This statement is from those who don't understand what's possibly at stake and those who are afraid to find out. Who can say how bad this will be for the kids in high school now, in the future? (Or most likely sooner.)
While we in the US argue about politics, we ignore what's happening behind the curtain.
Just guessing here, I'm left handed also. I don't trust myself to cut a piece of steak using the knife in my right hand. So, after cutting with my left hand, I put the knife down and use my left for forking.
Or, it could be what my English son-in-law does, he uses his fork and knife, in different hands to aid in pushing food onto his fork. (He's right handed, not that it matters in this case.)
We were in our local Target store yesterday. My wife purchased some OTC cough syrup, the self check out register wanted an employee for confirmation she was the proper age. (We're in our sixty's.) Instead of just looking at her driver's license, he used his handheld device to scan the license! I would never allow this, myself.
>Instead of just looking at her driver's license, he used his handheld device to scan the license!
depending on what is in the cough syrup, they arent using the scanner to verify age. they are tracking who makes the purchase, so if a bunch of meth or whatever gets cooked up, they have a list of suspects.
While there is no federal law restricting the sale of medications containing Dextromethorphan, a common cough suppressant, US states have started regulating sales of these medications (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dextromethorphan_regulation_by...). It looks like most of the time, it's an 18yrs and up age restriction.
My guess would be that it's easier for company policy to always scan the ID, even for age verification, instead of having different policies depending on what is being purchased.
In California, the pharmacy computer queries some state database to log the purchase and get approval. If you buy too much too quickly your purchase will be blocked.
My closest pharmacy “loses its connection to the system” frequently which results in them being unable to sell me the medicine. The computer will refuse to ring it up.
In my state, you can buy products with pseudoephedrine over the counter, but the law requires you to show ID to the pharmacist who then logs your name and address. There is absolutely nothing in the law that requires scanning or storing the customer's ID, and I don't know why anyone would agree to let them do it.
>[...] but the law requires you to show ID to the pharmacist who then logs your name and address. There is absolutely nothing in the law that requires scanning or storing the customer's ID, and I don't know why anyone would agree to let them do it.
there is very little difference except one is manual input and one is automated input. so, i am not quite sure i am understanding your objection to one and not the other. either your are ok with your information being recorded, or you arent -- the "how it is entered into the recording system" part seems immaterial to me.
At least where I live, the only information they log when looking at my ID is my name and address. Scanning my ID gives them additional information, which increases the vulnerability.
I don't trust them to store it securely nor to avoid the temptation to use that information for other purposes. The only countermeasure is to prevent them from having that information in the first place.
what other information are you concerned about, present on your id, which is not trivially obtainable by already having your name and address? your height and whether you need glasses is hardly sensitive information (and already available to them -- they record the premises and have your time of purchase).
i dont trust them to store it securely either. my objection is to being okay with your information being placed into a database when that information is manually input, but not okay with it being scanned in. if you arent okay with one method, i dont understand why you would be okay with the other.
we are in agreement that the fact that some random company has to store my information at all is sucky.
I'd say the two most important are the date of birth and document ID (e.g., driver's license number). Both are required by the AAMVA 2D barcode standard used for driver's license in the US and both are extremely valuable for identity theft.
Furthermore, the driver's license number is a primary key that could used to join records created by the scan with records in other datasets, potentially giving the company much more information about the customer than they ever realized or agreed to provide.
There's a major difference -- one involved providing a copy of your ID to a 3rd party and the other does not.
I don't want my identity stolen after I bought some cough syrupe because some dirt-bag third party ID management company that was contracted by a pharmacy didn't do their job.
>There's a major difference -- one involved providing a copy of your ID to a 3rd party and the other does not.
they arent scanning as in photocopying. they are scanning the barcode to get the name/address information
the 3rd party (pharmacy, in this case) gets and keeps the information in both scenarios.
>dirt-bag third party ID management company
this isnt online age-verification stuff. the pharmacy itself is typically the one storing the information, and querying it against a government database.
Nowadays you need ID to buy dextromethorphan cough syrups even. Being sick got a lot more miserable when I learned Id have to interact with the doordasher to get my remedies delivered.
I've found using a passport card for ID instead of a driver's license to have several advantages, including that most places seem to be unable to scan it.
Target scans IDs for any purchase that requires them (e.g. alcohol).
Charitably, I guess they want to be able to prove in any kind of audit or claim that they are selling alcohol to minors that they are checking IDs for such purchases.
Uncharitably, it all goes into their customer profile database.
My rule has always been, forgive people, but never forget what they did. After they've made restitution, help them back to their feet, but don't let them ever get to the place where they can fail the same way. And whatever you do, don't let them get into a leadership position. They've already proved they can't help themselves when the pressure in on.
Personally, I almost always forgive, however, I never allow that person to take advantage of me again. Trust has to be the gold standard. To err in human, thus forgive. To be taken advantage again by the same person is foolish.
Sort of off topic, but almost the same can be said for music concerts. During slower or softer songs, people can be heard talking and laughing loudly. I get it, they paid their money, same as us, but we didn't pay to hear them.
A couple of years ago, I went to see Echo & The Bunnymen open for Violent Femmes. I had seen the Femmes multiple times, but was really excited to see Echo. These two old biddies that sat in front of us talked the entire show. In between bands, one of them dropped their purse without noticing. I picked it up and offered in exchange for the purse if they wouldn't mind talking through the next act. They were shocked at the nerve and said they didn't talk that much. I then told them all about their kids and their school work and other nonsense that I had to endure. The looked at each other like "oops". To my luck, the show was not sold out, and we moved down our row to get away from them. I obviously gave the purse back
People call the classical music audience prudish for demanding quiet during performances, but IMO when you go to a concert it should be ok to shush people who talk during the quiet parts.
On the one hand, you're at a social experience. On the other hand, aren't you supposed to have your senses engaged in a shared experience? The interpersonal conversation diminishes that. On the other other hand, as long as you're having fun and not doing harm, do whatever. As the Master of Ceremonies, I love it. On the other other other hand, talking pushes up the noise floor, making louder concerts a necessity. A louder concert is more dangerous to your hearing.
There is a difference between us all experiencing a shared artistic experience and us hearing about your kids while we are trying very hard to share an artistic experience.
I wouldn't complain much about people singing along to a ballad or such but yapping, you can go do that somewhere else.
I'm so split on this. Ultimately I think I land on: "if there's chairs, engage in the shared sensory experience. If it's GA standing room only, it's a party and do whatever."
As a musician I ask if the music is so fragile it can't stand up to some extraneous background noise, is it really worth listening to?
Also, if the music feels bad enough to where people find talking to each other more pleasant than listening, isn't that the fault of the 'sensory experience?'
It really depends on the music and the background noise? Talking (more likely yelling) in the middle of a rock concert? Probably not an issue. I’m wearing earplugs anyway. Holding a conversation in the middle of a quiet passage during an orchestra performance? Everyone near you wants you to shut up.
It’s like people talking through a comedy show. Saying something quietly to the person next to you? Whatever. Talking loudly for 20 minutes? Get the fuck out. Go talk to your friends at a bar and let people who came to hear the act enjoy the act.
> if the music feels bad enough to where people find talking to each other more pleasant than listening
But then leave. If you don’t like the show, it’s totally fair for you to just get up and go. Talking through a show you don’t care about and disturbing people who do want to be there? Why?
Curious if you have a sense of how long this has been going on. My perception is that various sorts of rudeness and inconsiderateness have been on the rise for a while, but really jumped post-COVID.
Some of it is minor but just suggests to me that many people lack any sense that they should be aware of others around them. Just today I was walking down the street and a woman was stopped, in the middle of the sidewalk, staring at her phone. She was in front of a shop door but not right in front of it, so she was half-blocking both people passing on the sidewalk and people trying to get into the store. I see this kind of thing so often now, in store aisles, on sidewalks, etc., and a part of me wants to go up to these people and inform them that there are other people around them and that if they want to take a moment to look at their phone they should step to the side.
Definitely post-COVID. I remember going to see bands in between or just after lockdowns ended, and even the bands were taken aback by the change in audience behaviour, commenting on it. Lots of self-entitled behaviour, talking and even yelling out during quiet moments, people walking up to the stage during a seated Nick Cave concert demanding to hand him stuff or shake his hand - I remember him saying "wow, you guys really forgot how to behave over the last couple of years". Now it just seems to be normalised that crowd behaviour is worse, more self-entitled. I'm not sure what's driving it - whether people who previously weren't going to gigs decided, during lockdown, that they wanted to go out and do stuff more, but just had never learned the etiquette, and/or social media making the experience about the individual rather than the performance.
> many people lack any sense that they should be aware of others around them.
It's not "people". One half of all people grows up playing contact sports or at least have some form of rough-and-tumble with their homies in schoolyards. This half also knows that you can get punched if things get too rowdy.
The other does not. Almost all of the entitled road blockers are in this category.
I went with my daughter to see Taylor Swift in Tokyo. It was an amazing experiences. Swift fans prefer recording Tokyo performances because fangs don’t sing along to the music or talk during the performance.
I saw Avatar 3 here in Tokyo where I live. It was great! I saw the Dolby 3D version. Popcorn was pretty cheap, tickets were reasonably priced, the audience was as quiet as the dead.
I've seen several other movies (normal ones, not 3D/IMAX/etc.) here since I moved here, and they were all the same. Audiences here have excellent behavior.
We're planning to see Project Hail Mary this weekend when it comes out, this time on IMAX.
Audiences in Tokyo aren’t quite to make it easier to record. It just so happens that audiences in Tokyo tend to be quiet, so the recordings of the Tokyo shows tend to end up the clearest.
A couple years ago I went to a county fair because someone said the pie judging was worth seeing. I’ve been to fairs before but never really watched the judging part. They had all the pies on this weird low table, like not quite a kid’s playset table but close, so people leaning in to look kept bumping it with their legs and thighs without noticing, and after a while one of the pies just slowly started sliding toward the edge every time the table got nudged until it eventually tipped off and landed upside down on the floor while the judges were busy debating crust integrity on another pie.
I picked it up and put it back and they still gave it third place.
The Beatles famously stopped touring, and stuck exclusively to studio recording (apart from the Abbey Road rooftop concert), in no small part because they got tired of not being able to hear themselves sing or play due to all the girls' screaming.
Just went to a very small show, 200 tickets but lots of no shows. Maybe 100 people there total. The folks at the bar were so rude to the talent just loudly talking over them. I just don’t get it.
Couldn't disagree more. It's a social experience, it's so unfun and antisocial to have some go to a large gathering of humans and get annoyed when their presence is detectable. Go listen to the song by yourself in a room
Wow, what an epic looking trip! My brain began planning this out with my wife and I getting off the bus at a cool looking city and staying a few days for site seeing.
I like the idea of your reply. This is what I'll add; Politics, religion and nation states, in a sense, are in some kind of shift. Politics: many nations with a lot of money and arms are engaging in world threatening actions. Religion: The three major ones, with no disrespect to the other ones, are warping into something that is spinning away from their original writings (of course, in some ways this is good, example: stoning.). Nation States: destruction on a massive scale-Syria, Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan...Is Iran next?
Perhaps instead of taking some responsibility for their actions, nations are going to further restrict their populations?
I've always maintained one of the worst things that can happen to you is sitting in court before a jury of your peers, because most can't comprehend the meaning of the law outside of their feelings. NOW the worst thing is having yourself in the hands of cops who just don't give a damn or became a cop for the use of power.
While we in the US argue about politics, we ignore what's happening behind the curtain.
reply