> 67% turn their devices off (not just put
> them in airplane mode?) I find that
> percentage stunningly, shockingly high.
I turn my phone off, but it has nothing to do with their 'rules', it's because when I leave it on, it's constantly searching for a signal the whole flight and the battery is drained by the time I land. If that didn't happen, I'd never turn mine off, either.
> And when the stewardess comes around and asks
> me if my phone, which is in my pocket is off,
> I take my earbuds out, tell her, "yes," and explain
> that my earbuds are noise-cancelling (which, with
> something playing, they block out a LOT of noise),
> which is why I'm leaving them in. Not a single one
> yet has been smart enough to tell the difference
> between passive and active noise cancellation,
> and haven't bothered me after that.
The last couple of flights I've been on, they specifically included removing all headphones and earbuds in their spiel because, as they said it, they can't tell the difference between someone trying to sleep and block out noise and someone who is still using their device to listen to music, etc. And technically, noise-cancelling headphones *are* electronic devices in and of themselves, so...
Weird how the flight attendants think my iPad will interfere with the plane's ability to fly, but half the time the pilots themselves use iPads all throughout the flight and their tablets are RIGHT NEXT TO all the sensitive electronics.
Our next door neighbor back home at my parents' house is a pilot for a major airline and he's told us many times at neighborhood gatherings that the whole 'turn your phone off for safety' thing is a crock. The real reason they insist on it is sociological. They just prefer people not have all those gadgets going when they're trying to get stuff done during take-off and landing, and that 'safety' is the one inarguable buzzword they can lay it off on.
> So Mike, is it your position that registrars
> should be able to register domain names to
> sites that they know are committing criminal
How does a registrar know what a website is even about? Even if you wanted to burden the registrars with having to review every single web site and act as internet censors, if a site hasn't been registered yet, it's not up and running, so there's nothing for them to look at, genius.
It's interesting to note that the one and only thing Ramsay had praise for about this restaurant was its desserts and cakes, which Amy claimed to personally create. He said they were wonderful and completely at odds with everything else about the place, which was dreadful. Well, as it turns out, in her Facebook meltdown, Amy admitted she doesn't actually make the desserts, she buys them elsewhere and repackages them as her own and she didn't tell Ramsay that because "he's foreign and wouldn't understand".
> Sales taxes in NC are paid upon getting a
> title for the car, so that's never avoided.
Not only is not avoided, sometimes it's double-dipped.
I bought a new 4Runner in Texas. Five years later, I moved to Virginia. When I took it to get registered at the Virginia DMV, they wanted me to pay sales tax on the car as if I'd bought it in Virginia. I told them I already paid sales tax on it when I bought it in Texas. They told me that didn't matter, that if I wanted to register it in Virginia, I had to pay the sales tax again to them. I threw a fit because this was a significant amount of money, and once the supervisor came out of the back, and it was obvious to her I was both an attorney and not willing to be screwed, the tax was suddenly 'waived'. I have a feeling they know they have a good scam going and don't want someone who knows the law to ruin it for them, so they waive it for anyone who looks like they might be trouble.
> The Rothschilds own AP (Rothschilds purchased
> Reuters in the 1800s and Reuters purchased AP
> a few decades ago), The criminal families
> indirectly own the Justice Department through
> blackmail, secret socities and traitors so this
> is a load of BS propaganda.
> Card counting is illegal in Nevada, though Nevada is the
> only jurisdiction in the world that makes card counting illegal.
It most certainly is not illegal. The Nevada Supreme Court ruled conclusively that a player who uses nothing but his own innate ability, unassisted by technology or collaboration with others, cannot be prosecuted for cheating at a casino game.
> What about the hypocrisy of 2nd amendment
> advocates who totally disregard the 1st
> amendment rights of those who disagree with
What do you mean by 'totally disregard'?
If you're suggesting pro-2nd advocates are trying to have the government silence their critics under threat of arrest or sanction, then I will agree with you, that's a hypocritical position for them to take. I would also point out that no one on the pro-2nd side has actually done this.
If you're suggesting that merely arguing back is somehow the equivalent of 'totally disregarding' the free speech rights of their critics, I'd respectfully conclude that's nonsense. In other words, your free speech rights aren't being infringed merely because someone disagrees with you or says you're full of crap.
> I can agree with prosecuting someone for
> trespassing on private land, but that doesn't
> mean you can stop someone from making speech
> or recording it.
Actually, it does. I can make whatever rules I like for my own property. If I don't want people recording while there, I can legally do that. You don't have any constitutional right to film or speak or whatever on someone else's private property. (Try attending a taping of the TONIGHT SHOW or JIMMY KIMMEL or any other kind of show with a studio audience. Not only do they prohibit recordings, they run you through metal detectors and take your phones/cameras away from you and secure them until the show is over and you leave. You don't like it? You're free to not attend the show.)
The reason this case is different-- and why the charges were dropped-- is because this woman wasn't on private property when she was filming. She was on the public road, which makes all the difference in the world from a legal perspective.
> Art is something designed to elicit an
> emotional reaction from people. Porn certainly
> is that.
That's ridiculous. Merely eliciting an emotional response is hardly the sole qualificiation for artisitic expression. If it were, then those bombs that went off in Boston a few weeks ago qualified as performance art on a grand scale.
> "to make sure that people have confidence in
> public WiFi systems so that they are not going
> to see things they shouldn't."
Notice how he says "shouldn't" instead of "don't want to".
That tells you all you need to know about him-- that he's just another nanny-statist control freak who can't let grown adults decide for themselves how to run their own lives. He's going to decide for you, because he knows better than you do what's good for you.