| Author | Message | ||
     Jaimec |
You people had something to do with this, didn't you?? | ||
| Thumper74 |
I had to look the okra plants up because I wondered if maybe they are similar looking plants. Not. Even. Close. | ||
| Pwnzor |
You KNOW it wasn't me. | ||
| Fast1075 |
Dude!!! Lets go toast up some Okra, then we can move on up to smokin' crawdads, and mullet. | ||
| Pwnzor |
Supposedly some plants give a similar heat sig that shows up on FLIR... tomatoes for example. Could be urban legend, or could be that searching for weed plants from the air is an imperfect science. | ||
| Desertdan |
What would be a perfect science is if they quit looking for weed plants all together . the Feds were spending $220,000 a DAY up until they just passed Bill section 538 just for Marijuana grown here. Take away the profit to the Cartel and other Fuc_Heads from foreign Countries and put a hurtin on them not the Citizens of the USA. Since when did Mother Nature become Illegal ? | ||
| Sifo |
Alfalfa! My brother has been known to plant patches of alfalfa in the back 40 for the deer. We've had the black helicopters come in to check out those bright green patches. Of course setting foot on our land would be illegal under the 4th amendment, so they just hover about a foot off the ground. I wonder what our founding fathers would think about that? | ||
| Panhead_dan |
Well, fear not good citizens! The times they are a changing! There are more and more states adopting new laws which make growing your own okra for personal use quite legal.  | ||
| Hootowl |
You own the land and everything under it down to the center of the earth. But I guess you don't own the air space above. I think a court would side with the landowner about police hovering a foot off the ground and saying they aren't on your property. | ||
| Crusty |
Aw, come on! They're only doing it for your own good! You need to be protected from yourself.  | ||
| Desertdan |
It's funny how they say they are only doing it for Your own good ? but where I live on any given week there are people wiped out by drunk drivers , seldom is it a Okra user , and Yet Alcohol is sold every where and has destroyed so many lives not just from wreck's but addiction , family's broke up, loss of jobs , again where I live you go downtown and the homeless are predominately Alcoholics , I guess it's for Our own good ? , Yes I drink my share sometimes | ||
| Aesquire |
No you don't own the airspace above your home. How could you? Airliners, delivery drones, crop dusters, recreational flyers, all have use of that space..... conditional on so many traffic rules you'd plotz. Some years back the next county over got a multi million buck grant to fly over everyone's home at night with an IR camera to catch people growing plants in the house. A buddy lived there and when I visited we'd go out and when the plane flew over lit cigars with an over enthusiastic lighter. ( I think they sell them as weed burners, how ironic is that?) Btw, the same county's drug rehab budget was $2000 a year. Seems disproportionate. I keep waiting for the airborne guys to buzz my backyard maze. No okra, but lots of wildflowers. This year I'm putting a Roman ballista in the middle. Yes. A real working spear throwing wmd. | ||
| Hootowl |
Yup, it's a shame. Perhaps we should own a reasonable amount of it though. Say, below 2000 feet is mine, above that you can fly airplanes. | ||
| Ourdee |
I think they get to fly down to 500 ft. Not certain though. Ask Court. Fly a foot off the ground in my back yard and I'll throw a rock through your rotors if the black steel poles don't get you first. | ||
| Fahren |
Off topic from plants...but not really: "Well at least someone finally had the candor to just come out and say it. In the wake of recent terror attacks in Europe, British Prime Minister David Cameron has called for an end to secure communications technology. In other words, he wants to ensure that you will never again be able to use encryption technology to maintain privacy. Nothing should be safe from government’s prying eyes. Nothing. This is the same sad cycle repeating itself yet again: something terrible happens, and government reacts by awarding themselves even more power and taking away even more freedom. Prime Minister Cameron’s remarks came in a press conference in which he stated: “The simple principle is this: do we want to allow a means of communications between people which, even in extremis, with a signed warrant from the home secretary personally, that we cannot read?” “And my answer to that is, no, we must not. The first duty of any government is to keep out country and our people safe. . . The powers that I believe we need, whether on communications data or on the content of communications, I’m very comfortable that those are absolutely right for a modern, liberal democracy.” Nice. Spying. Censorship. Unlimited control. Cameron’s statement starts with a very fundamental premise that is repeated by politicians around the world (especially in the Land of the Free): ‘the first duty of any government is to keep our people safe.’ No, actually it’s not. Politicians say over and over again, and people believe it. It becomes axiomatic through repetition. But in fact there’s absolutely no legal or moral basis for that assertion whatsoever. In the United States, for example, the Preamble states very clearly that the Constitution was drafted for multiple reasons. Sure, one of those reasons is provide for the common defense. But there are several others, including to “secure the blessing of our liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Nowhere does it say... anywhere... that ‘homeland security’ is far and away the most important duty of government. What’s really interesting is that national defense and security are mentioned a grand total of... TWO times... in the entire body of the Constitution. The first comes in Article I, and it’s a scant mention: “The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence. . .” The only other time it’s brought up is in a little corner of the Constitution called the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” How interesting. It turns out that security is not the responsibility of the government... but rather the right of the people to have the opportunity to protect themselves. Hmmm. Well who needs that stupid Constitution anyhow. Back in the UK, it’s a bit more complicated. There really is no British Constitution… rather a series of laws and statutes that go back to the iconic Magna Carta from eight centuries ago. What’s interesting is that out of any of these documents, from the 1689 Bill of Rights to the Terrorism Act of 2000, there is no such assertion that the government’s primary responsibility is to protect its citizens. Conversely, there’s a hell of a lot of language about government’s duty to safeguard civil liberties. Yes there are bad people in the world who, from time to time, do horrible things. That’s life. But a little bit of anxiety is a small price to pay for freedom... especially when governments present a far greater threat to your security and livelihood than extremists. Besides-- did you ever notice how this seems to only work in one direction? Acts of love, generosity, and compassion occur on a daily basis. Yet they do not relax gun control laws every time a firearm is used safely and responsibly. They do not increase our freedoms whenever a complete stranger gives up a kidney to save a child’s life. But once in a blue moon, a bad guy blows something up and they take away our freedom. This is ironic, because, whenever this occurs, politicians frantically rush to tell us that we should not judge Islam by the isolated acts of a few. But in taking away everyone’s freedom and treating us all like criminal terrorist suspects, why are they effectively judging all of humanity because of the isolated acts of a few? Funny how that works." http://www.sovereignman.com/trends/british-governm ent-wants-to-outlaw-secure-communication-15937/ | ||
| Jaimec |
And if you outlaw encrypted communication, only outlaws will encrypt their communication.  | ||
| Jaimec |
Funny how this just popped up in my news feed: http://news.slashdot.org/story/15/01/15/0214217/wa shington-dcs-public-library-will-teach-people-how- to-avoid-the-nsa | ||
| Pwnzor |
Simple enough to speak in code. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Ixnay on the odecay. | ||
| Ourdee |
Thousands of things can be used for the base of code that will never have the same identifier used twice for a letter or word. Enigma was child's play. | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
You colonials have enough trouble speaking proper English, how are going to manage to do it in code?  | ||
| Ourdee |
The English wanker it up quite a bit too. Where is proper english spoke in this day and age? I thought you were living with the snow monkeys these days Mr. Grumpy. Eh? | ||
| Mr_grumpy |
Sadly proper English as I learned at Grammar School is becoming rarer even in my native land. Internet & squillions of tv channels (mostly American, sorry) are to blame in my opinion. As reading books has become outmoded the linguistic ability of younger people (my own son included I'm ashamed to say) seems to be decreasing in a general dumbing down. However, that said, I'm a "Grumpy Old Man" these days & I think the same thing probably happens with every generation as language constantly evolves. | ||
| Dutch_x1 |
sadly proper english isn`t the only thing thats becoming rare ...proper communication between people is dying out,no matter which language you speak... sorry if my english isn`t proper, i`m dutch and doing the best i can  |
