking information about national security issues on this site, the government can only sit back and wait to see what his/her next post will be about.
It's amazing how these morons are perfectly content with granting anonymity to people who release information that puts *EVERYBODY* at harm.
This site does nothing more that tell us stuff that any Joe can find out, except they are willing to grant anonymity to people who are actually leaking information that can put countries at greater risk by allowing their sensitive information to be posted globally without risk or consequense to the mole.
I hope someone manipulates this site just to show how badly it can be abused.
Slashdot Mirror
Noise-cancelling microphone.
Ok, now before techies start calling me an idiot, I know what a noise-cancelling microphone is, but I thought it sounds a little funny and contradictory. After all, aren't microphones supposed to *detect* noise?
Ok, I'll shut up now.
The Attorney General should be going after parents who don't parent their children. But no politician has the balls to go after his own irresponsible constituents.
I played BurgerTime on my old NES when I was a kid, yet I didn't get fat.
According to Hillary, lobbyists represent the people. Remember that question when someone asked her if she would keep taking money from lobbyists? .....She forgot to say ".....people representing corporations and special interests with lots and lots of money".
All of these Social Networking sites should put up a "gate" page where the visitor has to check a box stating that they are not affiliated with an educational institution and waive their right/ability to enforce the policies of their institutions, or the policies of other institutions.
"I state that I am not an employee of, or affilitated with an employee of any educational institution. I understand that any information acessed through (name of website) may not be used for the enforcement of any school/company/business/department/city law/code/policy/statute and I agree not to inform any school/company/business/department/city employee or affilliate of any information/data/statements contained within this site. I also agree/understand that this information is not to be used/acessed/copid/reproduced or utilized in any way in policy/code/conduct/disciplinary enforcement proceedings/actions against or for any persons photographed/mentioned/described in information/data/statements containd/stored within this site."
It's really not that hard. I'm suprised that nobody has done it yet. Not only that, it would be a massive boost for a social networking site that does something like this. Schools would hate it, since they waived their authority and agreed not to discipline anybody they found violating their "ethics" on the site.
Wouldn't inspecting a laptop without suspicion constitute unlawful search and seizure?
I mean, it's pretty much the same thing as a traffic stop, albeit regarding a laptop and not a car.
I've been pulled over and (usually warned, but occasionally ticketed) at all hours of the day and not been asked if it was O.K. to search my truck.
I have only once been asked if my car could be searched, and the officer had enough probable cause to search it without question, since I had 1500 rounds of ammunition sitting on my front seat. The fact that he asked me about the ammo wasn't suprising, but the fact he asked for permission to search was. Now, I completely understood the officer's request to search, given I had ammunition on the front seat and not a bag of chips. That alone resonably constitutes PC. He told me who he was, why he pulled me over (it was obvious to both of us), and took my DL, registration, and insurance info. After I handed it to him, he asked me about my ammunition. He asked if I had ever been arrested, if I could legally posses firearms or ammunition, and if I had firearms in my truck. Then he asked if he could search my car, and after I said "Yes", he had me step out of his car and sit in his (before you say anything, he pulled me over and found ammunition-alot of it, so it was prudent to have me sit in the car and not just stand behind him). No handcuffs or anything. Just a 5 minute wait. That's it, and I was on my way. Funny thing was, I had obviosly run a red light (the turn lane next to me had a green, but I had a red and went through the intersection with the cop facing me), yet all I got was a handshake and a "Have a nice day". No ticket.
Now, the officer that stopped and searched me OBVIOUSLY had probable cause to do everything that he did (I mean, 1500 rounds on the front seat?), but searching someone's laptop simply because they entered the country is NOT suspicious. It's not unusual for someone to enter the country nowadays with a laptop of somekind of electronic device.
However, if they swab it down with the little cloth wand (which is what they are supposed to do) that they then test in somekind of small mass analyzer and it comes up POSITIVE, then there is suspicion, but if they get a NEGATIVE reading, what suspicion is there?
Those agents need to get laid by a real woman, and not get their jollies from someone's steamy e-book instead.
When I buy a CD, I have PURCHASED the CD and the data contained on it. It is now my property. Period.
When you buy a cd, you puchase the disk and the music/data on it. You do NOT purchase a license to simply use the disk and listen to the music. That being said, if I buy a CD, then I should have the right to make as many copies of the music on it as I see fit, as long as I don't sell those copies to other people.
If the RIAA wants to start this whole EULA-esque crap, then they should state that you are not buying a CD, but rather purchasing a license.
The Soviets also had a problem with using liquid sodium reactors in their submarines and ships.
Yup. There are many ways to ruin the RFID chips.
1. Microwave it.
2. Stick it under an N50 strength magnet.
3. Overload the induction loop.
4. Overheat it (car dash, heat register)
5. Zap it with bursts of static (from a cheap static gun)
6. Place it in a very strong electromagnetic field.
Or, for a slightly more viible approach:
7. Drill a *very* small hole through the chip itself
8. Freeze it with a can of compressed "air" (the kind you buy in an electronics store) or butane (lighter refill) and then shatter the chip with a tack hammer
9. Hit the chip with a hammer and nail punch.
10. Damage the chip in some way with a hatpin.
*Disclaimer: This information is for informational and/or educational purposes only.
The USS Semen?
What about shop rights?
"I know that California has already established it's reputation as the land of fruits and nuts"
:-)
If I had any Mod points left, THAT would have definitely gotten one. May I have permission to use that line?
Not only that, but they have this spring-lock spout that you have to hold back in order for the gas to pour out. The spring is usually pretty strong, so holding it back while to balance a 5 gallon gas can is a bitch. Even more so, since the nozzles are so short, they won't go into the truck's fillpipe, which makes it *REALLY* hard to fill your truck tank. Funny how they make such a big deal redesigning and legislating something that is supposed to reduce evaporaive emissions, yet causes you to spill gasoline all over the ground, your car, and yourself. Way to go. Try this link: http://www.blitzusa.com/products/fuel/Containment/pfc5mc.htm Fortunately, the old-school steel cans are still available.
Don't Forget: Gas Cans and Labor
Actually, he's right.
Just because they have PhDs doesn't mean they are compensating for the Hawthone Effect, although they should be compensating for it.
If the researchers ARE ALSO the observers, then the Hawthorne Effect WILL affect the outcome of their results. If the researchers are NOT the observers, then the results will be closer to true.
CapsaicinBoy's immature comment is probably the result of Small Man Syndrome, but I can't conclusively diagnose that, since I am also an observer. If he had a brain, he'd realize that having an educational degree doesn't mean studies are without error.
Only in a Math class or when your Mother-In-Law is visiting.
Someone should tag this:
owmyballs!
As to limiting the State use of power against criminals, are you saying that limiting the State's use of power against criminals is more important than law-abiding citizens using power against criminals?
"And as for throwing away the rights of law-abiding citizens, that is the whole idea of limiting State use of force against people: you never know when you are going to be the one on the receiving end of the force being used."
-----So the whole idea of limiting State use of power is to take rights away from law-abiding citizens? You *DO* know when you will be the one on the receiving end of the force being used: Be compliant with the law, compliant with officers if you break the law, and do not threaten or pose a danger to other citizens or officers. If an investigation is unlawful, then raise the issue in court. Therefore, they have no lawful reason to use force against me, you, or anyone.
How does taking away power from citizens to use against criminals limit the State's use of power against criminals? (What are you smoking??)
As for your "Thought experiment": You get tasered BEFORE you go to court, ONLY if you A) Assualt an officer during an investigation, B) Refuse to comply with lawful commands issued by an officer (stop, put your hands up, get on the ground) during a lawful investigation, C) Resist a lawful arrest, D) Become combative during lawful detention during a lawful investigation, or E) Threaten the safety of another citizen or officer.
Avoiding getting tasered isn't rocket science: Comply with the law. If you fail that, then comply with the officers. Do not assault/rob/beat/mug/rape/threaten people.
"Acute pain" constitutes a form of torture?
So, does this mean that the girl who pinched me in the 2nd grade (and I have several witnesses) can be brought before the Hague Tribunal and charged with torture?
How about the "mathematically masochistic" math teachers whose endless sermons gave me brain-wrenching migranes?
How about the next baseball pitcher who accidentally nails a batter with a fastball? Is EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO CAUSES the sensation of pain in another individual now a TORTURER? Interestingly enough, the UN also considers pepper spray and Mace (50% CS + 50% CN) to be illegal chemical weapons, even if used by civilians.
Would the UN like it better if we just shot criminals as a means of obtaining compliance whenever they are violent towards law-abiding citizens?
How can such "noble" organizations throw away the rights of law-abiding citizens, especially in terms of self defense, and support the rights of the criminals over the rights of those actually respecting the rule of law?
The UN is just like California: The criminals are better off that law-abiding citizens.
It's better that Cookie Monster ate pipe, rather than layed pipe.
.22 rifles, BB guns, firecrackers, model rockets, tools, electronics, cars, and fishing rods. Everything but cruise missiles.
Seeing as how toys today are sanitized and regulated to the point of near-banishment, I'm amazed how I survived my childhood, especially since it was rife with chemistry sets,
I'm not one to let the Government get away with doing stupid things, but releasing a site for the global release of sensitive information is equally as stupid.
Sometimes, people don't know what the government is doing, and it is best kept that way.
This site, although well-intentioned, is practicing the very stupidity and wrongdoing that it is claiming to be against and help prevent.
Now, people have a way of leaking and releasing VERY SENSITIVE information on a global scale ANONYMOUSLY. So, if some 'mole' starts leaking information about national security issues on this site, the government can only sit back and wait to see what his/her next post will be about.
It's amazing how these morons are perfectly content with granting anonymity to people who release information that puts *EVERYBODY* at harm.
This site does nothing more that tell us stuff that any Joe can find out, except they are willing to grant anonymity to people who are actually leaking information that can put countries at greater risk by allowing their sensitive information to be posted globally without risk or consequense to the mole.
I hope someone manipulates this site just to show how badly it can be abused.
Take your crappy sales pitch somewhere else. It's not wanted here.
If this continues, I can already visualize the sequel to "Demolition Man":
(FART!)
***BUZZZ***
"John Spartan, you have been fined one credit for the improper venting of greenhouse gasses."
Can I earn carbon credits for passing up that jumbo bowl of Montezuma's Revenge Chili at Pedro's Gas N' Go?
I mean, whenever I eat it, I'm definitely venting more greenhouse gasses than most forms of life. What about credits for holding in a generous fart?
Who wrote this article?! A third grader??