See also: the baseball card bubble of the late 1980's, then recall that Beanie Babies were also hyped as investments around the same time as those comic books. Now you've even got investing lingo subtly worked into the direct advertising for many kids' games and toys. "Gotta catch 'em all!", "special display case" etc.

This linked article about Lego investors reeks of being bought and paid for by by current "investors" hoping to fuel a massive Lego collecting craze, and then dump their stock onto the market for huge profits and ruin yet another popular toy for the kids who'd actually benefit from actually playing with them. If this were an article about a traditional investment (Stock, mutual fund, etc.) I'd expect the SEC would be investigating it as a "pump and dump" scheme.

Perhaps the only bright spot in this is that if they successfully create a great Lego bubble, then in 10-20 years, Legos will readily be available for about $1 per pound too!

I know this is /. and all, but could you consider R(ing)TFA?

Lumia is #4 on the list and Surface is #7. Granted, the LA Times must have a very lucrative advertising agreement with Microsoft, that their angle was about Oprah touting the Surface... from her iPad.

Though I can agree with you that failing to even mention Windows 8 was an awful oversight. I was somewhat dubious about it from the get go, and upon release figured it's yet another ME or Vista. But I saw the Surface as a train wreck in the making from the very first press release I got wind ~1yr ago. Perhaps I am biased in that I scored one of the fire sale TouchPad's back in August 2011, which I've since replaced with a Kindle Fire.

I did some contract work for an MS store just ahead of their October unveiling, and saw the manager working 16 hour days trying to ensure a successful release event. It was all I could do not to let her see me shaking my head and muttering "Poor thing!" as she talked about her high hopes and expectations for the event and beyond.

It is interesting to note however, that the WBC relieved very little interest and attention from mainstream churches and even the media and society at large in the days when they primarily picketed the funerals of homosexuals and/or AIDS victims. Once they started picketing military funerals and beyond, the public at large has become aware of and annoyed by their actions. To the point now where there is massive outrage about their planned presence in Newtown, CT.

It's just too easy to ignore injustice bestowed upon people who are "different": Police shootings of minorities; Exculpatory evidence in capital trials of people with a "past"; A deadly fire in the poor side of town; Missing children who aren't white, female, and photogenic, and so on.

I believe this is the perfect complement to the ideal of universal free speech -- Standing up for the rights of all people regardless of their ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, or station in life.

What's more egregious: A bunch of douche nozzle lawyers picketing the funerals of very young shooting victims, or a mega-corporation's lawyers generating more profit for themselves by forcing their front line employees into public-subsidized housing, nutrition, and medical assistance in the US, while maintaining deplorable conditions in the labor camps overseas to produce the wares they sell, meanwhile lobbying officials to maintain generous tax breaks for themselves, loosen trade and labor regulations further and to aid in quashing any efforts of their workforce to organize?

I credit my firewall, noscript, flashblock, MSE, SpyBot S&D, the HOSTS file from mvps.org, and my own common sense to keep my system protected from virii, trojans, and drive-by downloads. The worst I've ever had to clean up on my own system were a couple tracking cookies.

I believe I have far greater odds of having a tire blow-out on the highway than a virus on my computer, yet I don't spend 30 minutes every morning inspecting my tires.

True, and I agree one is free to express their creativity so long as the process isn't likely to cause harm to anyone.

But at the same time, you have to take into account the amount of real world experience a TSA agent and a crowd of people actually has, and if you really want to provoke the likely ignorance you'll encounter.

Take the innards out of a magic eight-ball, tie a couple knots at the end of a short length of cotton rope and push the outer knot through the aperture leaving the tail hanging out. You'll have a classic cartoon "bomb" which a person of reasonable intellect would not see as a very credible threat. But try to nonchalantly hold this in your hand as you walk toward an airport security checkpoint. I'd bet you'd find people panicking, followed by you getting tackled by goons, then restrained and blindfolded in a windowless room while the airport is evacuated.

The bomb squad will shortly thereafter confirm that your mock-up poses no real threat and in fact contains no suitable bomb-making materials at all. However, it's a safe bet that you're the lead story on the news tonight, and you will be charged with "disturbing the peace" at a bare minimum but more likely other "terrorism" charges will be thrown at you anyway. And it may be a very long while before you ever see the light of day again.

Here's $5.. I'll take two. Keep the change!

Heck, that won't even cover a 6-pack of Coors. There goes your grad students!

Not a chance if you happen to live in any of the 41 non-contested states. Vote for anyone you want in Georgia or California... The outcome is already conceded by the D's and the R's. Your vote in those places does not matter! If you happen to live in one of the 9 swing states, you've probably tossed your television and radio out the window by now. You've heard how both the D and the R will destroy America as we know it! So don't vote for either one of them.

Go here and vote for whomever's platform best matches your own values... If that happens to be the D or the R, so be it. If you're a typical /.'er you'll probably match with someone like Jill Stein, Rocky Anderson, or Gary Johnson.. Vote for any of them... If you're an extreme Xenophobe and worship at the altars of Limbaugh and O'Reilly; you definitely won't match with the D and probably not with the R--you might match up best with Virgil Goode of the Constitution party..

Vote *your* conscience and *your* choice, not the lesser evil, or whom you've been told repeatedly to vote for!

In all fairness, I'd contend that if you were a Chinese citizen in your homeland and made a similar statement about the Chinese authorities; you'd have much higher odds of spending time in a labor camp than you do as a US citizen speaking out about the abuse of authority here. So much so that an open discussion like this thread is pretty much unthinkable in many parts of the world.

There have been a number of cases over the years where U.S. cops were caught planting narcotics and arresting innocent people--usually non-natives who speak little or no English. I think it's fairly safe to assume that not every such occurrence was discovered and aired on the media, so who knows whether this is a rare anomaly or if it's pervasive? Our culture tends to assume people in prison are guilty and we're unlikely to ever hear from or about "those monsters" again--well unless someone is exonerated after serving 20 years of a life sentence for a crime they didn't commit.

Our present legal system does not favor the acquittal of 100 guilty over the conviction of one innocent. It's a lofty and noble idea, but it is pure fiction. Unless you are essentially indigent or are charged with a capital crime, you most likely are going to have to pay for your own legal counsel. So say you are charged with possession, with intent to distribute, narcotics. Whether you're guilty or not, once you've taken out a 2nd or 3rd mortgage to post bond; you'll have to retain an attorney who will be racking up the billable hours long before you ever get your day in court. There'll be the discovery process and pretrial hearings. If you still have a dime to your name after that, then will be the jury selection process which will add the cost of those jury consultants to your tab. Then you get to trial and you add the cost of all those expert witnesses on your behalf to your tab. Hopefully this results in your acquittal, in which case you hopefully still have a job after all that time off trying to clear your name. You still have that arrest record though, probably going to have a few more billable hours trying to get that expunged. Or were you convicted? Well you can appeal, but you no longer have the "presumption of innocence". and thus you can't simply have the case retried, rather you can argue that the evidence and/or testimony presented wasn't valid; so good luck with that one!

Now that you see it may cost a few hundred thousand or more to try to clear your name without guarantee of success, your attorney will suggest accepting a plea bargain--simple possession perhaps? You can serve 4-6 months in minimum security prison, drug rehab program, 3 years probation, and then you can try to rebuild your life again trying to land a job, flat broke, but hopefully not too deeply in debt, with the drug conviction on your record. This is how over 2/3rd of indictments are settled! Innocent or guilty, doesn't matter. This is the legal system we have today, and the only real hope of keeping your livelihood intact with minimal damage is to have a huge bankroll to work with--something that's probably easier to do if you actually happen to be a drug kingpin.

So the perverse reality is: one guilty person walks for every 100 innocent/guilty who go to jail.

Your examples are clear examples of the Plain View doctrine. If an officer on his/her regular beat overhears a conversation about bomb making; that's probably good enough to secure a warrant. If, however, the cop entered private property to eavesdrop on a conversation through an open rear window, or was using a super sensitive uni-directional microphone to listen in from across the street without a warrant; that would be an unlawful search. Similarly, observing those peroxide containers outside a dumpster might invoke probable cause; randomly digging through dumpsters down a block for possibly suspicious items would not be legal.

That said, what's to keep a police depart from using thermal imaging to identify grow houses and, with the aid of ANPR networks, locate vehicles observed at that address and pulling them over for failing to signal a lane change or some other minor traffic offense, detain the driver and search the vehicle?

How can you shred something which was already destroyed via the "USA PATRIOT Act"?

So sayeth the person who posted AC.

Another /.'er posted a quote a while back that I've, umm, appropriated in other conversations on this topic: "Everybody poops, but it takes a very special person to do so in public." Suppose it wasn't your wife you were talking dirty to, but your mistress--or secret gay lover. Have you ever used marijuana, or taken medicines prescribed to someone else, or driven over the speed limit, or overestimated your charitable contributions come tax time, or many other laws, or indiscretions? Certainly you've kept track of the tens of thousands of laws on the books religiously and ensured you've never violated any of them right? And you've never done anything which while not illegal; may not be something with with you'd want to share with your spouse, boss, preacher, mother, etc?

The FBI may one day pay you a visit while you're mowing the lawn or at work and say, "Hey, we understand that you really don't like those folks pushing drugs in your neighborhood; how about you give us a hand?
You: "How so, exactly?"
FBI: "Well, you're obviously aware of the traffickers, why don't you point out the places you've seen them, identify them in a police lineup, and testify against them in court?"
You: "But wouldn't that put me in the cross hairs of the gang(s) running drugs in my neighborhood?"
FBI: "Possibly, but we'll review the case in 3-6 months and we may enroll you in the federal witness protection program if you help us secure some convictions."
You, "But I'll have to move, find a new job, and probably leave behind my friends if I did, and what if there wasn't a conviction? I'm not sure this is such a good idea."
FBI: "I thought you wanted these drug traffickers off your street, are you now trying to obstruct justice? Perhaps we should detain you, or how about we tell your wife about your liaisons with Tiffani."

Forget about amending it--it needs to be abolished.

Back in the late 18th - early 19th century, there were very few common folk who even knew the name of the candidates. And with news traveling via Pony Express, getting reliable and timely information to the masses was effectively impossible. Therefore the idea of voting for a representative who'd vote on your behalf for a candidate made a bit of sense. The "Winner takes all" system of state electoral votes was a bad idea IMNSHO then as it is now though. I live in Tennessee for instance which is certain to go for Romney this year regardless of who I vote for or even if I vote. That's what I consider to be disenfranchisement, my vote simply doesn't matter. Likewise, a voter in New York likewise knows (or should know) that no matter who they vote for, Obama will win that state. In fact, unless you live in one of nine "swing states", your vote doesn't count! But those living in those states can't turn on the TV, radio, or go outside without being bombarded by thousands of negative ads paid for by mostly anonymous donors.

Today in the internet age, It's fairly easy to send a message to a very large percentage, if not a majority of the populace--though with the replacement of most hard news media with tabloid and shock journalism it seems the masses are more caught up in the "Bread and Circuses" offered by the ever-shrinking oligopoly of major media outlets than at any time since the fall of the Roman Empire. That is, the average American seems far more interested in Jersey Shore than boring politics. And with more biased editorial programming whether its Rush Limbaugh or Jon Stewart what political insights most people receive are sermons for the choir which is increasing polarization and dividing families, churches, and communities in the process.

I would like a couple of things to happen which could reverse this trend in very short order: 1) Require a basic civics exam to register to vote made to be as non-partisan as possible IE "You must be [x] years old to serve as a U.S. Senator." or "A president may serve a maximum of [x] [y]-year terms." This would hopefully help weed out those who simply vote for the taller candidate or the one their parents, minister, and/or spouse like. 2) I'd like voters to be required to answer a questionnaire such as the one provided at ISideWith.com to see which candidate's platform best matches their own interests and values. It would possibly open a messy can of worms to automatically cast a vote for the candidate who's positions best match yours . For instance, I may agree those most with Jill Stein's platform, but see Rocky Anderson's positions as more credible... But I'd still vote for either of them long before voting for Obama or Romney, and would vote for either of them long before I'd vote for Virgil Goode--Who's positions are nearly 100% diametrically opposed to my own. But I'm glad to have had the opportunity to hear them from him directly.

Require everyone to take a civics quiz and an all-inclusive candidate matchmaker questionnaire then compare the results of the latter among those scoring 75% or better on former to the overall popular vote generated by a free and open polling process.

Okay, never mind the implications for the innocent family members of the asshat who lose everything because of him (Sure there probably are some women who've done stupid things with lasers, but I'd be willing to bet money that over 90% are carried out by males) Also, it's more probably that the attacks were carried out by a minor or a young adult who's unmarried than an older adult who has real responsibilities and commitments.

So, we lock up a 17-year old punk for life, and litigate his family into indigence. Now what? Don't we already have enough homeless people sleeping in parks or under bridges and urinating in public? Isn't the housing market still fairly weak without forcing a bunch more homes into foreclosure--Think about your own home's value when the brat down the street leads to your neighbors defaulting on their property. These newly unemployed, uninsured, and homeless folks are now going to be relying on already stretched food banks, panhandling, or crime just to make it through the day and provide for their basic needs. So now, expect a greater load on social services, emergency rooms, jails, and morgues from people who used to be gainfully employed and self-reliant.

The kid pointing green lasers into cockpits may not be thinking about the consequences, however you haven't fully thought out the consequences of your actions either!