Especially considering the government is already subverted from the will of the majority. They need to be weeding out the bad guys internally first. Ignoring the biased reported polls, from an informal survey of everyone each of you readers actually know, does anyone know, personally, someone who thinks the TSA is a good idea? Not even a majority, just a single person? I know that everyone I have ever talked to has said it is stupid, useless and completely against their wishes. And that's not to mention all of the other stupidity going on that no one seems to be in favor of. Also, it is across the board from my redneck, gun in the rack across their pickup window, co-workers to the very liberal pro-gay, pro-vegetarian librarian I chat with. I can't seem to find anyone, other than my congress critters that will defend any of the anti-terrorism, pro-spying actions our government is doing. And even the congress pukes are obviously sending out form responses that they don't even believe in and can't defend when questioned in person, other that more rote memorized parroting. It not even like Obamacare or immigration, where I can find a broad range of opinions, with some rational, well thought out arguments on both sides. The culture of fear we are being force fed seems to be universally despised.
My mod points just expired, but this is genuinely insightful. I, as well, cannot think of a single person I know who would say the TSA is anything but a monumental waste of taxpayer dollars. We're supposed to be a democracy of a sort, so why does idiocy like the TSA still exist, with powers that even seem to be constantly expanding? How does that happen??
How, indeed? It's just more proof, if any was needed, that the will of the American people no longer has anything at all to do with how our Government actually acts. How did it come to this? Not only have we lost, or are in the process of losing, most of the things that made this country great to begin with, but somehow along the way we've also managed to surrender the power to do anything about it. History shows that such power, once surrendered, is seldom if ever regained.
I guess this is just what the view looks like from the bottom of that slippery slope everyone was always talking about.
No, the article proves that having a car that reeks of marijuana and has a secret compartment is enough to get you arrested.
Strangely, they forgot to copy that line from the article that spawned the story.
Well, I found an article that says "Troopers noticed an overwhelming smell of raw marijuana which gave them probable cause to search the car", so it must be true, right? Trouble is, cops know full well they can search any car they want to just by claiming to smell some pot. The "I smelled marijuana" claim has been so abused over the years by law enforcement it's become a cliche. Just because a cop says he noticed an odor, doesn't mean there was one. Doesn't mean there wasn't one, either, there may well have been, it's just that on this particular issue cops have very little credibility.
And one of my favorite Arizona laws: You may not have more than two dildos in a house.
Wow, that's pretty weird. I mean, think a minute about what the rationale behind that one must have been. One dildo is perfectly OK to have and use, but merely possessing two of them makes you a pervert and a felon! Sure, that's perfectly logical. Who the heck came up with that idea, I wonder?
And then of course there's the obvious question, what happens if it's a two-headed dildo? Does that count as one or two?
What did the NSA know about Tamerlan Tsarnaev? That's what I want to know. If the mass surveillance is justified, how did they not know about his plot? How did they fail to prevent it?
I guess they were so busy tracking the various porn sites he visited they just missed all that other stuff. I mean, come on, you're a bored NSA analyst sitting at a desk sifting through reams of data, what's really gonna attract your interest the most, some obscure piece of paranoid Russian intel, or good old American porn? On the internet, pron is king, baby!
So remember this, the next time you visit your own favorite online purveyor of wank-ware: in doing so, you just might be making some poor old NSA spook's day!
LittleOlMe 12:51 PM EST What actually killed it, and most every other good idea, is a lack of public funding for all federal elections.
If crime rates are going down, then why is my local police getting military grade equipment and gear?
Because scared voters like you are giving them as much money as they can spend. You're letting them keep any funds they seize from drug crimes or things they claim might be money from drug crimes. Our biggest fear is fear itself and the police and prison system profit off your fear. They're doing very well.
This. This exactly. Most of those fancy toys are paid for with seizure money, of which there will always be a steady supply as long as the War on Drugs continues and statutes like RICO are still on the books.
Damn mod points expired yesterday, it's like they only give them out when you don't need or want them... How does Slashdot do that?
No, there are drugs that do turn toxic after time. Acetaminophen-codeine (tylenol #3) causes liver damage after 3 months. The codeine reacts with the acetaminophen (APAP) and turns it toxic. This is not related to the liver damage that prolonged exposure to APAP causes. I'm a health professional that deals with pain relief daily.
Interesting, if true. I have tried to verify your claim but a quick search doesn't yield anything beyond the usual formulaic warning language: e.g. "do not use this medication after expiration...", etc. Could you provide a link to an authoritative source with more information about this reaction? Acetaminophen is well known to cause liver toxicity, and I know codeine has some potentially very toxic molecularly similar analogs, but a specific time-related reaction between the two is news to me.
How is it possible that Congress can consistently have approval ratings in the 10-25% range (and even lower), yet incumbents generally keep getting reelected?
Look up Gerrymandering. Basically, it's become virtually impossible for some of these guys to lose. These days Congressional districts are drawn up specifically to insure a win for one side, regardless of the wishes of the majority of the population. That, along with the influence of corporate money, pretty much explains the continuing success of unpopular politicians.
Wow, that's really interesting, how the heck did I not hear about this?? I mean seriously, a decades old ban on government propaganda is lifted, and nobody (meaning most big US media outlets) bothers to frickin' mention it??? No, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised, it's not really surprising anymore when something like this gets overlooked in the media, but damn... How far we have fallen. And still no end in sight. I no longer recognize my country, truly I don't. Thank you for posting that link.
Without analytics, low-risk 18 year olds pay a lot of money to cover high-risk 18 year olds. With analytics, low-risk 18 year olds pay less (though not nearly as low as they should be paying) and high-risk 18 year olds are uninsurable. Why? Because you're going to have to substantially raise the price on those high-risk 18 year olds now that low-risk ones aren't covering the bill.
Now extend this logic to health care. Why is it okay to preach universal health-care and group insurance where low-risk cover the bill for high-risk, but the same isn't true for auto insurance? It's a slippery slope!
Moderation by others usually doesn't bother me, but how is this insightful? The first part correctly states the problem with regard to this approach, in that it leads to a pool of uninsurable drivers, you have to have good drivers paying part of the cost of bad drivers, that's the insurance game in a nutshell, and it applies equally to driving or healthcare or whatever. But what slippery slope are you talking about? Nobody is arguing that this doesn't apply to auto insurance, it does, and the proof is that States that require all drivers to have valid insurance inevitably end up having to set up high-risk insurance pools for bottom tier "uninsurables". I should know, I used to be in one when I was a teen, and my rates were indeed outrageous. Those in the risk pool are analogous to those on medicaid, it's a natural outgrowth of requiring universal insurance for anything. You want to cover everyone, that's how it's done, and I don't see anybody arguing or "preaching" otherwise. Same rules apply for both, no slippery slope that I can see.
No, no, I think people are getting this all wrong. The DHS internet "kill switch" doesn't kill the internet, it kills the users! Either selectively, or in one big all-inclusive purge! And that's why they don't want anyone finding out about the details. I mean it's obvious, when you think about it... But don't worry, they're so incompetent they'll probably just blow themselves up if they ever try to actually use the technology. Come to think of it, that should be the new DHS motto: "Safety Through Incompetence". I feel safer already.
I can use medicine longer than is safe (expired) and kill myself and a lot of people. Do you propose to embed DRM on it? There is no need for remote capabilities for that, just add a timer and disable it after their secure time of life. The problem with this case is not only the remote capabilities, but that they don't sell you a battery, they rent it to you, not a problem they give you an option to buy one or others are able to provide the same rental service and by definition of DRM I am pretty sure this will be something like "only Renault can provide that service"
There is not a single drug that has been proven to become unsafe after it's passed the expiration date - or any other date, for that matter. After expiration a drug may become less effective, i.e. you may not be getting the full dose as labeled, but the medicine isn't going to suddenly start to have different pharmacological effects, dangerous or otherwise, just because of the passage of time. There was at one time a single known case where a drug was thought to possibly degrade into a potentially harmful substance, but it was subsequently proven that the drug in question, tetracycline, remains safe even after expiration, and in any event tetracycline is only sold for veterinary use these days. So no, you won't kill yourself or anybody with expired meds, that's basically an urban myth, although big pharma would no doubt love for everybody to continue to believe it.