LOL... No you won't. Most police officers know full well what you are doing and why and unless you start being obnoxious or threatening the Taser will stay holstered. They might arrest you, but that takes some kind of probable cause to justify. No way they just Taser you for refusing to answer questions.

Do you know how much paper work it is when they dig that thing out and use it? If there is ONE thing they hate it is paperwork because if they care any about doing their jobs and catching the bad guys, it's the paperwork that takes them away from that the most.

I'm beginning to think way to many people watch cop shows and figure it's always like what they see on TV.. Not eve close, at least hardly ever...

Do what you think is right, but I'm telling you, you have nothing to gain by doing that and it might cost you someday..

Not in the default minimum install of Red Hat 6... (or is it?)

I'd not argue with you too much, having somebody digging in the glove box might look bad, but as long as the officer is in his car it might be better to get that over with before he gets out. There will be some time lag as he is on the radio with dispatch and running your plate anyway, I'm just trying to get a jump on the process that's about to unfold so I don't have to go digging with the officer at the window. If you think it's best to wait, I get your point, but if the required documents are on the dash in front of you, things will go faster.

FIFY.... (IMHO)

Everybody doing Linux work needs to know VI, at least well enough to get Emacs running. If you want to do an IDE, you are going to need X which used to require editing that huge config file where I used VI. Why bother with Emacs, unless you write LISP code anyway... Syntax highlighting? Does that even work in the terminal version?

Look at it from the police officer's perspective. There are a number of nutcases out there who would gladly harm anybody in uniform. A sane police officer realizes that it is not always obvious who these people are, so the best course of action is to be ready to react and not get into dangerous situations if you don't need to.

This is why I do EVERYTHING I can to be nonthreatening when dealing with the police. I turn on lights at night, keep my hands in plain view, and if I have to go digging in my pockets or the glove compartment I first tell the officer what I'm going to do, turn to face away from him before I do it and make sure to show them my palms before I turn back. I want them to be as comfortable and feel as safe as I can because there job is risky enough without me causing them undue stress.

Nope, step out and close the door, unless they tell you not to.

The reason I'm saying this is because they can use their eyes, ears and noses. So they can look at what is visible behind you and listen to what's going on in the house behind you. If you go outside and close the door and step away from the house, they are not getting the "free" albeit limited search while they talk to you and that gives them less opportunity to "invent" a reason to search.

I'd also figure that the police would be less threatened by stepping away from the house because you are putting the "unknowns" of what's inside further away from them. On that note, you want to make sure you make no threatening looking moves. That means you keep your hands visible and sit down if possible, speak respectfully and stay calm.

All I'm saying is that there is no legal benefit to letting them in your house... If there is a religious benefit for you that outweighs the worldly, do what you must....

LOL

That's why you DON'T resist. You respectfully make it clear that you did not consent to a search of your phone. If they ask "May I look at your phone?" you say "No, not without a warrant", if they do it anyway, you might want to say "I didn't give you permission to look at my phone, please put it down" Keep trying until they tell you to shut up.

If the police insist on doing something illegal, like searching your phone without a warrant or permission, it's going to be a matter for the courts to figure out.... Just make sure you make enough of a fuss so people around will remember that you obviously objected so you will have witnesses Nobody else there? Sorry dude, they are going to do what they want and that includes shooting you, so choose carefully.

Perhaps, but what do you say when they ask you where you are going? I would suggest that you NOT answer. Yes, it may raise suspicion when you say "Respectfully officer, I'm not required to answer that question." but not knowing why you have been pulled over what choice do you have? Now if it's obvious why you've been pulled over I suppose it serves no purpose to start the "may I go" bush beating, but it's also not in your interest to start confessing or feeding the officer any information he might not already have.

So at at traffic stop what do you do? Start by asking "Is there a problem officer?" or "How can I help you officer?" Put the car in park and turn it off. Get your license, registration and insurance card ready. Keep your hands in plain view (on the steering wheel) and your window open no more than half way (at night turn on the inside lights in the car). Go from there. If you don't want to go full press "Respectfully officer I don't have to answer that question." then go with non-answers like "Where are you going?" => "I'm out for a drive." Why are you a long way from home? => "Taking a vacation/Visiting some people I know" or whatever says nothing specific. "Do you know how fast you where going?" => "I was keeping pace with other traffic." Why do you think I pulled you over? => "I don't know for sure officer, why did you?" If it's obvious he's not letting you go, don't ask. But if he hands you back your paperwork, THEN you ask if you are free to go.

The whole idea here is to be non-threatening, respectful and cooperative, but not giving any definitive answers, agreeing to any claims the officer may make or consenting to any searches and then ending the interaction with the police as quickly as possible.

As opposed to trying to physically stop them?

The advise is sound. Do NOT consent to a search, make it clear you do not consent to as many people as possible. Even if you don't think you have anything to hide, do NOT consent to a search, ANY search... Ever... Period... You don't have to be obnoxious or disrespectful to make it clear you do not consent.

If you think they are searching your phone, say something like "Officer, I didn't give anybody permission to search my phone and I object to you looking at it." If they ask you why, you only need to repeat "Officer, with all due respect, I do not give permission for any searches." If they ask you if you have anything to hide, keep saying the same thing.

Further, I would recommend that you not answer any questions they may ask either. Once you have provided your identification, you are done answering questions with anything but "Respectfully officer, I am not required to answer your question. May I leave now?" If they say "No" or indicate that you may not leave, then you ask "Am I under arrest?" If they say you are not under arrest start the process at "May I leave now?" and keep going around the same bush until they let you leave or arrest you. Once they arrest you, SHUT UP. Say nothing but "I want my lawyer present before I will answer any questions." If they let you go, GO!

Follow this process, even if you have nothing to hide. Where it may seem to be a pain, you literally have NOTHING to gain by consenting to searches or answering questions and doing so may cost you, so it makes no sense to be cooperative. If they come to your door, don't invite them in, just step outside and close your door behind you. Remember, no answers to their questions, and no permission for any searches. Go back inside once they let you go.

Yea, and the sun will burn out too. Look, for the foreseeable future, fossil fuel is what we have to use, best we get used to that idea and stop all this nonsense. If they want to develop technology, go ahead, we just don't have to jump on everything *new* just because it's billed that way.

Call me when you get any of these solutions scaled up to industrial sized production. Something may show up here that improves the Solar->electricity->hydrogen->electricity efficiency overall, but you will be forever stuck having to disassociate hydrogen from oxygen in water in some way and that has a limited efficiency no matter what you do.

IMHO, it's a fools errand to advocate something based on unproven technology or what *might* be in the future, especially when we have enough engineering experience to know what the process limits are. In this case, hydrogen sourced from water will simply not be efficient, and any other source would be subject to the same kinds of issues that Natural Gas has.

If you insist.... I don't agree this is true, but hey, go ahead and be wrong... As to the rest of your posting... Clearly you are not voicing a valid position to start with, so why bother trying to correct your ignorance more than once.

Enjoy living the dream.... While it lasts.. (full stop)

Yes, legally you must... Now if they cannot read what you wrote, who's going to know?