My home page is 202 bytes.
The most used link points to a page that is 45 kilobytes. All data, no images, no css. There are 12 people that use it.
I believe my site design style could be considered Minimalist.
With this, its just a matter of time before these "predicted" red light runners are ticketed for their "pre-crime".... We slide further down the slope that Huxley warned us about....
Or you could take off your tin foil hat and realize it could be used as a safety feature in cars. If you are sitting at an intersection, and the system detects a probable red light runner approaching, it could warn you to not enter the intersection too quickly.
Actually, I find that whenever someone is telling you to give up your rights for your own good, it's not really safety they have in mind.
I really really like this line. Thank you.
Using your real identity or having a pseudonym that can easily be linked to your real identity makes people behave in a more cooperative and constructive way because they could be held accountable for their words.
It also means that my employer or potential employer can trace back to some posts I make regarding being an atheist and my disdain for both political parties.
Regardless of how intelligently or politely I may have spoken on these two topics and how little these topics have to do with my ability to perform well at my job, it could provide reasons for that potential employer to not hire me.
I like my being able to speak truthfully and respectfully without fearing retaliation from people that may or may not respect the message I am trying to deliver.
But alas, you have been out-voted in a democracy.
Exactly when was this voted on? And why do you think this is a democracy?
They have a right to free speech - civil society still has norms that need to be obeyed.
So if someone doesn't follow social norms, you believe they should be arrested?
Presumably, you are talking about the right to free speech versus the power of the TSA to screen passengers using x-rays and/or a more invasive "pat-down". Unlike you, I don't see a conflict. Your free speech rights are only impinged if you think that free speech is equivalent to disorderly conduct.
Actually, I was talking about the right to petition government for redress of grievances without fear of punishment. The TSA is a government agency. It is her right to complain to them without being punished. The free speech aspect of the first ammendment is what would cover her (supposed) use of profanity.
But you really nailed it with the statement about "her right(s)...versus the power of the TSA". This is exactly where we disagree. I will never agree that the power of the TSA should supercede any individual's rights. And you also seem to have a lot more respect for the "disorderly conduct" charge than I do. I tend to view it as a LEO didn't like what you were doing but couldn't find any law being broken so he'll arrest you on a disorderly charge just to get you in the squad car knowing full well that it won't stick.
I appreciate and agree with your statements about the lunacy of the $10,000 fine.
but her behavior sounds pretty inappropriate for an airport.
And I would counter that groping citizens and taking nude pictures of them is inappropriate behavior in an airport.
The difference is that citizens definietly have the Right to yell and scream at governement figures guaranteed in the Constitution, while the TSA is trying to convince you that they have a Right to grope you...
Which Right do you believe is more important to protect?
art cannot be the new terrorism for justfying anything.
I don't see the word "terrorism" any where in either TFA or TFS.
What we anticipate seldom occurs; what we least expect generally happens. -- Bengamin Disraeli