Damn hard to find on the ground
During the 2010 Olympics in Vancouver? The blog contains no information on the _one_ use of the Stingray. What is the blog hiding? They had the info since the blog writes:
"The VPD provided some context for its previous use of a Stingray and on the basis of the information they gave us, we can vouch for their past use (and they say there’s only been one) being legitimate, appropriate and properly authorized."
So, the time the Vancouver Police Force did use it (kept secret by the blogger?), it was legitimate, appropriate, and properly authorized
It's increasingly hard to deny his theories.
Clearly an idea by someone who has no clue about religious sensitivities, congregations, and the like.
Do you want to trust the doc who finished at the bottom of the class?
Or would you rather trust the consistent advice of a machine that actually learns more and more as it deals with more and more cases, or from other machines doing the same?
It had to happen.
... the shooter was a problem. They didn't know exact plans and timings, but they had successfully identified a potential problem.
As with so many previous incidents, the current 'spying' privileges allowed the identification of a potential problem.
What was lacking was funding to allow continued surveillance, NOT more in depth surveillance, just more surveillance. See the difference?
Is there a belief that deeper 'spying' will permit law enforcement to do more with increasingly less funding?
Well better than tossing them back in the ocean after you cut off their fins for soup.
If biology had any kind of 'first principles' like say physics or math, its researchers would not be constantly surprised by things like this.
There doesn't seem to be any "I wonder if
Recruiter: "So Mr
Brain Dead Person (Mr. Smith):
Recruiter: "Excellent! Welcome aboard, great to have you on the team. Our people will draft up the paperwork and we'll get right to work. Thank you for your cooperation."
It's a boat wreck
why would you ask that here? You're lucky you got a straight answer.
No surprise that older people are more skeptical. In fact, that's kind of a silly observation.
Of course they are! They've had decades more experience in being served BS and are more aware of the fact that some people will intentionally mislead other people for personal gain.
Once upon a time the phrase was, "[The young] are more impressionable." Well, yeah. There was another: "If you are not a socialist when you are young, you have no heart. If you are still a socialist when you are old, you have no brain." So be a climate activist when you are young, and when you get old well you'll be wiser
RAM wasn't built in a day.