"I'd rather have my coconuts felt up than have some towelhead..."
You sir, are either trolling, or a sheep! Either way, hopefully you are in the minority.
It is too coincidental that these more rigorous pat downs started at roughly the same time that the porno-scanners were starting to be used. Here is how I imagine it was discussed.
TSA guy #1: "You know that people are going to protest these new scanners, don't you?"
TSA guy #2: "We'll have to convince them that it is to keep them safe."
TSA guy #1: "Um, I don't think that it will work this time."
TSA guy #2: I know! We'll make the alternative to the scanner so uncomfortable and embarrassing, that people will line up like sheep to be scanned!"
The pat downs are just a way to intimidate us in to stepping into the scanner without question.
This should apply to college campus police as well. This NPR article talks about Yale claiming that campus cops aren't subject to the same public records laws as regular police.
I find it funny in the linked article where the youtube spokesperson says that the kid will need a lawyer to get his account back. Like he won't just sign up with another e-mail account.
Well, if Prince can force videos off of YouTube for just having a snippet of his song in the background, I'm sure that Paramount could sue Slate.
The above post seemed well thought out and insightful , but the rant at the end to the DRUNKEN FRAT DOUCHES almost makes the entire post irrelevant.
If you didn't read my entire post, I said that the original source (read published works) should be cited.
And I'm sorry, but just about everything that is published for research is probably somewhere on the internet. I agree that no student should trust Google to do their research. PageRank is not always the best way to identify the most accurate information for researchers. I do, however believe that the Internet will have tons more information than any one library. Consider Google as access to every library.
I can't believe what I just read!
"College is suppose to be about hard work and dedication to earn your credentials and weed out the people who can't cut it though."
Excuse me, but When I went to college, it was about LEARNING. That remark is the snottiest, most elitist thing I have heard in quite some time.
Now about the use of the internet. It is a vast resource that should be used wisely. I agree that no one should cite Wikipedia in a research paper. Wiki is not information compiled by people that are experts in their field, or paid researchers. Only the actual source should be cited.
Ironically, when I have made back-ups (never shared, or "made available") of my legally purchased movies, I can fit a better quality file if I remove the 3 minute "Copying is stealing" commercial! Go figure!
"....and the radio stations should boycot ..."
You really think that ClearChannel would get out of bed with the RIAA?
I am in no way defending DRM or the companies that endorse it, but I think that BOTH sides of the debate have gone a bit too far.
DRM side: "Let's sue everyone that breaks our digital locks, or copies (for whatever reason)our content and/or put them in jail"
Anti-DRM side: I want to make copies of whatever I want and not pay for it, and I also want to be able to give 10000 of my close personal friends a copy."
Both sides are obviously wrong, and should meet somewhere in the middle.
Middle ground: "Make a copy for your own use (either back-up or transfer to mp3 player) but if you get caught sharing it in a way that circumvents proper reimbursement, you WILL be punished."
It really was a stroke of genious to change his name to an unpronounceable symbol. At the time, his former record label actually OWNED the name "Prince" and they threatened lawsuits since he quit his contract early. The name stayed with the label until the end of the contract.
Now here's where the genious comes in....if people can't pronounce your name, but have to refer to you somehow, you say "The artist formerly known as Prince." See? He actually kept using "Prince" even though it didn't belong to him.
Maybe there's some evil plan going on that we simply don't know about.
Finally! Another person that is pissed off when I exit a Wal-Mart and some old bat has to peer at my reciept to make sure that I didn't steal anything or more likely that the cashier didn't screw up. Anymore, I tell them to call the cops if they think I stole something, and keep walking.
Oh, and I do feel bad for that screener. When did it become that the default position is that we are all criminals until we prove ourselves innocent?!
Wow! That argument that anyone against censorship must like looking at kiddie porn is exactly like the argument for warrant-less searches in this country "If you have nothing to hide, you shouldn't mind being searched!"
Yeah! And bring your own silverware too! Why should they have to clean dishes that you messed up? Also, bring your own napkins. No stupid cafe should have to provide you with those! After all it IS your face!
First of all, the point of offering wireless internet at a cafe is NOT just to be "untethered" it is for sheer convenience that they don't offer wired internet access. Not to mention that it is fairly inexpensive when the increase in customer traffic is taken in to consideration.
As I said before, cafe owners can give someone the boot any time they like. You are right in saying that it is a balancing act, but it still can be done.
Consider that the cafe is still paying an ISP for the internet access that they CHOOSE to offer for free. The negligible cost of a tiny trickle of electricity that my laptop consumes can also be seen as part of the service that they CHOOSE to offer.
I never said that they must do this or else, but if I get ticked off by a particular cafe, I can always walk across the street to the next cafe.
And you were right for kicking the guy out of the pizza place. In that case your restaurant wasn't even offering any kind of service that would seem to invite someone to sit and relax whilst surfing with his laptop.
If they are already offering wi-fi, they are already accepting liability. If they are just interested in minimizing risk, then they shouldn't offer the service in the first place. They shouldn't get it both ways.
I still don't see a problem. Business allready have zero problems with telling a non-paying squatter to leave if the space is needed. Wi-fi use is just the same as sitting there and reading a book.
I actually spend quite a bit of time at the local coffee house. I haven't ever seen anyone plugged in from the middle of the room where I frequent. But take notice, I did say MOST, not all.
Instead of blocking the outlets, why not post a rule that you can't plug in unless seated in designated power available seating? That would all but eliminate the outlet vultures that are too stupid to keep their cord out of the way of others.
I hate it when the McDonalds lawsuit gets referenced as the best example of frivolous lawsuits! If anyone cared to actually look at the facts of that case, they would find out that McDonalds was indeed at fault. They admit that the coffee machine was malfunctioning and making the coffee too hot. They admit that the employee at the drive through window didn't secure the lid of the cup. The woman that got spilled on did suffer serious burns. The original lawsuit was just for medical expense, but ONLY after McDonald's refused, did she sue for punitive damages.
As far as a potential lawsuit for tripping over a cord, I doubt it. MOST laptop users that need to plug in won't sit in the middle of the room, and string the cord across the floor. That's why the seating along the walls is at a premium, and the subject of the article.