 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fnord
Metasyntactic Variable
Joined: May 07, 2008
Posts: 6251
|
 Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:18 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| skafather84 wrote: | | Fnord wrote: | | skafather84 wrote: | | Fnord wrote: | | skafather84 wrote: | | whore to big brother: identified. |
So you call me a whore. Noted. |
you are getting paid, right? |
A 'whore' gets paid for doing something both illegal and immoral. I get paid for working on the proper side of the law. That you merely don't like what I do, does not make it 'whoring'. |
enabling others to spy on everyone is quite immoral. it would be illegal except it benefits those who make the laws and, well, power-hungry people always want more power. kinda like a nymphomaniac but not as fun. |
Your privacy is inviolate only as long as your are within your own private dwelling. If you do not want your actions monitored, then stay out of public places! It does not take a camera watch what you do in public, and it is not 'spying' unless your privacy in being infringed upon - and when you go out in public, the only thing private is your thoughts, which are not being monitored by security, stop-light, or toll-violation cameras.
While in a public place, the only people performing immoral acts are those engaged in disorderly conduct, public drunkeness, public nudity, public sex acts, or anything involving profanity, debauchery, or solicitation. Keeping an eye on thugs, punks, gangsters, and scofflaws in public venues is never immoral, and honest people have no reason to mind.
But, if you don't like the way things are, then take your riches, hire a lawyer, and argue your case in court. Just don't take it out on the equipment, because doing so only serves to make honest people want more video monitoring, and even more cameras!. And this means keeps people like me remain gainfully employed for a very long time.
Face it; your arguments are weak, and your insults are ineffective - they change nothing.
_________________
gone but not forgotten |
|
| Back to top |
|
skafather84
Platypus God
Joined: Mar 21, 2006
Age: 25
Posts: 6524
Location: New Orleans, LA
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fnord wrote: | | skafather84 wrote: | | Fnord wrote: | | skafather84 wrote: | | Fnord wrote: | | skafather84 wrote: | | whore to big brother: identified. |
So you call me a whore. Noted. |
you are getting paid, right? |
A 'whore' gets paid for doing something both illegal and immoral. I get paid for working on the proper side of the law. That you merely don't like what I do, does not make it 'whoring'. |
enabling others to spy on everyone is quite immoral. it would be illegal except it benefits those who make the laws and, well, power-hungry people always want more power. kinda like a nymphomaniac but not as fun. |
Your privacy is inviolate only as long as your are within your own private dwelling. If you do not want your actions monitored, then stay out of public places! It does not take a camera watch what you do in public, and it is not 'spying' unless your privacy in being infringed upon - and when you go out in public, the only thing private is your thoughts, which are not being monitored by security, stop-light, or toll-violation cameras.
While in a public place, the only people performing immoral acts are those engaged in disorderly conduct, public drunkeness, public nudity, public sex acts, or anything involving profanity, debauchery, or solicitation. Keeping an eye on thugs, punks, gangsters, and scofflaws in public venues is never immoral, and honest people have no reason to mind.
But, if you don't like the way things are, then take your riches, hire a lawyer, and argue your case in court. Just don't take it out on the equipment, because doing so only serves to make honest people want more video monitoring, and even more cameras!. And this means keeps people like me remain gainfully employed for a very long time.
Face it; your arguments are weak, and your insults are ineffective - they change nothing. |
if no one is around and watching, is it still public?
what if it's dead at night and i'm outside drinking a beer? in this state it's against the law but if no one is around, then i'm not disturbing anyone and there should be no problem. however, with such cameras around, it would potentially pose an unnecessary legal issue.
your argument puts the law as sacrosanct and assumes that anything outside is public.
laws are anything but sacrosanct and should be avoided at all cost and only used as a last measure. not simply for one's convenience.
you essentially are promoting victimless crime and promoting more power to the government over its people and the ability to enslave them and steal more of their money. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Macbeth
Thane of Bar and Cellar
Joined: May 28, 2007
Posts: 2191
Location: UK Doncaster
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ROFL and LOL @ the Big Brother thread.
The harsh stink of utter bullshit would make me puke, were it not so busy making me laugh my guts up anyway.
I have an operative and working knowledge of how "surveillance" is supposed to work, and frankly.. it doesnt. Claims that "big brother" is monitoring websites to garner f***ing obvious facts are laughable. "oo someone might blow a camera up" .. NO sh**!. And people get paid money to "find this out?"???? Anybody who has a brain can figure out that much. Destroying, stealing, foxing and avoiding cameras in general is a piece of piss. Any monkey can do it, and thousands do, daily.
I spent half of my night doing it, just for fun.. the rest was spent listening to other people do it, and how easily it can be done.
_________________
"Mindset of an aristocrat, budget of a tramp" ZGM
"I dont have to know I'm your first if I already know I'm the best" ZGM
|
|
| Back to top |
|
Vexcalibur
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 18, 2008
Posts: 856
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| n4mwd wrote: | | Cell phone bans are always passed by morons looking for scapegoats. The reality is that things like drinking alcohol and eating a burger are much more hazardous to a person's driving ability. |
Oddly enough, cell phone talking is as bad for you as driving while drunk. Not to mention that drunk driving is forbidden everywhere.
--
I am missing something, this cell phone ban is just for drivers, right? Or is it a total cell phone ban? Then I wish they also banned alcohol, uh that would make my life much easier...
_________________
How dare we be different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
twoshots
Boltzmann Brain
Joined: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 4229
Location: Boötes void
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 10:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Vexcalibur wrote: | | n4mwd wrote: | | Cell phone bans are always passed by morons looking for scapegoats. The reality is that things like drinking alcohol and eating a burger are much more hazardous to a person's driving ability. |
Oddly enough, cell phone talking is as bad for you as driving while drunk. |
Um. Would you kindly provide a citation for that?
_________________
* here for the nachos. |
|
| Back to top |
|
skafather84
Platypus God
Joined: Mar 21, 2006
Age: 25
Posts: 6524
Location: New Orleans, LA
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| twoshots wrote: | | Vexcalibur wrote: | | n4mwd wrote: | | Cell phone bans are always passed by morons looking for scapegoats. The reality is that things like drinking alcohol and eating a burger are much more hazardous to a person's driving ability. |
Oddly enough, cell phone talking is as bad for you as driving while drunk. |
Um. Would you kindly provide a citation for that? |
myth busters did it. but then again, the person driving with a phone had to actually pay attention and think and answer questions while driving.
dunno about any of you guys but i just ignore the person on the phone when i see a situation where my full attention needs to be on driving first and even the, i'm still only somewhat paying attention on the phone. drive first is my motto. just that i'm also a libertarian and seeing the government grab yet another reason to create an arbitrary law that will only serve to funnel more money into the government and do little to serve the people and waste more resources on cops who have yet another violation to take the easy route and just take a quick victim instead of fighting real crime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
BazzaMcKenzie
Wild colonial man
Joined: Aug 22, 2006
Posts: 3743
Location: the Antipodes
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fnord wrote: | | BazzaMcKenzie wrote: | | Fnord wrote: | | Bullets can be traced to the weapons they came from, and then to the people that fired those weapons. |
Liar liar, pants on fire |
Evidence? |
McGee goes down to the crime lab .....
"Hey Abbey, how are you going with the ID on that bullet that trashed the speed camera"
Abbey says, "Well McGee, I worked out from the metallurgy on the small fragment of copper jacket left large enough to test and found out it was made by Speer (part of the Olin Corporation - associate of Winchester). There is a 65% probability it was a 180gn bullet, but since it fragmented so much and most of it exited the housing and was never recovered, its hard to tell. There was only 30,000,000 180 gn 30 cal bullets made this year and sold in both Winchester factory rounds and in boxes for hand loaders. There are only 10,000 possible outlets for them in California."
McGee says, well I had better get started calling those retail outlets"
Abbey says, "Hold on McGee. There is a couple of rifling grooves visible on the jacket. If I just computer enhance it and then run it through our database of rifles .... Wow! McGee. Did you know there are about 150,000,000 30 cal rifles rifles in the USA? This is going to take a while to process. Lucky for us those Democrats had all the law abiding citizens bring their rifles in, back in the year 1984 to have a sample bullet fired so we can match the grooves."
"Dammit! Its not matching up? Do you think the rifle could have been owned by a criminal who didn't get his rifle put on the database?"
McGee: "No Abbey, no one would do an irresponsible thing like that. Its more likely that the rifle has just been used since then and now the rifling has a different profile".
Abbey: I guess you're right. If you are going to match that bullet to a rifle, you had better start calling all those 10,000 gun shops to see who bought 30 cal ammo or projectiles in the last few years".
McGee: "But Abbey, what if they are one of those "gun nuts" who buys ammo components by the pallet load. It could have been bought 10 years ago.
Abbey: "Well McGee, you had better start making those calls"
Edit -
McGee: Oh Abbey, I forget. Are we in a State that requires identification and recording the details of buyers of loose projectiles? Has that law been brought in yet?
_________________
I just dropped in to see what condition my condition was in.
Strewth!
Last edited by BazzaMcKenzie on Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:30 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
twoshots
Boltzmann Brain
Joined: Nov 27, 2007
Posts: 4229
Location: Boötes void
|
| Posted: Tue Jul 01, 2008 11:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| skafather84 wrote: | | twoshots wrote: | | Vexcalibur wrote: | | n4mwd wrote: | | Cell phone bans are always passed by morons looking for scapegoats. The reality is that things like drinking alcohol and eating a burger are much more hazardous to a person's driving ability. |
Oddly enough, cell phone talking is as bad for you as driving while drunk. |
Um. Would you kindly provide a citation for that? |
myth busters did it. but then again, the person driving with a phone had to actually pay attention and think and answer questions while driving. |
Not a source I'd bring to an argument ;P
_________________
* here for the nachos. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Vexcalibur
Phoenix
Joined: Jan 18, 2008
Posts: 856
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 1:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| twoshots wrote: |
Not a source I'd bring to an argument ;P |
Even so, their experiment was quite clear. Even If it was the only source it would at least be a reason to make an actual study. But they are not the only source:
What's your favorite flavor?
UTAH
UK
_________________
How dare we be different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
ascan
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Posts: 2184
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 3:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fnord wrote: | | ....A 'whore' gets paid for doing something both illegal and immoral. I get paid for working on the proper side of the law. That you merely don't like what I do, does not make it 'whoring'. |
Well, many people would describe your work as immoral, and to correct you on a minor point, whoring is not illegal everywhere. Indeed, the poster you quoted has used the word "whore" quite correctly, as it's often used to describe individuals who are perceived to be behaving in the way you are. Anyway, your acting within the law statement is not necessarily a defence. That's a very simplistic argument that takes one slowly but surely into the abyss of servitude. Of course, that suits some, who make money from the shackles that form others misery. |
|
| Back to top |
|
skafather84
Platypus God
Joined: Mar 21, 2006
Age: 25
Posts: 6524
Location: New Orleans, LA
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 4:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ascan wrote: | | Fnord wrote: | | ....A 'whore' gets paid for doing something both illegal and immoral. I get paid for working on the proper side of the law. That you merely don't like what I do, does not make it 'whoring'. |
Well, many people would describe your work as immoral, and to correct you on a minor point, whoring is not illegal everywhere. Indeed, the poster you quoted has used the word "whore" quite correctly, as it's often used to describe individuals who are perceived to be behaving in the way you are. Anyway, your acting within the law statement is not necessarily a defence. That's a very simplistic argument that takes one slowly but surely into the abyss of servitude. Of course, that suits some, who make money from the shackles that form others misery. |
the nazis were following the law too.
/it's much more effective to keep your slaves alive and not emaciated |
|
| Back to top |
|
ManErg
Phoenix
Joined: Apr 05, 2006
Posts: 1074
Location: Obscured By Clouds
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 8:37 am Post subject: |
|
|
In the UK, the facts are that speed cameras have significantly reduced the death and serious injury rates where installed. They are only installed on stretches of road with recent history of serious accidents. Why do you want to shoot them? Do you like the idea of innocent people being mown down by speeding, phone using numpties?
Always happens when our herd following robotness is finally challenged by Law. I remember the hue and cry when seatbelts were made compulsory - they were optional when I learnt to drive. People ranted and raved about liberties being infringed. They found evidence that seatbelts were *more* dangerous etc etc . Exactly the same when compulsory helmets for motor cyclists were brought in. All "free-thinking" bikers knew that it was only the absence of headgear that kept them alive.
In both cases, of course, the reality is that the new laws brought a significant improvement in safety figures. There are thousands of people right now leading normal lives who wouldn't be here at all or would be seriously injured for life if they weren't wearing seat belts or crash helmets.
Speed cameras and red light cameras are saving lives, so give them a break.
_________________
No matter how cynical you become, it's never enough to keep up |
|
| Back to top |
|
ascan
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 23, 2005
Posts: 2184
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ManErg wrote: | | In the UK, the facts are that speed cameras have significantly reduced the death and serious injury rates where installed. They are only installed on stretches of road with recent history of serious accidents... |
I don't think that is a fact, to be honest. And what constitutes significant, anyway? The number of deaths at a specific site are usually so low that one extra one either way, whilst appearing superficially significant when transposed to a percentage year-to-year change, proves nothing unless interpreted within the context of how the figure may naturally vary from year to year. It's of course easy to then pick statistics from sites that supports your case, as I expect the proponents of speed cameras do.
It's a mistake, anyway, to measure the success of a particular measure in deaths alone. You need to consider other factors such as the suffering caused to the thousands who've lost their driving licences for very minor infractions of the speed limit. The many who've, as a result, gone on to lose their jobs, so have been unable to meet their mortgage payments, and have then lost their houses. All because a bunch of self-righteous hand-wringing do-gooders, many who've never driven a car in their lives, make it so easy for the government to persecute us using those roadside abominations.
As for the siting of cameras, take a drive down the M4 from Bristol to Swansea. You'll normally find at least one camera van on that route. And motorways are the safest roads to drive on. Indeed, they are the safest roads in Europe, so I've read. In fact, if you've done much driving on the motorway in the UK you'll have noticed that most serious incidents actually involve heavy goods vehicles that have speed limiters restricting them to 56mph. The only reason the camera vans are there is because Wales is run by a bunch of greedy leftist scumbags who need to maximise revenue to feather their vile marxist nests. |
|
| Back to top |
|
slowmutant
Phoenix
Joined: Feb 14, 2008
Age: 30
Posts: 11411
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 10:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| n4mwd wrote: | | Cell phone bans are always passed by morons looking for scapegoats. The reality is that things like drinking alcohol and eating a burger are much more hazardous to a person's driving ability. They are talking about having traffic light cameras here too, but more likely, its going to result in a lot of cameras being shot out or blown up. |
Are you trying to tell me it's more than safe to yak on a cell-phone while driving? The people who insist on yakking on a cell-phone while behind the wheel are the real morons. Usually, the conversations are not even about anything important.
If you're distracted while driving, be it by a cell-phone or that gun in your hand, you constitute a danger to everyone on the road.
I'm glad I live far away from California. What a frakking mess.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
monty
Phoenix
Joined: Sep 05, 2007
Posts: 3158
|
| Posted: Wed Jul 02, 2008 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| ManErg wrote: | In the UK, the facts are that speed cameras have significantly reduced the death and serious injury rates where installed. They are only installed on stretches of road with recent history of serious accidents.
|
If it's done like that, good.
Here in the US, some jurisdictions have installed cameras 'to deter red-light runners' and then they shortened the length of the yellow transition time,
making it likely that more people would get ticketed. Other areas use the cameras primarily to ticket people who don't come to a full and complete stop before turning right, which does not massively raise the risk of a lethal collision the way that running a red light does.
I'm for safety. I'm not convinced that all of the city councils and private contractors who put up signal cameras are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
