And re: Ron Paul's credibility, I continue to meet a lot of people who admit (in hushed tones) that they would have voted for him in 2008 if he had made it through the primaries...
I, too, am doubtful our political system is capable of solving the problem unless enough of us as individuals are willing to stand up (and be groped) rather than meekly letting them strip us of our rights.
The duty of the government is to PROTECT our rights, not VIOLATE them!
Better than an overview, here is the full text of the bill:
A BILL
To ensure that certain Federal employees cannot hide behind immunity.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. NO IMMUNITY FOR CERTAIN AIRPORT SCREENING METHODS.
No law of the United States shall be construed to confer any immunity for a Federal employee or agency or any individual or entity that receives Federal funds, who subjects an individual to any physical contact (including contact with any clothing the individual is wearing), x-rays, or millimeter waves, or aids in the creation of or views a representation of any part of a individual's body covered by clothing as a condition for such individual to be in an airport or to fly in an aircraft. The preceding sentence shall apply even if the individual or the individual's parent, guardian, or any other individual gives consent.
I appreciate Ron Paul's stance, but the introduction of this bill reminds me of the West Wing character Ainsley Hayes and her stance on the Equal Rights Amendment: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXPLirJRGDQ#t=3m54s
The Fourth Amendment should already be protecting us from what the TSA is doing. Why isn't it? And isn't the fact that Fourth Amendment violations are not prosecuted as such a much bigger issue?
The clause that shelters the TSA is from a 1973 court decision: "a warrantless search...is valid under the Fourth Amendment if it is 'no more intrusive or intensive than necessary, in light of current technology, to detect weapons or explosives'" (http://www.tsa.gov/what_we_do/optout/spp_faqs.shtm). Cavity searches aren't far.
> And re: Ron Paul's credibility, I continue to meet a lot of people who admit (in hushed tones) that they would have voted for him in 2008 if he had made it through the primaries...
Republicans would do well to notice that a lot of the polling of people who attended tea party rallies across the US show that the people attending were about 50% social liberal / fiscal conservative (more Libertarian) versus social conservative / fiscal conservative (traditional Republican base).
> And re: Ron Paul's credibility, I continue to meet a lot of people who admit (in hushed tones) that they would have voted for him in 2008 if he had made it through the primaries...
Show them his "We The People Act" and then see if they feel the same way.
I'm curious if whoever downvoted me has read the "We The People Act".
What it does is use a legal trick called "jurisdiction stripping" to take several classes of cases out of the jurisdiction of Federal courts (including the Supreme Court). In particular, it removes jurisdiction over cases involving abortion, same-sex marriage, sexual practices, and establishment of religion (with the exception that if the Constitutionality of a Federal law is challenged, Federal courts have jurisdiction).
This would, among other things, make it so that things like the clause in the Texas state constitution that requires office holders to acknowledge belief in a Supreme Being (and this making atheists and Buddhists ineligible for state office in Texas) legal. Right now, that clause has no effect, because any attempt to enforce it would fall to a challenge in Federal court as a violation of the establishment of religion clause in the Constitution and the 14th Amendment. Under "We the People", no challenge could be brought in Federal court.
It would be OK if "We the People" passed for a State to actually establish an official state religion, or to outlaw specific religions.
I'm a girl (and an engineer), and I applied for the summer round this year with http://wordchuck.com. I never got a response from YC after submitting my application, which was a bit disappointing.
I haven't had any trouble launching and getting traction on my own, so don't get discouraged, no matter what happens with YC :)
That said, WeddingType looks like a terrific idea, and I hope you do get accepted!
I just investigated. You submitted a late application, and with late applications we didn't reply individually; we just posted a notice in late May saying we'd contacted everyone we were going to.
Summer 2010 was the first time we accepted late applications, so we were still figuring out the procedure. We'll probably email all the late applicants from now on, in case they miss an announcement. Sorry if we kept you hanging.
I'm pretty sure YC make a point of responding to all the applications, so this was likely a technical glitch. For example, I distinctly recall that the response we got ended up in my Spam folder.
Unless they've changed it, you'll only receive the invitation/rejection via email, questions and other feedback before this are delivered via the HN UI (in the coloured bar at the top).
It's something that a lot of tech companies do and honestly, it's courtesy. Even a simple copy and pasted email would be better than nothing for the person on the other end waiting.
I just opened up the beta last week, and have enough people using it that I can be confident I'm not wasting my time. The trickiest part has been having to juggle the biz dev and the coding. And finding time to sleep :)
I would provide some pointers and a variety of example videos. Offer a few great videos, with some explanation of why each is good, and do the same with some less-than-spectacular specimens.
Also, things like lighting and sound can make a pretty big difference, so providing basic info on optimizing your setup might help.
I also like the idea of having each company do an intro video that sets the mood.
Thanks for the suggestions, shelly! I think the both an intro video from the company and example videos with some advice for recording would be great additions.
I flew through BWI airport a few weeks ago, and saw signs posted in the security line indicating they're piloting the new full-body imagers.
I wasn't thrilled, to say the least.
I was far less thrilled when I reached into my backpack at the end of a very long series of flights and realized my swiss army knife had made it through security, in the mesh side pocket of my carry-on backpack the whole time.
How 'bout the TSA focus on mastering the basics (like, um, finding knives when they go through the x-ray conveyor belt) before they add new tech with questionable benefit and high potential for abuse?
I keep a Swiss Army knife on my key chain. I fly fairly often, and sometimes I forget to put it in my checked bag. Post-9/11 I've forgotten 4 times. I've only had them catch it once.
