Q. A prosperous sex industry could become 3% of the GDP. Honestly I don't see how it's sexist. Women getting naked does not relate to a morbidly obese baby boomer talking about equality.
A. It's an interesting debate. For one, it'd have to be something monitored harshly to prevent sex trafficking and other issues. It'd also have to be radically different from the prostitution we see on the streets, as there will be companies and businesses forming around prostitution, treating it as more of an industry. Measures would have to be taken to prevent pregnancies and STDs, some of which can be difficult to monitor or detect right away.
The issue becomes complicated when you consider the fact that sex for money is always going to be around and is still done legally in the pornography industry which will probably remain constant and thriving.
After all, what a person chooses to do with his or her body is not the business of the law, as long as it doesn't endanger themselves or society as a whole. Perhaps having sex as an industry would make prostitution cleaner and safer as well as profitable. Something similar to Germany, where prostitution is legal granted that the prostitute has a license to have sex for money.
The issue, though, comes from the stripper stereotype. A woman down on her luck makes a few buck by becoming a sex object. That's pretty blatantly taking advantage of people living in poverty. And given the fact that people will do what they need to make money, a lot of women are going to be taken advantage of regardless of how prostitution is handled. Not to mention, sex as an industry is going to lead to a lot of open sexuality in what is already a pretty oversexualized society, which has its own downsides.
Frankly, I don't plan on becoming or buying a prostitute. I'm a little indifferent, I suppose.
The issue becomes complicated when you consider the fact that sex for money is always going to be around and is still done legally in the pornography industry which will probably remain constant and thriving.
After all, what a person chooses to do with his or her body is not the business of the law, as long as it doesn't endanger themselves or society as a whole. Perhaps having sex as an industry would make prostitution cleaner and safer as well as profitable. Something similar to Germany, where prostitution is legal granted that the prostitute has a license to have sex for money.
The issue, though, comes from the stripper stereotype. A woman down on her luck makes a few buck by becoming a sex object. That's pretty blatantly taking advantage of people living in poverty. And given the fact that people will do what they need to make money, a lot of women are going to be taken advantage of regardless of how prostitution is handled. Not to mention, sex as an industry is going to lead to a lot of open sexuality in what is already a pretty oversexualized society, which has its own downsides.
Frankly, I don't plan on becoming or buying a prostitute. I'm a little indifferent, I suppose.
Is it possible to listen to a live police scanner and then change the frequency to match your city?
Q. I can't find a live scanner with my home town. thanks.
A. No, you can only hear what the feed provides you can not change the channels/frequencies programmed for the feed.
Some one some where has a scanner and is feeding the audio in to a program on a PC to broadcast this to you. That scanner has to be located where the signal you want to receive is. Thus an online scanner in Los Angles can not be reprogrammed to hear San Francisco or Las Vegas or New York or Lincoln, IL.
If there is no feed for you area then you will have to purchase a scanner to use yourself locally.
If the following doesn't have one listed for your area, then you will need to purchase you own scanner:
http://www.scannerfeeds.us/
Now on to some other responses:
At this time time in the US, scanning of unencrypted frequencies be it police, fire, EMS, military, aviation or business is 100% PERFECTLY LEGAL. Monitoring any channel which is encrypted via a scrambling mode such as voice inversion, rolling code voice inversion, DES, AES, and several others is not legal to decode if you had and/or could use equipment to decode it. The UK, Germany and some other countires it is not legal to monitor any thing other amateur and broadcast channels. In the US that right has been available since 1934, and has not changed except in 1984 to include baby monitors, cell phones, cordless phones, pagers and encrypted communications.
Next some digital signals which make up nearly 80-90% of all digital systems in use by public safety use APCO Project or P25 digital which is 100% MONITORABLE by digital scanners. This can be encrypted as well, and same rules apply. The remaining systems those using OpenSky, ProVoice, TETRA( NON US), MotorBRO, iDEN are NOT MONITORABLE. There are very few of these systems in the US. Motorola the TETRA licensee has signed agreements to not market TETRA in the US anyway.
For a digital capable scanner look at the Uniden BC396XT, BC996 or GRE PSR500, PSR 600, or the Radio Shack Pro 107.
Some agencies make use of their MDT's/computers to do silent dispatch, but in all cases 90-99% of all calls still go out with audio in the clear unless there are other issues, such as repeat calls to the same location with known monitoring.
Some one some where has a scanner and is feeding the audio in to a program on a PC to broadcast this to you. That scanner has to be located where the signal you want to receive is. Thus an online scanner in Los Angles can not be reprogrammed to hear San Francisco or Las Vegas or New York or Lincoln, IL.
If there is no feed for you area then you will have to purchase a scanner to use yourself locally.
If the following doesn't have one listed for your area, then you will need to purchase you own scanner:
http://www.scannerfeeds.us/
Now on to some other responses:
At this time time in the US, scanning of unencrypted frequencies be it police, fire, EMS, military, aviation or business is 100% PERFECTLY LEGAL. Monitoring any channel which is encrypted via a scrambling mode such as voice inversion, rolling code voice inversion, DES, AES, and several others is not legal to decode if you had and/or could use equipment to decode it. The UK, Germany and some other countires it is not legal to monitor any thing other amateur and broadcast channels. In the US that right has been available since 1934, and has not changed except in 1984 to include baby monitors, cell phones, cordless phones, pagers and encrypted communications.
Next some digital signals which make up nearly 80-90% of all digital systems in use by public safety use APCO Project or P25 digital which is 100% MONITORABLE by digital scanners. This can be encrypted as well, and same rules apply. The remaining systems those using OpenSky, ProVoice, TETRA( NON US), MotorBRO, iDEN are NOT MONITORABLE. There are very few of these systems in the US. Motorola the TETRA licensee has signed agreements to not market TETRA in the US anyway.
For a digital capable scanner look at the Uniden BC396XT, BC996 or GRE PSR500, PSR 600, or the Radio Shack Pro 107.
Some agencies make use of their MDT's/computers to do silent dispatch, but in all cases 90-99% of all calls still go out with audio in the clear unless there are other issues, such as repeat calls to the same location with known monitoring.
If liberals think it is so easy to find Osama, why do they give a pass to Obama for not finding him yet?
Q. All we hear from liberals is that President Bush failed to get Osama and that it should not be so hard to do. And now that Osama's brother Barry is in the Big House, why do liberals give him a pass for not going and bringing in his Muslim brother to justice?
A. Here`s facts from the liberal L.A. Times that points the finger at the guilty one for letting Bin Laden loose in the world ~ L.A. Times : December 5, 2001
Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president Bill Clinton and his advisors didn't respond. By MANSOOR IJAZ
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.
I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.
From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.
Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.
The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.
As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.
Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.
The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.
But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.
In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.
Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.
Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.
The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.
Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.
But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.
Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.
And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.
The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.
Clinton Let Bin Laden Slip Away and Metastasize
Sudan offered up the terrorist and data on his network. The then-president Bill Clinton and his advisors didn't respond. By MANSOOR IJAZ
President Clinton and his national security team ignored several opportunities to capture Osama bin Laden and his terrorist associates, including one as late as last year.
I know because I negotiated more than one of the opportunities.
From 1996 to 1998, I opened unofficial channels between Sudan and the Clinton administration. I met with officials in both countries, including Clinton, U.S. National Security Advisor Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger and Sudan's president and intelligence chief. President Omar Hassan Ahmed Bashir, who wanted terrorism sanctions against Sudan lifted, offered the arrest and extradition of Bin Laden and detailed intelligence data about the global networks constructed by Egypt's Islamic Jihad, Iran's Hezbollah and the Palestinian Hamas.
Among those in the networks were the two hijackers who piloted commercial airliners into the World Trade Center.
The silence of the Clinton administration in responding to these offers was deafening.
As an American Muslim and a political supporter of Clinton, I feel now, as I argued with Clinton and Berger then, that their counter-terrorism policies fueled the rise of Bin Laden from an ordinary man to a Hydra-like monster.
Realizing the growing problem with Bin Laden, Bashir sent key intelligence officials to the U.S. in February 1996.
The Sudanese offered to arrest Bin Laden and extradite him to Saudi Arabia or, barring that, to "baby-sit" him--monitoring all his activities and associates.
But Saudi officials didn't want their home-grown terrorist back where he might plot to overthrow them.
In May 1996, the Sudanese capitulated to U.S. pressure and asked Bin Laden to leave, despite their feeling that he could be monitored better in Sudan than elsewhere.
Bin Laden left for Afghanistan, taking with him Ayman Zawahiri, considered by the U.S. to be the chief planner of the Sept. 11 attacks; Mamdouh Mahmud Salim, who traveled frequently to Germany to obtain electronic equipment for Al Qaeda; Wadih El-Hage, Bin Laden's personal secretary and roving emissary, now serving a life sentence in the U.S. for his role in the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya; and Fazul Abdullah Mohammed and Saif Adel, also accused of carrying out the embassy attacks.
Some of these men are now among the FBI's 22 most-wanted terrorists.
The two men who allegedly piloted the planes into the twin towers, Mohamed Atta and Marwan Al-Shehhi, prayed in the same Hamburg mosque as did Salim and Mamoun Darkazanli, a Syrian trader who managed Salim's bank accounts and whose assets are frozen.
Important data on each had been compiled by the Sudanese.
But U.S. authorities repeatedly turned the data away, first in February 1996; then again that August, when at my suggestion Sudan's religious ideologue, Hassan Turabi, wrote directly to Clinton; then again in April 1997, when I persuaded Bashir to invite the FBI to come to Sudan and view the data; and finally in February 1998, when Sudan's intelligence chief, Gutbi al-Mahdi, wrote directly to the FBI.
Gutbi had shown me some of Sudan's data during a three-hour meeting in Khartoum in October 1996. When I returned to Washington, I told Berger and his specialist for East Africa, Susan Rice, about the data available. They said they'd get back to me. They never did. Neither did they respond when Bashir made the offer directly. I believe they never had any intention to engage Muslim countries--ally or not. Radical Islam, for the administration, was a convenient national security threat.
And that was not the end of it. In July 2000--three months before the deadly attack on the destroyer Cole in Yemen--I brought the White House another plausible offer to deal with Bin Laden, by then known to be involved in the embassy bombings. A senior counter-terrorism official from one of the United States' closest Arab allies--an ally whose name I am not free to divulge--approached me with the proposal after telling me he was fed up with the antics and arrogance of U.S. counter-terrorism officials.
The offer, which would have brought Bin Laden to the Arab country as the first step of an extradition process that would eventually deliver him to the U.S., required only that Clinton make a state visit there to personally request Bin Laden's extradition. But senior Clinton officials sabotaged the offer, letting it get caught up in internal politics within the ruling family--Clintonian diplomacy at its best.
Mercardo Libre and Ebay are sister sites both participating in human trade. They say that it can't be?
Q. controlled but isn't the technology available to monitor this virulent BS? (For example the original wording for THIS question would not clear the primary data screen on Y! answers) http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080524/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_germany_baby;_ylt=Avr9FfMkkDnMpAAlNcuZp.5vaA8F
What does the territorial FBI in the Virgin Islands know about this?
What does the territorial FBI in the Virgin Islands know about this?
A. You can bid for people on Ebay?
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
Title Post: Do you think prostitution should be legalised?
Rating: 96% based on 987 ratings. 4,3 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
Rating: 96% based on 987 ratings. 4,3 user reviews.
Author: Unknown
Thanks For Coming To My Blog
No comments:
Post a Comment