The one bit of advice I can think of that nobody else has hit upon was to warn you about that big metal box full of food just steps away from your new workspace. Sure, "at work" there's probably a vending machine or cafeteria nearby, or at least a coffee shop or fast-food joint right around the corner, but there you have to buy a pack of crackers or an ice cream sandwich or whatever. "At home" you have all your favorite foods, conveniently located right beside you, and you already own each and every delicious morsel! It's already yours, you bought it and brought it home for the express purpose of eating it, and if you aren't careful you can easily add a brand new "freshman 15" every few weeks or so.
Trust me, I speak from experience.
Definition of "search"
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that a search occurs only when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable. In Katz, the Supreme Court ruled that a search had occurred when the government wiretapped a telephone booth. The Court's reasoning was that 1) the defendant expected that his phonebooth conversation would not be broadcast to the wider world and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable. This is a threshold question in Fourth Amendment jurisprudence, since the Fourth Amendment only protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. If no search or seizure has occurred, the court ends its analysis.
Stop and frisk
Under Terry v. Ohio 392 U.S. 1 (1968), law enforcement officers are permitted to conduct a limited warrantless search on a level of suspicion less than probable cause under certain circumstances. In Terry, the Supreme Court ruled that when a police officer witnesses "unusual conduct" that leads that officer to reasonably believe "that criminal activity may be afoot", that the suspicious person has a weapon and that the person is presently dangerous to the officer or others, the officer may conduct a "pat-down search" (or "frisk") to determine whether the person is carrying a weapon. To conduct a frisk, officers must be able to point to specific and articulatory facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant their actions. A vague hunch will not do. Such a search must be temporary and questioning must be limited to the purpose of the stop (e.g., officers who stop a person because they have reasonable suspicion to believe that the person was driving a stolen car, cannot, after confirming that it is not stolen, compel the person to answer questions about anything else, such as the possession of contraband).
So, clearly travelers
- 1) Have no "reasonable expectation of privacy"
- 2) Should understand that traveling by air constitutes "suspicious" and "unusual" conduct
Personally, I think we should hit 'em where it counts the most: in their pocketbooks. If all travelers simply chose another mode of transportation they would VERY rapidly find themselves with several quite influential allies: the airlines, the "hospitality industry", etc. (and yes, there ARE practical alternatives, at least for "domestic" travel: driving is still possible despite our rapidly deteriorating network of interstate highways and besides that people just don't ask themselves this question enough anymore anyway!)
We can't even be sure that the probes won't hit a glass dome.
Maybe they already did a long time ago and the "Voyager Anomaly" is just a floating-point-error in the Matrix...
RIAA doesn't own the copyright to any music.
Just the souls of many unfortunate artists.
You know, they weren't club-wielding savages in loincloths back then.
Stone knives and bearskins, son, stone knives and bearskins. And that's the way we liked it, too! None of this mamby-pamby object-oriented whoopsiedoodle; we entered our code changes by tapping out ones and zeros under a microscope (optical, of course, you insensitive clod!) using a cat's whisker. Why, I'd give you a real old-school lesson in how-to-get-it-done-and-done-right-the-first-time-ness, but I've gotta go chase some darned kids outta my yard!!
We would need to send about a quarter million people off the planet every day just to balance population growth
Even from where I sit (a fairly "rural" setting; you have to go >100 miles to find a building over 20 stories tall, and within a one-mile radius cows outnumber humans 2:1...) there're just too many people under foot (and that sentiment isn't just salted by the recently passed "holiday shopping season"; I feel that way in the summertime too -- how you city slickers can stand it I can't imagine!) Decreasing the population by ~2M/week would indeed thin the herd over time (unless you *just* sent newborn babies off-planet -- who themselves might thank us later, btw, but the other occupants of the galaxy would likely complain about our diaper disposal methods...)
In all seriousness, though, every "migration" in history has been followed (within several generations) by a period of "prosperity" (yes, the "pioneers" themselves suffered mightily, but their great-great-grandchildren and their descendants enjoyed the fruits of their ancestors' labors) and each of those "migrations" was enabled by a game-changing advance in transportation technology (whether it be trans-oceanic ships, wagons, steam-engines, etc.)
We've gone "west" as far as we can; the only direction left to go is "up" (and the sooner the better!)
Did anyone do a double-blind study to make sure Wikipedia wasn't emitting harmful radiation/gasses/particles/etc?!?!
Was there even a government committee chartered to keep watch to make sure the millions of school children who access it every day weren't harmed?
DIDN'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!?!?!
Maybe Wikipedia should be shuttered until we can get a "still alive" from at least a majority of the "tens of thousands of editors" who have gone "dead" -- if even a sample of those who don't respond turn out to actually be dead then we should consider the very real possibility that Wikipedia might somehow be at fault. Remember: just because we don't see a correlation doesn't necessarily mean there isn't one.
"[self-righteous pissing and moaning, etc.]...so I've gathered up the passwords to the products we make and have been using them as part of my pitch to the competition."
I'm reminded of what I once heard a lady say on the subject of dating married men: "If he'll do it to them he'll eventually do it to you." In your case: any company who'll hire someone based on what they can illegally/immorally bring to the table will treat them like the crap they are when what they brought to the table is used up.