I am speaking out against the useless circus that this has all become. And all to make the sheep feel better. I am sick of being penalized and made to suffer indignities just because I'm not part of the lowest common denominator.
But, instead of showing up naked to expedite the search (crossed my mind) or going in with a nice and highly-contagious rash to give back as a thank-you for the grope, I have decided to act with my wallet: I will never fly as long as the TSA is pulling this farce. But that doesn't mean that I won't continue to join my voice with the MANY more who think this is a BAD THING.
You know, i was going to let all this go because everyone else already made many points I would echo about slippery slopes and the sheep-mentality of "it's ok for this one time" removal of freedom...
so here's a recap: the device FAILS TO FIND EXPLOSIVE COMPONENTS in the guy's pockets. Not shoved up his bum, not strapped in his junk... in his pockets. So... if you're going to sell your freedoms for a warm cup of reassurance, make sure there's actual substance to it! Idiot.
it's not about whether 'They're' right or not based on location... the point of the article is WhyTF would the MLB even care about it except that they can't be seen to allow even one iota of control over, well, EXISTANCE slip from thier grasp. At least, that's what thier action seems to show.
"I think it’s funny how most of the people posting on here have never been to a service at First Baptist. The preaching is outstanding and is straight from the Bible, not manipulated by the world’s view."
I HAVE been to service there. And I didn't feel the hand of god; I felt the sway of a minister. Not the same thing.
And 'not maniupulated [sic] by the world's view'? Bullshit. I don't usually curse here out of respect, but I don't really know a better word for that statement. The FBC, just like every other Evangelical Christian church I have EVER sat in, preaches their interpretation of the bible in the light of whatever is going on in the world... they believe that's what they're supposed to do. I don't disagree with using the bible (correctly!!) to help you gain perspective on the events happening around you, but I DO disagree with what churches are used for in these modern times… telling people what to think, which is why I don't feel the need to go.
"-"They seat you according to how much you tithe... the more you pay, the closer to the front-row"-
This is the funniest rumor in which (all non-believers) use to attack the church. You have business owners and housekeeping workers who sit next to each other and even sing in the choir with each other…every week… at every service."
Actually, the existence of Baptist Ninjas is the funniest rumor, but since that’s only from my ex-roommate, I don’t usually count it. I know for a FACT that at least one person was told to move further back because someone who tithed higher wanted to sit closer.
"But any way, the blogger needed to be excommunicated from the church. He was causing too much uproar. I mean if he really didn't like the church he should have just left. No one was forcing him to stay. Don't get me wrong everyone needs a critic so that we can improve ourselves but the blogger took it to a whole new level by publicizing he's personal address, floor plans of his home, maps of his neighborhood, and posting his salary (something in which ALL MEMBERS AGREED APPONED INCLUDING THE BLOGGER)."
Now onto the truly fun part... excommunicated? Really? For the mortal sin of speaking his mind? I know that most anti-religion people love to cite the whole image of "do what we say and don't think", so do you want to arm them that much?
Causing too much of an uproar? Ok... how about the church and its leadership set the proper example and calmly and rationally defend their position? Nope... instead they moved as quickly (and ILLEGALLY, I might add) as possible to silence a dissenter. Go look up the Streisand effect.
You deny this person access to the house and word of god because you don't like what he has to say... real forgiving there FBC. Why is it that Christians are some of the LEAST forgiving people I have ever met? Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek? Didn't he say that it was a command from his father? Is that something you want to take as 'optional'?
And Matthew 18 talks about SINNING. Where did this guy sin by pointing out FBC's QUESTIONABLE PRACTICES?! And the deputy was not 'just protecting ALL religious practices and synagogues in Jacksonville'... he was using his position to violate this person's First Amendment right to privacy. Sorry, but that's illegal. Unless you're going to say 'the law of god is higher than the law of man'. In that case, go away. I have no patience for people who use the convenience of their religion to circumvent a law that's in their way. If he was a threat to public safety (like making threats), then the law would have backed up the searching for this anonymous person's identity and would have prosecuted him. But since the identity was handed over to the church (again, ILLEGALLY), and no charges were brought against him, that tells me that HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG.
If you ARE going to say that these actions equate to sinning, how about you keep reading Matthew 18 about how many times your brother's 'sin' against you should be forgiven. And before you say "Oh, 77 or 490 times" I hope you know he meant "there is no finite number of times". And further, god forgives all the debts you (And the FBC) have against him, but you go to your ‘servant’ (Mr. Blogger) and demand payment of a debt (sin, although I SERIOUSLY disagree with calling it that) against you? You wicked servant. You do know that the bible would still apply even past the point in which it has supported you position, right?
"by publicizing he's personal address, floor plans of his home, maps of his neighborhood, and posting his salary (something in which ALL MEMBERS AGREED APPONED INCLUDING THE BLOGGER)."
What? Who’s floor plans, neighborhood maps and salary? Citation?
Actually, we hear the same thing about the Jacksonville Sherriff’s Office. Read any local story online about something happening with the JSO and then scroll down to the comments. You're comments (while absolutely correct) would be camouflaged amongst their peers.
I have a hard time arguing against that kind of cynicism, but I really don't believe it. Yes, the majority is lazy and wants things handed to them instead of earning them. But I also believe that there are people out there who would do the job because it needs to be done, and not demand reimbursement for their time (would they accept it? sure). And let's be honest... when you say "appreciation" you're talking money or some other power.
"If the maximum damages are under $100, you don't have to go to court. "
I was referring to this quote from your comment back in the early-30's. I guess I misunderstood what you meant.
We're on the same page for the (Damages x 24 Songs) equation. I made a point elsewhere in this thread that yes, the dollars are different if you copy one work vs. copying 24 works... and my point is that they should not be treated exactly the same if one of them has an increased intrinsic ability to be copied. A painting should not treated the same as a digital work just because they are not the same based on inherent copy-ability. I'm not saying the ease of copy makes one worth less, just that they should not be treated or handled the same.
"Someone earlier had suggested that the cost of the songs would seem to be an appropriate measure of damages. That would be about $24, and treble damages would be $72. I don't really think that provides an adequate disincentive to infringement."
But that's STILL per song downloaded... so over $100 would be paid. Hence, you still go to court. IF going to court would be in and of itself disincentive enough, then a smaller amount WOULD serve most people.
"but allowing up to $150,000 per work is not necessarily outrageous for other cases."
I can see that for singular cases where someone copys a piece of painted art or the like... But digital copies of music are a bit different, in my opinion. While I agree that just being easier to make a copy does not change the fact that a copy was made, I don't think that the exact same process should be applied.
Under $100? They would have to award less than $2/ song to get the penalty that low on 24 songs. I don't think Mike is saying to award only a few pennies per song here... just that tens of thousands per song is excessive, whatever the intentions for disincentive.
And forgive me if I'm off on this next part, but does one not have to show actual damages caused by infringement? Or is just the act of infringement grounds for a suit? No sarcasm... actual question.
Re: This is why nobody with any intelligence goes to churches like these
Actually, a good number of Jacksonville's politicos, well-to-do's and educated business owners are members of the congregation... either because they have to be to succeed, or because they know they'll be able to ride the gravy-train if they hop on.
I actually attended service at this church, once long ago...It's scary. They seat you according to how much you tithe... the more you pay, the closer to the front-row. There's a skating rink on the 4th floor... there's a 4th floor period! I don't think I've ever seen a church move so far away from 'preaching the word' to 'being an influencing power'.
And if you believe the rumors around in Jax, they control quite a bit of the body-politic, and a majority portion of the businesses and land in Downtown Jacksonville is owned by major members of the congregation. If you want a controlling position in the politics of Jacksonville, you better be either a member of the congregation, contribute to the church, or be REAL friendly with them. But that's if you believe the rumors. I don't doubt them, but I haven't seen much evidence (outside articles like this) that prove it.
"Too big for their britches" comes to mind when I think of this church. And I think you're right, DH, they're probably in for a rude awakening 'up stairs' when the time comes.
"Look you imbeciles, do you really want to be blown out of the sky never to see your loved ones again? "
Yeah, because terrorists are more likely to use the same method again after it's been tried (and failed more times, statistically). Instead of, you know, using an unforeseen and original method of causing terror. Like our government is doing, for example.
"The idea here is to keep us SAFE."
Ok... but it doesn't even work. Go do some research online where these scanners FAILED to find the numerous items that the demonstration "terrorist" had on him. Including a detonator, plastic explosive material, and a cigarette lighter, just to name a few.
"btw -the dude watching the screen is in another area so he doesn't even know "who" "you" are, nor does he even care."
And the government officials who illegally wiretap you and search your computer aren't in the room with you either... so that's OK too?
"Quit complaining and enjoy the freedom you have to move about the cabin."
We have the 'freedom' to move about the cabin after we bow down to the government's agents and give in to their control in exchange for the (false) illusion of safety. No thanks. I'll walk. And when more and more THINKING consumers (yes, oxymoron, I know) start doing the same thing, the airlines will help us do away with this farce themselves.
I wrote the wrong decimal down... I know it's .5555(rpt). My bad.
But 100/.5555(rpt) is 180. If you calculate 100/5/9 then your calculateor handles it as (100/5)/9 which is = 2.22222(rpt). However, if you move the parentheses to the correct location - 100/(5/9), then the answer is 180. The math DOES work here... that's why we have that formula... I didn't just make it up.
And I do know that 100/(9/5) = (100*9)/5, but the reason it's not usually converted is so that you can easily invert the formula to go from F to C. I just chose to start w/ C in my example because 100c as boiling was a better example to start with (for me, at least).
And I know cash registers use finite precision, but we don't usualy do temperature conversions on them ;) I think you either meant "calculators" or you are confusing two of my threads on this.
On the post: TSA Threatens To Sue Guy For Not Agreeing To Having His Groin Touched By TSA Agents
Re: The bottom like to all this is...
On the post: TSA Threatens To Sue Guy For Not Agreeing To Having His Groin Touched By TSA Agents
Re: This is Spinal Tap
On the post: TSA Threatens To Sue Guy For Not Agreeing To Having His Groin Touched By TSA Agents
Re: just do a scan
I am speaking out against the useless circus that this has all become. And all to make the sheep feel better. I am sick of being penalized and made to suffer indignities just because I'm not part of the lowest common denominator.
But, instead of showing up naked to expedite the search (crossed my mind) or going in with a nice and highly-contagious rash to give back as a thank-you for the grope, I have decided to act with my wallet: I will never fly as long as the TSA is pulling this farce. But that doesn't mean that I won't continue to join my voice with the MANY more who think this is a BAD THING.
On the post: TSA Threatens To Sue Guy For Not Agreeing To Having His Groin Touched By TSA Agents
Re: Re: Re: Deal with it. #14
You know, i was going to let all this go because everyone else already made many points I would echo about slippery slopes and the sheep-mentality of "it's ok for this one time" removal of freedom...
But this? Come on... I don't actually expect you to follow this link since it would prove you wrong (and misinfomred): http://boingboing.net/2010/01/22/naked-airport-scanne.html
so here's a recap: the device FAILS TO FIND EXPLOSIVE COMPONENTS in the guy's pockets. Not shoved up his bum, not strapped in his junk... in his pockets. So... if you're going to sell your freedoms for a warm cup of reassurance, make sure there's actual substance to it! Idiot.
On the post: Major League Baseball Claims Dodgers Still Own Trademark On Brooklyn Logo, Despite Leaving Town 53 Years Ago
Re: TM
On the post: Major League Baseball Claims Dodgers Still Own Trademark On Brooklyn Logo, Despite Leaving Town 53 Years Ago
Re: Re:
-Passes AC a beer (hidden from the view of 18yo's)-
Amen brother/sister.
On the post: Lawsuit Settled After Cop Revealed Anonymous Blogger To His Church, Then Destroyed Records To 'Protect Civil Rights'
Re:
And 'not maniupulated [sic] by the world's view'? Bullshit. I don't usually curse here out of respect, but I don't really know a better word for that statement. The FBC, just like every other Evangelical Christian church I have EVER sat in, preaches their interpretation of the bible in the light of whatever is going on in the world... they believe that's what they're supposed to do. I don't disagree with using the bible (correctly!!) to help you gain perspective on the events happening around you, but I DO disagree with what churches are used for in these modern times… telling people what to think, which is why I don't feel the need to go.
Actually, the existence of Baptist Ninjas is the funniest rumor, but since that’s only from my ex-roommate, I don’t usually count it. I know for a FACT that at least one person was told to move further back because someone who tithed higher wanted to sit closer. Now onto the truly fun part... excommunicated? Really? For the mortal sin of speaking his mind? I know that most anti-religion people love to cite the whole image of "do what we say and don't think", so do you want to arm them that much?
Causing too much of an uproar? Ok... how about the church and its leadership set the proper example and calmly and rationally defend their position? Nope... instead they moved as quickly (and ILLEGALLY, I might add) as possible to silence a dissenter. Go look up the Streisand effect. You deny this person access to the house and word of god because you don't like what he has to say... real forgiving there FBC. Why is it that Christians are some of the LEAST forgiving people I have ever met? Didn't Jesus say to turn the other cheek? Didn't he say that it was a command from his father? Is that something you want to take as 'optional'?
And Matthew 18 talks about SINNING. Where did this guy sin by pointing out FBC's QUESTIONABLE PRACTICES?! And the deputy was not 'just protecting ALL religious practices and synagogues in Jacksonville'... he was using his position to violate this person's First Amendment right to privacy. Sorry, but that's illegal. Unless you're going to say 'the law of god is higher than the law of man'. In that case, go away. I have no patience for people who use the convenience of their religion to circumvent a law that's in their way. If he was a threat to public safety (like making threats), then the law would have backed up the searching for this anonymous person's identity and would have prosecuted him. But since the identity was handed over to the church (again, ILLEGALLY), and no charges were brought against him, that tells me that HE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING WRONG.
If you ARE going to say that these actions equate to sinning, how about you keep reading Matthew 18 about how many times your brother's 'sin' against you should be forgiven. And before you say "Oh, 77 or 490 times" I hope you know he meant "there is no finite number of times". And further, god forgives all the debts you (And the FBC) have against him, but you go to your ‘servant’ (Mr. Blogger) and demand payment of a debt (sin, although I SERIOUSLY disagree with calling it that) against you? You wicked servant. You do know that the bible would still apply even past the point in which it has supported you position, right? What? Who’s floor plans, neighborhood maps and salary? Citation?
On the post: Lawsuit Settled After Cop Revealed Anonymous Blogger To His Church, Then Destroyed Records To 'Protect Civil Rights'
Re: What about it?
On the post: Lawsuit Settled After Cop Revealed Anonymous Blogger To His Church, Then Destroyed Records To 'Protect Civil Rights'
Re: Re: Re:
On the post: Why The Jammie Thomas Verdicts Return Such Huge Amounts Per Song Shared: It's All About The Framing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was referring to this quote from your comment back in the early-30's. I guess I misunderstood what you meant.
We're on the same page for the (Damages x 24 Songs) equation. I made a point elsewhere in this thread that yes, the dollars are different if you copy one work vs. copying 24 works... and my point is that they should not be treated exactly the same if one of them has an increased intrinsic ability to be copied. A painting should not treated the same as a digital work just because they are not the same based on inherent copy-ability. I'm not saying the ease of copy makes one worth less, just that they should not be treated or handled the same.
On the post: Why The Jammie Thomas Verdicts Return Such Huge Amounts Per Song Shared: It's All About The Framing
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Someone earlier had suggested that the cost of the songs would seem to be an appropriate measure of damages. That would be about $24, and treble damages would be $72. I don't really think that provides an adequate disincentive to infringement."
But that's STILL per song downloaded... so over $100 would be paid. Hence, you still go to court. IF going to court would be in and of itself disincentive enough, then a smaller amount WOULD serve most people.
"but allowing up to $150,000 per work is not necessarily outrageous for other cases."
I can see that for singular cases where someone copys a piece of painted art or the like... But digital copies of music are a bit different, in my opinion. While I agree that just being easier to make a copy does not change the fact that a copy was made, I don't think that the exact same process should be applied.
On the post: Why The Jammie Thomas Verdicts Return Such Huge Amounts Per Song Shared: It's All About The Framing
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And forgive me if I'm off on this next part, but does one not have to show actual damages caused by infringement? Or is just the act of infringement grounds for a suit? No sarcasm... actual question.
On the post: Lawsuit Settled After Cop Revealed Anonymous Blogger To His Church, Then Destroyed Records To 'Protect Civil Rights'
Re: This is why nobody with any intelligence goes to churches like these
On the post: Lawsuit Settled After Cop Revealed Anonymous Blogger To His Church, Then Destroyed Records To 'Protect Civil Rights'
Re:
On the post: Lawsuit Settled After Cop Revealed Anonymous Blogger To His Church, Then Destroyed Records To 'Protect Civil Rights'
Re: Re:
And if you believe the rumors around in Jax, they control quite a bit of the body-politic, and a majority portion of the businesses and land in Downtown Jacksonville is owned by major members of the congregation. If you want a controlling position in the politics of Jacksonville, you better be either a member of the congregation, contribute to the church, or be REAL friendly with them. But that's if you believe the rumors. I don't doubt them, but I haven't seen much evidence (outside articles like this) that prove it.
"Too big for their britches" comes to mind when I think of this church. And I think you're right, DH, they're probably in for a rude awakening 'up stairs' when the time comes.
On the post: Group Trying To Get Backscatter Airport Scanners Banned
Re: Re: Re: Backscatter
On the post: Group Trying To Get Backscatter Airport Scanners Banned
Re:
Yeah, because terrorists are more likely to use the same method again after it's been tried (and failed more times, statistically). Instead of, you know, using an unforeseen and original method of causing terror. Like our government is doing, for example.
"The idea here is to keep us SAFE."
Ok... but it doesn't even work. Go do some research online where these scanners FAILED to find the numerous items that the demonstration "terrorist" had on him. Including a detonator, plastic explosive material, and a cigarette lighter, just to name a few.
"btw -the dude watching the screen is in another area so he doesn't even know "who" "you" are, nor does he even care."
And the government officials who illegally wiretap you and search your computer aren't in the room with you either... so that's OK too?
"Quit complaining and enjoy the freedom you have to move about the cabin."
We have the 'freedom' to move about the cabin after we bow down to the government's agents and give in to their control in exchange for the (false) illusion of safety. No thanks. I'll walk. And when more and more THINKING consumers (yes, oxymoron, I know) start doing the same thing, the airlines will help us do away with this farce themselves.
On the post: Group Trying To Get Backscatter Airport Scanners Banned
Re: Re: Backscatter
You know, on second thought... I'll bring the popcorn.
On the post: One Dunkin Donuts Tries To Abolish The Penny... Until Customers Demand It Back
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Friggin' rediculous indeed
But 100/.5555(rpt) is 180. If you calculate 100/5/9 then your calculateor handles it as (100/5)/9 which is = 2.22222(rpt). However, if you move the parentheses to the correct location - 100/(5/9), then the answer is 180. The math DOES work here... that's why we have that formula... I didn't just make it up.
And I do know that 100/(9/5) = (100*9)/5, but the reason it's not usually converted is so that you can easily invert the formula to go from F to C. I just chose to start w/ C in my example because 100c as boiling was a better example to start with (for me, at least).
And I know cash registers use finite precision, but we don't usualy do temperature conversions on them ;) I think you either meant "calculators" or you are confusing two of my threads on this.
On the post: One Dunkin Donuts Tries To Abolish The Penny... Until Customers Demand It Back
Re: Huh
Next >>