As I am an ugly cuss not sure if they win if that activate my phone cam or laptop cam, but a piece or two of electrical tape fixes all that.
But as to bigger problem,(mentioned before by a host of others) even with computer screening, there is simply too much information for them to scan. How many secret clearances can they give out .. sounds like a business opportunity ... but more so it makes abuse even more likely since the cherry pick who they want to target.
But wait until it's a federal crime to circumvent the surveillance equipment they might want to use? The logical outcome of this if you look at the current laws. Not make them equip it, but like emissions certifications car inspections.
Sure they did something un-popular, but it's not a bad idea. They piloted it in a couple of schools, didn't get the return they expected, caused them problems they didn't want to deal with so they dumped it. Not surprising - would you have liked it better if they put it in 20 schools and figured out they wasted the money - no everyone would assail them for it.
Now I don't like all the camera's either but in today's sue-happy environment can you blame them one bit. Sure they put it in terms of protecting/locating students, but it's got nothing to do with that, is for protecting the school system. They want everything on tape (not that it let's them off the hook when it backfires and they are caught doing something they shouldn't) ... The place you can chastise the school is when incriminating tape of their mis-deeds conveniently disappears. It's time to make that an occurrence with a presumption of guilt if the tape isn't available or some such repercussions. Sauce for the goose as it were.
Isn't that what Gov & NSA & POTUS saying -- they tell us the surveillance is only a problem if you are a terrorist, if you are doing something wrong. So by the same analogy, secrecy in the negotiations - well they must be doing something they are sure we wouldn't like right? We are back to the american "Just-Us" system of laws and rule. Only for just-us with influence and gov connections right?
Used to always tell my new parents in scouts -- we behave in a manner that if it was filmed and on the 11 o'clock news - we wouldn't be worried if everyone saw it. Simple as that. No complicated rules.
The question here is not hacking - not whistleblowing, but where is national media coverage. Not too many folks read Mother Jones news.. unless this makes at least FOX or CNN no one hears, no response. The secret here is that our Government of the people, by the people, for the people only seeks to control the people.
Rape is salacious, makes good news (or as Don Henley says)"the bubble headed bleach blonde tells you about the plane crash with gleam in her eye" ... this story goes off script of the righteous indignation. They don't see the ratings spike.
Until the major networks aren't cowed by the government (who are surely reading this as we type) ... go along with suppression of thought, etc... you can't get through. It's only so much noise.
Re: Re: Zero tolerance is the result of the 60's not cured by it
I didn't say earlier was better, what I said we create incentives in society that are breeding the behavior we are complaining about.
We don't let children learn and develop responsibility and life skills, we don't let them make decisions so they learn what it's like to make a mistake or a bad decision. It takes work to teach those skills and keep them safe. But most of the world is "risk adverse" because they were taught from the beginning to let someone else be responsible. Don't let little Jimmy climb a tree, don't let little Sarah walk next door to the neighbors house.. "You'll put your eye out with that thing"!!! is the mantra of our children's world.
I don't think anyone should be discriminated against, but I also think if you don't learn how to handle discrimination yourself, you will be a failure. I believe that while discrimination is bad, bullying is bad, etc.. it happens so you better know how to deal with it. A bully will always be there, so will a racists, intolerant religious figure, etc. To legislate morality is to ingrain discrimination. Exactly the opposite of what we want.
If you are intolerant of a KKK member how does that make you any less racist than he/she is? Just because you feel your viewpoint is right? I am sure they do too...
Tolerance is a 2 way street and you have to learn how to handle intolerant people w/o calling the cops. Instead we have been teaching kids for the last 30-40 years that they can't handle something on their own, they have to get a higher authority involved. We remove judgement from their lives with "Zero Tolerance" policies. It's coming back to haunt us. I've been bullied, I wasn't great at sports, I've fought, I've lost, I've won. I learned how to not to be a spoiled brat like a lot of folks. I learned I don't always get my way, I don't always win. I like to think it's made me a balanced person who after 50 years can handle pretty much everything that comes my way.
Zero tolerance is the result of the 60's not cured by it
It's a result of the liberal everything is a crime/sue-able action environment started in the 60's and continuing today.
Schools are full of some not-so-bright people sometimes, but they see the writing on the wall. If they try to fix it themselves, they get sued, pay money, are easy targets. Instead it's "Zero Tolerance" and call the cops -- see we did all we could, didn't touch any one, didn't restrain anyone, didn't tolerate something we should have stopped. It's Zero Tolerance bullying, Zero tolerance touching, zero tolerance of anything that might make someone sad... it's 5 year olds with Behaviour Contracts because they won't play well with other, it's suspending a kid for biting his poptart into a gun shape, a 12 year old boy is a sex offender for trying get a girl he likes to talk to him, on and on and on. Parents do the same, saying my kid needs to be protected from everything, no traumatizing events like being called a name or having to deal with someone she doesn't like talking to her.... that is what it is coming too.
We get what we incentivize. We sue people, organizations, entities at the drop of a hat, even if they win it's costs thousands - millions of dollars. All because someone couldn't tolerate being called a name. We make children who can't deal with a confrontational situation, parents who overreact to everything. We incentivize stupidity and intolerance in the very name of the tolerance of diversity we preach. Now we are getting the society of call the cops for everything, I mean in school for that last 30 years, whenever there was a problem we had to get a teacher involved, not resolve it ourselves, we might get punished. Now those kids they run the schools and they still do that but a teacher is now a cop.
The end result -- all the protected, nurtured individuals cease development, by pure numbers, they squeeze out the stronger natural order breeds and the civilization as a whole get's weaker.
If you look at the accounting issues from a more legal light, I am curious. Since Warner says they overpaid the plaintiff doesn't that open the internal Warner audit to discovery, can't they then use that to do a forensic discovery of their books on this case. If they are found to have some creative accounting, would it be a RED FLAG to the IRS to evaluate the tax issues on this film? Would you think that California would be interested in this too - budget woes aside.
More likely not since Hollywood owns a fair chunk of Washington and it's easier for Minn to go after a starving cross-dresser artist right? But seriously there are probably many millions of dollars in tax liability here. All we need is a plaintiff to not do a gag order settlement, take the thing all way to the end to expose this. The tax vultures might do the rest.
Despite all the cameras??? It's all about power/control
Let's see, we had bunch of cameras - the bombing still happened? But we caught them. Obviously of course from there we can quickly then progress to the thought that more camera's will prevent the bombing - George Orwell must be smiling in whatever place his soul might or might not be. Nailed it he says !!!
Just like a billionaire that can't have enough money, a company that can't have enough market share, the politician can't have enough power. They all see the cameras as adding to their lust for control, if they can just see a little more of what everyone is doing it will be better.
Can't you just see Mayor Bloomberg diving into his vault of virtual video tapes with his 3D virtual reality glasses -- ala Scrooge McDuck and his vault of coins. (I was going to say video tape vault but that is so dated)....
The quest for power is ongoing. Like the proverbial frog in a pot of cold water - heated to boiling. Said well by Lord Chesterfield:
“Arbitrary power has seldom been introduced in any country at once. It must be introduced by slow degrees, and as it were step by step.” Lord Chesterfield
Take our recent history from the 70's to now -- as we slowly proceed step by step.
That more things change the more they seem the same:
“The abuse of buying and selling votes crept in and money began to play an important part in determining elections. Later on, this process of corruption spread to the law courts. And then to the army, and finally the Republic was subjected to the rule of emperors.”
Plutarch, Historian of the Roman Republic (46-120AD)
There is a reason to oppose change! The devil you know..
What people sometimes don't realize is that it's often much more effective to deal with a bad law than have it changed to something you don't know - taking the chance it will cause other circumstances even worse than present. In particular dealing with congress and unintended(so they say)results.
Large firms have a major investment in navigating the status quo and as large entrenched firms, many see it as better to know the lay of the land than trying to find a better landscape. Sad but true ... like ISO9001(x) or whatever, I don't care if you it make it not perfect, just make it the same every single time so we can adjust to it. That is the tack taken by many large firms.
I too believe it should be a crime for a child under 13 to read the NYT, they are impressionable and should not be exposed to the drivel published by the NYT as well as Seventeen magazine or ABC News. we need them to learn from far better sources than those - though I am not sure where they might find that. In the long run this might be a good thing?
Re: Re: Re: Did it ever occur to you that millions of gun owners have them for self-protection?
Actually the government/modern society and it's inane policies, with increasing restrictions are the #1 cause of murder in the USA.
Drug related homicide (65k in Mexico also) ... we attempt to ban drugs instead of regulating them, create a black market that people make billions of dollars off of. That is why they are not legalized, billions of dollars in profits that find their way into political coffers. Didn't learn anything from Prohibition.
Economic policy that drive people into poverty and promote off-shore investment creating a cultural rich-poor divide that grows greater every day. This causes violence on a massive scale, some of which is homicidal.
Cultural policies that promote continued poverty and squalor all around the world. Though the USA is only 3.9 per homicides per 100K. Just over twice that of Europe as a whole.
Then we have 300 million plus people with over 50% living within 50 miles of the ocean coasts. Large population density in 17% of the land. Bound to cause more strife when you look at the poverty we promote.
And then with all that the first thing we cut is personal support services nationwide to make it impossible for someone with issues to seek help or we go so far as to ostracize them on a daily basis.
Every ask your self why we had school shootings back into the 1800's but they intensified after the late 80's (think about the changes that started then - tv/movies, video games, social correctness, schools can't discipline, etc).
The first generations of kids from the 60's generation of parents - so called GEN-X raised with all that don't spank, negotiate, conflict resolution, no social taboo's. Now you have generation after that, getting worse.
It's time to get back to the world of "you just don't do that" parenting.
Just the real facts - gun laws won't fix the problem, it doesn't even really treat the symptom.
Have you ever seen a study showing the incidence of crimes committed with registered weapons... without such data, there is cause-effect relationship.
Just like another study pointed out that listed blue vs red state per capita firearms fatalities, with out listing off actual numbers -- ie if NYC had a lower per capita rate of gun crimes - that is non-relevant without looking at population statistics, total events, etc... figures never lie but all liars can figure.
Actually we lost in Afghanistan to bunch of primitive herdsman with AK47's, just like the Russians and the British before us. I hate to mess up your misguided faith, but the taliban is still there and we are leaving ... sounds like a loss to me.
You should study your current events more, now that we are leaving even though there are numerous areas of the country we have never controlled. Sure we did some good, but we didn't win, not even close.
Best we can seem to do is kill randomly with drone strikes.
Mike - who doesn't own an assault weapon by the knee jerk observation of people with an anti-gun agenda. But I do own 2 clip fed semi-automatic hunting rifles (just like assault weapons but with sporting stock configurations so they don't seem to cause the visceral reactions of the ignorant anti-gun zombies. However they work just like the weapons that cause them grief).
Not only would it be very interesting to cross reference crime rates in the areas with highest gun ownership, I bet if they cross-reference crimes committed with firearms that are registered, we would know if the saying only criminals will have guns if guns are outlawed, holds water.
I am personally thinking it's a lot easier to buy an unregistered gun on the street than try to steal one where someone might shoot you with the very weapon you are trying to steal. But I can't prove that.
I have never seen such a study though. If these weapons are dangerous, this kind of cross study would show it. Since it hasn't come out I am betting someone has done it but it didn't show what they wanted so it never saw the light of day.
Mike - no I don't own an handgun, just long guns and I am not an NRA member - but I don't trust the government either.