Transportation Security Administration spokesman Greg Soule issued a statement saying, "Every passenger that passes through security checkpoints is subject to many layers of security including thorough physical screening at the checkpoint. TSA's review of this matter indicates that the passenger went through screening. It is important to note that this passenger was subject to the same physical screening at the checkpoint as other passengers."
Well isn't that what the TSA is good at? Physically groping (oops, I mean screening) everyone who comes through the checkpoints, but not checking whether he is supposed to be there in the first place. Of course he was "subject to the same physical screening at the checkpoint as other passengers", that's all the TSA really cares about, the physical part, where they get to put their grimey hands all over everone!
First, its not that people think a human wouldn't ticket them when a camera wouldn't, its that they know if there is no camera, there is most likely no human there either. If no one sees them breaking the law, then there is nothing stopping them from doing it.
Second, I just posted TWO links from opposite sides of the country stating the same thing about the red light laws. Find one that states otherwise and post it here.
This time its only the second question down on the LAPD's own website.
"What is a red light violation?
A red light violation occurs when a vehicle travels across the limit line when the traffic signal is red.
It is not a violation if the vehicle has already passed the limit line at the time the signal turned red. At no time will a citation be issued if the vehicle crosses the limit line while the traffic signal is still yellow."
Re: Re: Yellow light = slamming on brakes = accidents
Oh come on??!! Are you serious? It's this ignorance that is causing all these accidents, maybe if people learned the traffic laws before they decided to get behind the wheel of a 3000 pound killing machine, there would be fewer accidents. But since you need proof of something that you should already have known before you were able to get your license, here is a quote from the city of Savannah, Georgia, red light camera FAQ page.
Its the fifth question down in case you have a hard time finding it.
"What counts as a red light camera violation?
A violation occurs when a car is behind the stop line when the light is red, then crosses the line into the intersection while the light is red. Vehicles already in the intersection when the light turns from yellow to red WILL NOT receive a citation."
I've seen this argument many times over regarding the traffic light cams, and I just don't buy it. Rules of the road dictate that when a traffic light turns yellow you stop, unless you are too close to the intersection to do so safely in which case you proceed through the yellow light. Whether there is a camera at the intersection or not is moot, those are the rules.
Now, if you cross the stop line while the light is yellow and the light turns red while you are in the intersection you CANNOT get a ticket, and this is the point I think most people using this argument are relying on. The fear that if the light turns red before they've cleared the intersection they'll get a ticket, therefore the only recourse is to slam on the brakes in a fashion that forces the driver behind them to run into the back of them. This is just plain bad driving, and the people that do this shouldn't be behind the wheel in the first place.
In order for a rear end collision to happen because a traffic light turns yellow a string of events needs to take place, first, the driver in the front needs to be going too fast to stop safely at the stop line from their position, they need to be going too fast to make it past the stop line before the yellow light changes to red, they need to slam on their brakes ridiculously hard, causing them to SLIDE to a stop, the driver behind needs to be driving too close to safely stop, and has to not be paying attention to the car in front of them OR the traffic light.
Can this series of events occur? Of course they can, but the chances are very unlikely that all of these will occur at the same time. So, take just one of these factors out of the equation and you've eliminated the rear end accident.
I really am sick of hearing people use the argument that because a light turns yellow you have to slam on the brakes which will cause a rear end accident just so they can justify running a red light. Work on being a better driver, and you won't have to resort to this argument anymore.
"Separately, studies had shown "no evidence the cameras reduced accidents, deaths or injuries at the intersections where they were placed and in fact, found those numbers actually increased at some intersections."
Now here's the thing, of course the cameras aren't going to reduce accidents at the intersections if there's no enforcement of the fines. People realize that they don't have to pay the fine and so there is no deterent to obey the light.
Enforcing the fines in a manner that some have already suggested here, like suspending vehicle registration or license renewal, will force people to pay the fines. With enforcement in place people are less likely to violate the lights, thereby reducing accidents at the intersection.
I think the police commission is taking the wrong approach here, instead of suspending the program, they should be looking at ways to better enforce the violations.
Oh, that's a perfect solution!!! Except for one small problem, how are you supposed to use your iPhone and iPad while you're at work when your employer has a policy against using any personal electronics while at work?
If you're going to comment on this article, then please try to comment on the actual friggin article. Stop bringing up HIPPA. HIPPA has nothing to do with it. And everyone's ideas of what HIPPA protects are misguided to boot.
According to all the arguments presented having to do with HIPPA, it would make one think that anyone in the medical profession is banned from talking to anyone else about how their day at work went. Which is completely preposterous.
Lets say that I am a nurse and work in a hospital, according to people here I am prohibited from going home after a hard day of work and telling my family about this patient I had with a really bad case of cancer, and how we were trying x,y,and z to make the patient comfortable to no avail, and I am really tired after doing that all day.
This scenario is not only perfectly legal, but happens every day every where. So long as no identifiable information is given, and the patient is referred to simply as "the patient" HIPPA has not been violated.
So please, get off the HIPPA bandwagon, it has nothing to do with this discussion.
Did you read the rest of my post, where I stated that I wasn't blogging anything AGAINST party A, just my support of party B?
And did you also read my follow up post where I put a link to a pdf that has the actual blogs in question in this case, where there is NO confidential information being disclosed at all?
This is not a case about leaking confidential information, this is a case about a university overstepping their bounds in trying to control what their students can or cannot say, confidentiality plays no part in it whatsoever.
The problem with your reasoning is that you are assuming she spoke about a specific individual, giving up detailed information about that individual. That is simply not the case. If you look at the actual blog posts that were attached to the lawsuit you will see that no specifics were ever mentioned about any individual.
"The university did nothing to silence her speech, but merely said that if she wanted to say those things, she couldn't do it while a student in their school."
Uhm… Yeah they did. Think about your logic for a moment, if every entity in the country took that stance, that people can say anything they want, just so long as it’s not while they’re a student/employee, etc. of said entity, then that would open a can of worms where either everyone would be afraid to say anything at all, for fear of being removed, or we wouldn’t have anyone belonging to any entities whatsoever.
Let me give you an example, I work for a municipal government, currently run by party A of the two party system. I have a blog where I talk about my support of party B of that system, not saying anything at all bad about party A, just my support of party B. With your logic they could fire me for writing that blog, telling me I can say anything I want, just that I couldn’t do it while employed by them.
This is exactly what the 1st Amendment was designed to protect against. Of all places that someone should feel comfortable saying anything, a university is that place. The whole concept of higher education is the free sharing of ideas and knowledge, when universities start that stifling that sharing it undermines the entire educational process.
A loss?? Really?? They're not losing any money, its just that the amount of money they're taking in is being reduced, they will still be making money on the drugs, they just won't be able to charge ridiculous prices for them. I have a hard time feeling sorry for a mega company like this that wants to complain because they're free ride has come to an end.
I understand that it is incredibly difficult and expensive to bring a drug to market, with all the tests and trials that are required the patent's lifespan is half over before they even start clinical trials. But these companies need to stop trying to make all that research money back in the first year the drug hits the market. If they've really created a drug that is beneficial, then even when the patent expires and generics hit the market the drug will sell sell, create a profit flow for the company. So they are making 10 billion a year on one drug, but do they really need to line the walls of their corporate offices with gold?
I think the "war on drugs" needs to refocus its attention and start targeting these pharma companies, these guys are the real crooks.
You can't see how this is different from a drug test? How about you give up your bank account username and password, just to see if you're making any illegal transactions. Then sit at home and wonder why you have no money left.
Let me explain it like this, you take illegal drugs, your judgement is impaired, you go to work while impaired, and you make some sort of mistake. Maybe it causes someone to get injured, or causes your employer to lose thousands of dollars. To try and prevent this they do a pre-employment drug screen. If you fail, you are not offered the job. What they are testing for is whether you have any illicit substances in your system.
To say that this drug test is the same as offering up your username and password for a social media site is the same as (given the technology actually existed) allowing your prospective employer to take over your body, telling you that you aren't allowed to lock them out for a couple of months. While they are in your body they can walk through life impersonating you, doing things that you have no control over, for which you will feel the ramifications of further down the line.
If you really want to compare this to a pre-employment drug screen you have to realize that the drug screen only allows the tester to see the results of a given action, not have the power to alter that action. In the social media example this would equate to the tester being able to see the result of something you do on a given site, not having the power to do something in your name on that site. Giving up your credentials for the site would allow them to do just that. Pissing in a cup does not allow the tester to take the drugs for you.
It makes you wonder, if a retailer is so concerned with negative reviews that they'll threaten you with a lawsuit in their terms of service agreement for a negative review, then they're probably not offering a level of service that is worth your time.
It seems to me that they are more interested in attempting to make money through lawsuits than from offering a service or a product that the public wants. My advice, avoid this retailer altogether and let them experience bankruptcy, at least then they won’t have to worry about any negative reviews.
I now what you mean about the tab sites. Look at the OLGA, they have been up and running for years, posting tabs written by users as their own interpretation of a song. They just got shut down about a month ago. Why? So guitar players can't learn how to play the songs? What are they gonna do, learn how to play the song and then record it and sell it? I doubt it. The RIAA just wants another avenue to secure revenue. There was never a problem with copy a vinyl albulm onto a cassette, or copying a cd to another cd. But with the new format of music they've decided that its too hard to regulate sales so therefore they are gungho about trying to stop it. And even if they do search a hard drive, what proof are they going to have that those songs found there weren't bought legitemitly, or copied from a cd or cassette and converted to mp3. If they are so concerned with losing money, they should stop spending so much on negative advertising by going after these ridiculous lawsuits.
Myspace may appear to be declining, but that is just with the teeny bopper crowd. They found a fad, played with it, and then discarded it. The thing I think you'll see is the average age of myspace users going up.
The ability to stay in contact with family and friends that you've been out of touch with for a while is great. I can't see myspace declining any time soon, if anything, as the demographic of its users changes, you might see it grow even more.