I'm not a fan of recreational drug use, but I don't see why someone should require someone else's permission to do something. In other words, prescriptions are great for two reasons: the doctor knows better than me what will help, and I acknowledge that; and you can get your insurance company to pay for it (or at least offset your deductible) because the doctor actually prescribed it. But I've never felt a prescription should be necessary to obtain a drug. Then again, I don't agree with vice laws at all, even if I don't recreationally use drugs or solicit prostitutes.
I've had several shoulder surgeries and was prescribed both oxy- and hydro-codone. I experienced the itching, but it worked great, and the OTC pain relievers did nothing. I still suffer, in fact; I never became addicted - once it ran out I tried all the non-opiate alternatives the doctor prescribed. None of them worked. I live in pain every day, but most days are completely bearable. When I do feel pain, the other medications don't help. I know that if I work out or do yard work or something, I can take the non-opiates and stave off the terrible pain I would feel hours later, but when I already have pain they are ineffective. I haven't had any of the "strong" stuff in over a year and a half... and yet, if I mention that the other drugs don't help to my doctor, it's obvious to me he thinks I'm pill shopping.
I mention it because the biggest complaint I see against this over-the-top, for-your-own-good regulation is that the people who are actually in pain are treated like criminals and often denied medications that would make life more bearable. I admit I've managed without, so I'm not including me in that list... but I understand the position completely.
Frankly, even before my surgeries, I never agreed with the war on drugs; I do not agree with vice laws in general.
You ought to ask the Family D'Alembert...
As another poster said, this isn't fair. Lots of us drive with winter tires, I doubt anyone down there has even heard of them.
We (most Canadians) have the equipment and machinery to clear snow, maintain highways, and the experience to get around in these conditions. They don't.
On top of that, we don't need more machinery and equipment... why waste tax dollars on such a rare occurrences? At the same time, during "snowpocalypse" (Atlanta two weeks ago) the extra sanders, salters, and plows were useless - because they couldn't get through the gridlocked traffic that was stuck on the roads. The online traffic map went from green at 12:00 to BLACK at 12:30... the trucks couldn't get through. I grew up on Long Island, and drove in plenty of snow and slush - but not ICE. This was ICE. And Long Island is relatively flat compared to Northern GA, which is at the tail of the Appalachians... all the problems happened on hills.
Yes, people were being terrible drivers, but it's a confluence of a number of things that caused the headache; we were lucky this time mainly because the ice accumulated over night instead of midday. People were already home, and just didn't go to work.
No matter who you are, where you're from, or what vehicle you drive, driving on ice is treacherous and dangerous. I will agree with you, though, that many southern drivers aren't merely ignorant about driving in ice and snow, they're downright stupid. The number of people sitting there spinning their tires thinking it would somehow help was ridiculous.... "oh, my tires are spinning... maybe if I push the gas HARDER they'll stop!"
People still drove too close, which caused some of the grid lock problems as a lot of idiots, when hitting a dip in the road, would slow down on the way down... and then not be able to make it up the other side. I was stuck on an up-hill on-ramp to I85; I left over a car length between me and the driver in front in case they slid; the person behind me pulled up as close, or closer, than people do if the pavement was dry. Probably less than two feet. I was panicking, but luckily I didn't slip when we started moving. After I got out of the city gridlock, some guy in a Chevy Avalanche came flying by me. Turned out we were going the same way, and when I got to the right turn about ten seconds after the Avalanche, I turned the corner to see him facing me, slammed up against the curb. I was driving cautiously enough to stop and give him a chance to get going. After that, I think he was going slower than me.. Add in the mix all the idiots driving with their emergency lights on, and it's clear a significant number of drivers should just have their licenses taken away, bad weather or not.
I want to echo this sentiment - I'm transplanted from NY, eventually ended up in Atlanta, GA. I drove many winters in NY, and being the youngest of four I learned a lot from my parents and older siblings about driving in the snow. I can tell you that no matter where you grew up, how great a driver you think you are, or what vehicle you have, driving on solid ice is not just difficult, it's treacherous. Add in all the hills we have around here, and you're really screwed.
Now; first "snowpocalypse" from two weeks ago: it started snowing mid-morning. Around noon, people realized they'd better start getting home. By 12:30, the roads were ICY (not snowy); it's very hilly around here and many vehicles couldn't make it up hills. This caused massive gridlock; even people with 4WD, AWD, and yes, FWD that could have made it were stuck in the gridlock anyway. This all happened before the local and state governments could react... there were vehicles out salting and sanding, but they didn't get a chance to hit even a fraction of the roads. The traffic map on the GA511 website went from green to black in a half hour. Yes, I largely blame ignorant drivers who don't know what to do... all those mid-level pickups and sports and luxury cars with rear wheel drive, just sitting there spinning their tires (they didn't realize after a few seconds it just wasn't working? Unbelievable). The number of idiots trying the same things over and over again, getting worse and worse results was baffling. Once I got past a few gridlocked areas I made it home just fine with my FWD car... but the way I get out of the city is largely level once I'm away from the mid town area. Other interstates aren't so "lucky," virtually everywhere there was a hill there was gridlock. And yes, while I blame the drivers, the "pros" were no better - the biggest problems I encountered were buses and trucks which, when they spun out, blocked the entire road.
Fast forward to this time, and all the gun-shy drivers just stayed home. Up in North Carolina they experienced the same problem this time that GA felt last time, and I won't belittle them about it. In GA, with everyone warned to stay home, the service vehicles are able to salt and sand the major roads. I want to make this clear - people didn't know last time how bad it would be, the storm was supposed to pass to the south and it shifted north. Even when it started snowing it was not icy, it was just snow... it just didn't last long. Everyone from schools, to private and government employees all left at the same time, when they realized it wasn't going to let up. A lot of people blame the government... I don't. They had trucks ready, it was just a bad confluence of events and eventualities that led to a bad situation. There was really nothing they could do. Even the supposed idea of staggered release times (first schools, then private businesses, then government) is ridiculous - and it's the fault of the people, not the government, because as soon as schools get released, everyone tries to rush home to beat the traffic, it's just the way people are (not all of us, obviously, I waited until late evening to even try to leave).
The other BIG difference between this and last time - and this is how it usually is - the problems didn't start until Tuesday NIGHT, which means most people were already home from work. When it hits mid-day, people are already at work and screwed. Usually these accumulations happen over night, we wake up, and say "snow day!"
It's like any other weather event; they can be unpredictable and catch people off guard. It's just the way it is sometimes... sometimes the best laid plans work, sometimes they don't.
Well, speaking as the one who can read and knows what a reductio ad absurdum is (as well as what makes a good analogy and what makes a weak and shoddy one) I'll leave you to wallow in your own stupid here. If your view is that a pair of glasses that could also record if it were turned on is entirely analogous to a recording device that has recording as its sole purpose then you're too far gone to help. The mobile phone analogy is a better one - it's a device that can record (and can do from a position of concealment), but has a perfectly reasonable alternative use. It's not one that's required in a cinema, obviously, but it's one that's clearly enough that people aren't stripped of their phones on entering the building and the FBI aren't called if anyone's seen using their phone or with their phone potentially recording from a concealed position in their clothes. With Google Glass in this case the device has a primary use that is required in a cinema - being able to see the screen properly. Your comparison to a video camera that has no need to be in a cinema in the first place and that has no other purpose in being pointed at a screen than to record it is either caused by a complete lack of wits or a complete lack of intellectual integrity. Though I suppose we need to give you credit and assume it might well be both.
My original point was this: vast numbers of people carry high-definition video recording devices into movie theatres every day. The vast majority of these people have those high-definition video recording devices concealed in such a way that they could potentially be recording the screen, or at least have the potential for concealing them in such a way. If we're going to make the assumption that anyone who could potentially be recording the screen is recording it - which is exactly the wrong assumption that was made here by both the theatre owners and the FBI, neither of whom attempted at any point to verify that assumption before things had been escalated to a ridiculous level - then we're going to have to start turning away a lot of people who turn up to watch a movie with a mobile phone and clothes.
There were ways to deal with this situation sensibly. Both parties could have avoided the issue - the customer by wearing standard prescription glasses, the theatre owner and the FBI by not being complete arses and making an assumption of guilt and escalating things way beyond where they needed to be.
There's certainly an aroma of stupid around here.
I understand perfectly what property rights are. The theatre owner has the right to refuse the guy entry. What they did very clearly overstepped their rights, as the story is told here. They made very specific false allegations without evidence. I know that's hard for you to understand, but it's the issue being discussed here, so you really ought to concentrate on catching up rather than being snarky about property rights that aren't in question.
Um. Thanks. I kind of thought it was a pretty good example of a reductio ad absurdum too. One of us certainly doesn't understand the term, though, because it's a perfectly valid form of argument. If you're trying to accuse me of a logical fallacy, you might want to pick something that... well, something that actually is a logical fallacy.
You might want to try 'straw man' or 'slippery slope', though it's not really either.
And 'within reason, of course' doesn't extend to making false accusations of criminal action with no evidence.
Doesn't matter. If a turned-off Google Glass with no recently recorded video files on it can record a movie, your phone secreted in your clothing can certainly record it through cunningly concealed gaps in your clothing.
And just why do you wear clothes to the movies when everyone knows they're the number one way of concealing illicit recording devices? What exactly have you got to hide, Mr Coward? Who are you working for? Why are you recording this movie? How much are you being paid?
Read the article; it was prescription Google Glass, and he didn't have a standard pair of glasses with him.
I assume you leave your mobile phone at home when you go to the movies, then?