I'm sorry that I called you a liar and was generally shitty to you in my last reply. I shouldn't have done that. You hit a nerve and I was having a bad day. I hope that you have a nice weekend.

No, in fact, I did not. You seem to be a little bit confused. Or a liar. Or both. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're just confused.

Whatever the case, confused, liar, or confused liar, I don't see any point in continuing this thread. Therefore, I will bid you adieu. That's French for goodbye.

Oh, was I not clear? The gains are not coming from the marketplace.

According to your source, the gains are not coming from the marketplace. From your own link:

I'm fairly certain that my ISP can't authorize a third party to conduct searches on my local computer. If VAC were asking my ISP for DNS history, you might have a point... but that's not what was happening here.

http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/bills.cfm?ID=129_SB_305
(I) This section does not apply to a box, safe, container, or other item added to a vehicle for the purpose of securing valuables, electronics, or firearms provided that at the time of discovery the box, safe, container, or other item added to the vehicle does not contain a controlled substance or visible residue of a controlled substance.

So it's OK to have a hidden compartment in your car as long as it does not contain a controlled substance or visible residue of a controlled substance. For the record, I still think the law is crap but it's not as bad as the article makes it out to be.

I'm having trouble seeing how you can call what he did whistleblowing. He didn't find evidence of wrongdoing and send it to a third party to investigate... he released tens of thousands of cables wholesale. He had no idea what he was releasing to the public, and I haven't seen a single cable that shows wrongdoing on the part of the US government. If they exist, point them out and I'll retract that statement. But even if he had exposed crimes, it still doesn't excuse his actions. If a gunman fires randomly into a crowd and ends up killing a wanted felon accidentally, that doesn't excuse the original crime. Manning needlessly put lives at risk. He should be punished.

>It's the job of educators to make complicated material straightforward to understand.

Well, almost. It is the job of educators to make complicated material as straightforward and easy to understand as possible, but no more. Some things are just plain hard. Additionally, educators must concern themselves with what works for the majority of their students, and have to accept that they won't be able to make things clear for everyone. There comes a point of diminishing returns in simplification and ultimately it is the responsibility of the student to fill in the gaps.

>If it can't be done that way YET, then people with more imagination than you will figure out how to do it. All I ask is that you don't stand in their way, or denigrate them as they accomplish what you cannot imagine.

And in return I ask that you recognize that educators are doing their damndest to teach material that they have spent a lifetime gathering and that expecting them to have a magic bullet is unreasonable in the extreme.

In addition to the point made by _0xd0ad, note that camera takes a picture of everything in its field of view which may include the car in front of or behind a car running a red light, and, depending on camera placement, cars which are legally stopped at the intersection. So no matter the country where the camera is deployed, it will probably be capturing innocent vehicles along with offenders.

Red light cameras take pictures of everyone at the light, not just those running it.

How long before we have " I am the 95%" protests?

From TFA:

>Two text analysis tools were used to examine the crime narratives of 14 psychopathic and 38 non-psychopathic homicide offenders

The abstract indicates that the study only looked at homicide offenders, and compared them only to other homicide offenders, not to any non-homicide offenders. They also only looked at a total of 52 people which doesn't seem like enough to me. There are so many factors which can change an individual's speech patters that claiming that the findings mean anything at all is irresponsible.

Take this study with a statistically significant grain of salt.

I wasn't aware that place names weren't allowed to change over time. Do you still refer to Canada as The Dominion of Canada too, or do you just stick with New France to be safe? If you want to be truly pedantic, it should be pointed out that the term "America" was originally only applied to what is today South America, with North America labeled "Terra Incognita" or Unknown Lands. So what right to you have to say that YOU live in America at all? According to Vespucci, you may not.

And at £10 per request, this could turn into a profit center for Facebook.