This sounds extensively like the cable company plans where they want to cap right below the level where someone trying to replace their $150/month cable subscription with $10/month netflix streaming would be.
With a list like that I'm surprised that the noise level isn't so high it makes the data pretty much useless.
You might be a terrorist if you're buying freeze dried meals, survival equipment, ammo (especially out of season), camouflage gear and night vision equipment, etc (all from the list). Then again you might be preparing for a backpacking trip, a cost conscious hunter, prepping for unlikely events, or any number of things normal people are extremely likely to do.
This guy has bought every Madden game ever: No discount on Madden 13 for him. This guy has never bought a Madden game: Give him a $10 discount to incentivize him.
Sounds more like my cable company.
This guy has been a loyal customer for years, lets double what he pays. This guy has doesn't have cable at all: Give him a $150 discount to incentivize him.
This is true, but it doesn't mean that gun control laws aren't helpful or could not be helpful in preventing similar situations.
Would anyone at all disagree that the situation would be far worse if the shooter possessed a fully automatic weapon with a large ammunition capacity? But, in the US, we have bans on automatic weapons so thankfully they aren't in wide circulation. If semi-automatic military-grade rifles were illegal to possess in this situation there would have been one more step in this story where he could have been stopped.
Sure, several people have pointed out that there are many other ways to harm people, but few if any of them are as simple and easy as legally purchasing firearms. Producing explosives is still something that he would have to learn how to do, actually do without blowing himself up, and would put him into several situations where he could be arrested. And honestly, I doubt it's nearly as easy to kill and injure people by driving a car into a crowd. People can much more easily scatter and run from a single car.
Ok, but what I really want to know is what about my phone? I bet a lot of unreasonable surveillance would stop if cell phone companies sent people a notice a few months after the government requested information.
Then again there are 350-million people in the US, if there are that many phones maybe these are all reasonable requests.
So I watched google's video introduction of the Q. http://youtu.be/s1Y5dDQW4TY
I have absolutely no clue what this thing does or is or anything really. Except that apparently it will let people come to your house and play music from their phone. The video feels like dot com boom marketing. It's like zombo.com.
What we need to do is stop pouring so much money into the military... the monies that all these proposals affect amount to just a few bombs and missles...
Interestingly, just as a side note, the military funds a fair portion of research. DoD has a highly sought after graduate student fellowship award and it provides lots of funding for things like prostate cancer research.
I think this is an entirely reasonable response. Instead of trying to shutdown speech the police are offering another side of the story. Good.
Of course some of the broader implications are pretty interesting. An individual can basically edit a video to show the part where the police are beating the crap out of him and ignore the earlier part where he's spitting and throwing rocks. The police, on the other hand, don't get the luxury of using video simply as a PR mouthpiece. If this sort of response to protesters becomes commonplace it will be interesting to see what happens the first time an edited video comes out from the police. More interesting will be the cases where people start requesting these videos as evidence against the police at their trials.
They were warned and they made a choice - and the narrative quickly went from "police brutality" to "protester choice".
Just because they were given fair warning doesn't make it even close to a proper use of force. The police could have arrested everyone for trespassing or illegally blocking a walkway (if that's illegal). Any protester who didn't simply allow himself to be arrested could then be charged with resisting arrest. Only if the protesters fought back would the use of force be reasonable.
How far does "they were warned" let an officer go? Get out of my way or I'll hit you with a club? Get out of my way or I'll shoot you with a gun?
Ok, Clearly we need to get a legion of armchair lawyers on this one. How can you have standing to sue the company if the alleged thing happened before you were a shareholder?
"This is lemma 1.1. We start a new chapter so the numbers all go back to one." -- Prof. Seager, C&O 351