The advantages of primary (non-rechargeable) lithium batteries include being much lighter (per joule) than rechargeable lithius and that they have a long storage life (typically 10-20 years, although I don't know the specs of these particular batteries).
Generally, batteries of this type are very well suited for uses such as tossing them in an emergency kit and forgetting about them until needed.
"The arrest can't be made to of never of happened."
This is a very important point. In my state, lots of entities (landlords, employers, etc.), consider an arrest as a pretty big black mark on you, regardless of whether or not it was followed by a conviction. I know of a couple of landlords who will not rent to someone with an arrest record, period.
People seem to take the position that an arrest is an indication of guilt.
"Hate crime" in the US is a misnomer. There is no such standalone crime that you could be charged with -- it's a sentencing modifier.
If you do an act which is illegal (regardless of any "hate" component) and it was clear that your act targeting a specific protected group, then that fact can be used to make your punishment harsher than it would otherwise have been. But you still have to be convicted of an underlying crime first before that sort of thing even comes into play.
It's the essence of public key cryptography. There are two keys: one that encrypts (the public key) and one the decrypts (the private key). The public key is not sensitive and can be widely and freely distributed.
Anyone encrypting something for you to read does so with your public key. Once done, the only way to decrypt it is with your private key, which only you have.
You cannot decrypt the message with the public key, and you cannot (without herculean effort) figure out the private key from the public key.
"I think it is clear you all are participating in a double standard."
That's not clear at all. Here's the thing -- if the problem was just that he was burning a thing in an unsafe or illegal manner and he got busted for it, I don't think you'd hear many people jumping to his defense.
But that's not what happened. He was arrested specifically because of the speech component of his actions, not because of perceived carelessness with fire.
"So you also support people burning a cross on their own front lawn across from black neighbors?"
I support their right to do that, yes. I do not support actually doing that and would condemn it -- but I would never say it isn't their right to do it.
"How about screeching obscenities at others?"
That depends on too many other factors to give a pat answer, so I'll just say that it wouldn't be the "obscenities" part that I think might be a problem.
"What if he the fire got out of hand and burned something down?"
Then he would be legally liable for that.
"its not that he burned a flag, it is that he is burning anything. I do not see you out there protecting someones right to burn leaves they racked off the lawn."
You seem to be arguing that burning anything at all should be illegal. That's fine, you can have that opinion, but that's a very different and larger discussion.
For the record, I disagree with that opinion. If someone was arrested for engaging in the perfectly legal activity of burning their yard waste, then yes, I would defend them.
It's not even close to menacing. "Menacing" is when your words or actions are intended to put someone in fear of bodily harm. Burning a flag, all by itself, is not that.
"Burning a flag... fuck that, burning anything is NOT A FREEDOM OF SPEECH ISSUE!"
Not only is burning a flag a freedom of speech issue, burning the flag itself is one of the most protected forms of freedom of speech: overtly political speech.
You might have a point if what the guy did involved destroying or threatening someone else's person or property. But he did nothing remotely like that.
Re: Re: Re: The Right to Free Speech - America, you don't know the half of it
The Constitution does not really grant rights. It restricts government behavior. It's a subtle, but important difference. One of the important aspects of the difference is that a right does not have to be specifically mentioned in the Constitution in order to exist.
"it is entertaining to see so many comments go off as a knee-jerk reaction to the wording of this article"
I can't speak for the TSA defenders, but the anti-TSA reaction is, I think, not primarily because of how the article was worded, nor is it exactly knee-jerk. The reaction is informed as much by the history of TSA behavior as by this incident in particular.
Perhaps only a handful have issues as severe as getting a beating, but a rather significant percentage of passengers have issues with the TSA every single day.
"Do YOU know what really happened, or just what this lawsuit happy family has said?"
I know precisely as much about what really happened as you do, and yet you feel very comfortable accusing the family of being "lawsuit happy" and money-seeking.
I see no reason why I should feel any less comfortable accusing the TSA of being thugs. At least I can point to past TSA behavior to support my opinion, where this family's past behavior appears rather more positive.
On the post: Daily Deal: Resqbattery Micro-USB Disposable Phone Battery 3-Pack
Re:
Generally, batteries of this type are very well suited for uses such as tossing them in an emergency kit and forgetting about them until needed.
On the post: Police Claim They Arrested Man Who Burnt American Flag Because Of Threats He Received
Re: arrested but not charged...
This is a very important point. In my state, lots of entities (landlords, employers, etc.), consider an arrest as a pretty big black mark on you, regardless of whether or not it was followed by a conviction. I know of a couple of landlords who will not rent to someone with an arrest record, period.
People seem to take the position that an arrest is an indication of guilt.
On the post: Police Claim They Arrested Man Who Burnt American Flag Because Of Threats He Received
Re: Re:
If you do an act which is illegal (regardless of any "hate" component) and it was clear that your act targeting a specific protected group, then that fact can be used to make your punishment harsher than it would otherwise have been. But you still have to be convicted of an underlying crime first before that sort of thing even comes into play.
On the post: Police Claim They Arrested Man Who Burnt American Flag Because Of Threats He Received
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well....
On the post: Standards Body Whines That People Who Want Free Access To The Law Probably Also Want 'Free Sex'
Re: Re: Not enough secrets
On the post: Standards Body Whines That People Who Want Free Access To The Law Probably Also Want 'Free Sex'
Re: Re:
And here I thought that you had some kind of censorship superpower that allowed you to singlehandedly suppress comments you don't like.
I'm a little disappointed.
On the post: Senate Funding Bill For State Dept. Asks It To Figure Out Ways To Stop Bad People From Using Tor
Re: Re: Re: Tinfoil Hats Do Not Exist
Anyone encrypting something for you to read does so with your public key. Once done, the only way to decrypt it is with your private key, which only you have.
You cannot decrypt the message with the public key, and you cannot (without herculean effort) figure out the private key from the public key.
On the post: Senate Funding Bill For State Dept. Asks It To Figure Out Ways To Stop Bad People From Using Tor
Re: Tinfoil Hats Do Not Exist
Because the keys you need to decrypt the traffic are never transmitted and so they can't be so easily obtained.
On the post: Police Claim They Arrested Man Who Burnt American Flag Because Of Threats He Received
Re: Re: Re: Well....
That's not clear at all. Here's the thing -- if the problem was just that he was burning a thing in an unsafe or illegal manner and he got busted for it, I don't think you'd hear many people jumping to his defense.
But that's not what happened. He was arrested specifically because of the speech component of his actions, not because of perceived carelessness with fire.
On the post: Police Claim They Arrested Man Who Burnt American Flag Because Of Threats He Received
Re: Re: Re: Well....
I support their right to do that, yes. I do not support actually doing that and would condemn it -- but I would never say it isn't their right to do it.
"How about screeching obscenities at others?"
That depends on too many other factors to give a pat answer, so I'll just say that it wouldn't be the "obscenities" part that I think might be a problem.
"What if he the fire got out of hand and burned something down?"
Then he would be legally liable for that.
"its not that he burned a flag, it is that he is burning anything. I do not see you out there protecting someones right to burn leaves they racked off the lawn."
You seem to be arguing that burning anything at all should be illegal. That's fine, you can have that opinion, but that's a very different and larger discussion.
For the record, I disagree with that opinion. If someone was arrested for engaging in the perfectly legal activity of burning their yard waste, then yes, I would defend them.
On the post: Police Claim They Arrested Man Who Burnt American Flag Because Of Threats He Received
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well....
It's not even close to menacing. "Menacing" is when your words or actions are intended to put someone in fear of bodily harm. Burning a flag, all by itself, is not that.
On the post: Police Claim They Arrested Man Who Burnt American Flag Because Of Threats He Received
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Well....
What is that?
On the post: Police Claim They Arrested Man Who Burnt American Flag Because Of Threats He Received
Re: Well....
Not only is burning a flag a freedom of speech issue, burning the flag itself is one of the most protected forms of freedom of speech: overtly political speech.
You might have a point if what the guy did involved destroying or threatening someone else's person or property. But he did nothing remotely like that.
On the post: Police Claim They Arrested Man Who Burnt American Flag Because Of Threats He Received
Re: Re: Re: The Right to Free Speech - America, you don't know the half of it
On the post: TSA Scores Another PR Win With Assault Of Nineteen Year Old Brain Tumor Patient On Her Way To Treatment
Re: Re: TSA
I believe that the TSA itself poses a threat to passenger safety and, further, that they do not significantly reduce the threat from other bad guys.
On the post: TSA Scores Another PR Win With Assault Of Nineteen Year Old Brain Tumor Patient On Her Way To Treatment
Re: Re:
I can't speak for the TSA defenders, but the anti-TSA reaction is, I think, not primarily because of how the article was worded, nor is it exactly knee-jerk. The reaction is informed as much by the history of TSA behavior as by this incident in particular.
The TSA long ago lost the benefit of the doubt.
On the post: 'Most Transparent' President Signs Into Law FOIA Reform Bill That Won't Affect His Administration
Re:
On the post: TSA Scores Another PR Win With Assault Of Nineteen Year Old Brain Tumor Patient On Her Way To Treatment
Re: Right now hundreds of poor web developers
Which in no way explains or excuses the behavior on the part of the TSA here.
On the post: TSA Scores Another PR Win With Assault Of Nineteen Year Old Brain Tumor Patient On Her Way To Treatment
Re: Re: Re:
Perhaps only a handful have issues as severe as getting a beating, but a rather significant percentage of passengers have issues with the TSA every single day.
On the post: TSA Scores Another PR Win With Assault Of Nineteen Year Old Brain Tumor Patient On Her Way To Treatment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I know precisely as much about what really happened as you do, and yet you feel very comfortable accusing the family of being "lawsuit happy" and money-seeking.
I see no reason why I should feel any less comfortable accusing the TSA of being thugs. At least I can point to past TSA behavior to support my opinion, where this family's past behavior appears rather more positive.
Next >>