Dangerous to your trim, maybe. Dangerous to your life? Not so much.

It is not speed, but difference in speed, which is dangerous to your life. I fear the one coming up behind me at a difference of 50+ MPH MUCH more than the one next to me doing a couple MPH different. Yeah, the guy next to me may take out my mirror or scuff my door, but the guy behind me may kill me.

> The first sentence of TFA and TFS says "The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that police can stop and search a driver based solely on an anonymous 911 tip."

Adorable.

> I haven't read the decision myself

Perhaps you should.

> so I could be wrong,

You are.

> but that's what it says here.

Adorable.

Allow me. From the decision

Syllabus

A California Highway Patrol officer stopped the pickup truck occupied by petitioners because it matched the description of a vehicle that a 911 caller had recently reported as having run her off the road. As he and a second officer approached the truck, they smelled marijuana. They searched the truck's bed, found 30 pounds of marijuana, and arrested petitioners. Petitioners moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the traffic stop violated the Fourth Amendment. Their motion was denied, and they pleaded guilty to transporting marijuana. The California Court of Appeal affirmed, concluding that the officer had reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigative stop.

Held: The traffic stop complied with the Fourth Amendment because, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer had reasonable suspicion that the truck's driver was intoxicated. Pp. 3-11

http://www2.bloomberglaw.com/p...

> Does this seem like yet another easily fabricated excuse the police can use to search your property?

Uh... no. No search is involved or permitted solely based on an anonymous tip... just pulling someone over. This falls under the "reasonable suspicion" standard for pulling someone over. They pulled me over for "accelerating too fast out of an intersection" at about the time the bars were closing... that was reasonable suspicion that I was drinking and driving and all they needed to pull me over even though there IS no crime for "accelerating too fast".

The "reasonable suspicion" standard is MUCH lower than "probable cause" which is required for a search. They still can't search you based on an anonymous tip... just pull you over and ask you questions, which you can of course refuse to answer.

People discussing this issue would do well to bone up on the difference between "reasonable suspicion" and "probable cause". People misuse the terms all the time... they are very different, and anyone who interacts with, or may interact with the police, should know what the terms mean.

The United States was founded on a conspiracy. Literally.

That the people are being conditioned to automatically consider anything labeled a "conspiracy" automatically laughable says a lot about the degeneration of the U.S.

It is only through hindsight that we can say that a desire to ferret out communist subversives was "irrational". At this time during the cold war, considering that there actually WERE subversives and attempts to subvert the USA's government, a desire and hunting for such subversives was a very understandable and reasonable concern. Protecting itself and it's integrity is a proper role for government and there were valid concerns.

What made McCarthyism bad not the hunt for subversives per se, it was tossing out the constitution in the hunt for subversives.

"Even though it's really no different to people talking to the person next to them,"

Yes, it is different. On a phone conversation, you can only hear one side of the conversation. Our minds tend to try to fill in the blanks and attempt to make sense of the conversation, which does not occur when you can hear both sides of a conversation.

So yes, phone conversations ARE more annoying than "in person" conversations.

> If your employer doesn't like you, they figure out how to fire you.

They can fire you simply because they don't like you. That's all the reason required.

If they don't like you because you are a woman, or are black, that's a different matter. But simple, non-prejudiced dislike is enough reason to fire someone.

Our government explicitly says, privacy is a threat to our safety, and it is the duty of our government to prevent privacy from being possible at all costs.

Go ahead, people. Keep voting for the republicans, because at least they are not democrats. Oh, I mean, keep voting for democrats, because at least they are not republicans. NOTHING is going to change that way. They'll keep boning us up the ass with this "oh noooo... can't have privacy.... TARE! Fnord! War on TARE!!!!"

Actually y'know what? Fuck y'all. YOU are responsible for this. Not me. I have not voted for either major party in DECADES. YOU... YOU are responsible for allowing this to happen. YOU have gotten the government you deserve, you half-wits. Sadly, I am the one who has to suffer for you turds voting for the jackasses (Bush, Obama, whatever) who allow and enable shit like this.

First sentence says "Saudi Cleric" claims something is so. Why would anyone with any sense read any further? What are you guys, masochists? Do you intentionally look for things to irritate you? Surely you were aware than nothing beneficial or insightful can follow in anything beginning with "Saudi Cleric claims..."

Stop intentionally finding things to piss yourself off. You'll live a healthier, and probably longer, life.

"Why should the casino cheat? The odds are already in their favor. "

True. That's why you never see a casino go bankrupt.

Oh wait. Nvm.

Yes. For significant amounts of time. In Nevada, the courts take cheating very seriously and issue sentences involving years of jail time for cheating at a casino.

Laws specifically addressing cheating are absolutely required. By your example, simple breaches of the rules would lead to jail.

For example, the rules of craps say that you pick up and throw the dice with one hand. Touching the dice with both hands at the same time is forbidden. Doing so is against the rules.

So this simple breach of the rules... according to you, would lead to jail.

" if you are winning in a game of chance with the odds firmly tilted"

If you play basic strategy Blackjack (which is easy, because almost all casinos allow you to use a basic strategy card at the table... printed matter the size of a credit card to use as reference to how to play the hands) the house advantage is about 0.44%. Shooting craps and betting the pass line with odds yields about a 0.8% house advantage. I hardly call that "firmly tilted"

In such games it is possible to win for quite some time... often, up to days of elapsed play... before the house advantage eventually causes you to become a net loser.

Compare this to the typical 50% advantage states typically have in lottery games.

It is not the job of police to enforce EVERY law. The concept is called "selective enforcement" and result in things like cops issuing warnings, issuing a verbal scolding, or choosing not to cite at all for some things.

One question is often asked at interviews for police work is, "You catch your mother speeding. Do you give her a ticket?"

The proper answer is, "no". Departments don't want people who would give their own mother a speeding ticket. Contrary to popular belief, departments want thinking human beings, not robocops.

True.

It's sad that there are filters in place to ensure that only liars and the spineless can get elected to high office.