There was a hilarious local robbery that my wife and I watched the video footage of. I don't know if they actually got caught but, 3 men came in to steal a safe. They, of course, wear hoodies and visored caps. They look down.

One of them deftly moves directly under the camera and starts trying to smash it from below...fails....and turns to get a better look....giving his face right up straight on to the camera, after which he smashes it good.

Seems pretty clear to me that this is not only correct but, he hates us for our freedoms.

Certainly but, its still fiction. In fact, when you really get down to it stories, even factual ones, only talk about possible outcomes. Drawing back on my poker experience, I liken these anecdotes to what we call "rabbit hunting" when a hand is over, someone has folded, but the guy who folded wants to see what the next card would have been.

In truth, its a pointless thing to do. Run the same situation over and over and the result will approach the average situation sure, but any one can only tell you what happened, it can't necessarily shed light on similar situations. Stories help you remember principles, but they never actually prove anything, even real ones only prove possible outcomes.

I think we do get a lot of this.... I have had even fairly smart people say things like "Well just look at rapture, that proves laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work".

I mean, its not like there aren't plenty of criticizms for all sorts of ideas, philosophical and otherwise, but, a fictional story doesn't prove anything....a story is often written backwards from problem to plausible cause, they are written based on the biases of their authors, they prove nothing except, what the author thought.

Certainly it presents a cautionary tale, and it presents a certain point of view, but there is a lot of daylight between exploring a possible scenario and proving anything. Just because it can be imagined doesn't mean its a real issue (or that it isn't).

That isn't really how people proejct though, a person seldom attributes his own actions to his own nature. Its more like "I said this because I was upset" or "I said that because he was an asshole and deserved to hear it." whereas "he said that because he is a racist" or "he said that because he is an asshole".

That would be more how people tend to actually think about things.... I stole from the store because I ...was bored and seeking thrills or .... was hungry and needed money.

You stole from the store because you think its ok to steal and you are entitled to it.

See how different we can be. I do everything for exeternal reasons, everyone else just follows their nature.

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong." - H L Menken

Its an answer, kind of like an answer to "What is 3 plus 4" is 900.

Its an answer, its not correct, its not even useful, but, its words you can speak in response to a question....which is good enough for most politicians regardless of the system you put them in.

Yup, proof that just because you can run a large operation doesn't mean you are an expert at everything and not making bad decisions out of stupidity.

The automated system will likely save him money in the long run, especially if it basically turns the job into "we need someone who can meet the minimum standards to hold this particular license, and show up every day"....warm bodies are cheap.

And then, eventually, he can maybe get rid of the operator entirely and pay nobody but the maintenance crew. I mean, good for him protecting jobs.....its downright socialist of him to forsake long term decreases in expenses and increases in efficiency for the good of the workers under him....then again, maybe he isn't the owner and is one of the guys whose job goes away if there are a lot less workers......

I don't, I expect to see it overshadowed by the combination of trivia and other crisis, as he is quietly shuffled off to be forgotten about in some gulag.

No, I am worried about the constant expansion of police powers, which, I think need to be rolled back.

I am worried about surreptitious collection AT ALL. There really is no need for it. Frankly any time the police say "We think that guy there is a suspect we need to collect more about"....warrant. Period, every time, every situation....with the exception of the very time sensitive "ticking bomb" scenario.... and a very narrow one

Yes well a rape kit is not medical testing of an unwilling doner it falls under collecting evidence directly from the scene of the crime. Its not JUST dna but actually evidence of the crime itself which, really is another matter entirely.

We are talking about covert collection outside of the act of any crime, which is an entirely different matter. I don't know why you would conflate the two at all.

Because people like her always get forgiveness even if they knew there was no way in hell they would ever have gotten permission. Laws simply don't apply to Aristocrats like her as long as their system continues to function as intended.

Actually, I generally do object to that. Not for nothing but, if they really have a reason to suspect a specific individual and be collecting such evidence at all, then they can and should get a warrant to obtain it. I see no reason to make exceptions on such thin loopholes. Such requirements should always be interpreted as STRICTLY as possible, if there is even question over whether a warrant is appropriate....fucking get one....aka DO YOUR FUCKING JOB.

Hell even if they don't think they need one....why not get one? I see absolutely no reason NOT to get one except in the most extreme and rare of circumstances.

I don't see how this is the least bit relevant. Medical studies should be done on willing doners....there is no excuse to do otherwise. Anyone involved in doing this sort of research in such an unethical manner belongs in prison if you ask me.

That would make sense to me for a suit against any entity....except the government. The one organization that has no excuse for breaking the law without extremely good and public justification *IS* the government itself. They should always be under more scrutiny and their crimes held as especially aggravating because its their job to uphold them.

I would argue that whenever the government breaks the law, all citizens are victims as the law itself was the promise they made to us.

As I recall, wasn't this one of the first issues in Roe V Wade? Specifically it was that a woman who was being blocked from a medically necessary abortion would effectively be barred the right to bring her issue to court because the issue of pregnancy would likely be over, either with a birth or her death before the courts could be expected to have ruled on the matter... leading to a necessary exception to normal standing rules.

Seems similar here....since no person who was a victim would ever know they were and would know they had standing to bring a case, it seems that normal standing rules would effectivly deny such a case from ever being heard even if it was an otherwise valid case, so it seems to me it would warrant an exception.