There was a guy who did this at Stanford shopping center all day, and at the end of the day would change into his clean suit in the parking lot and get into his new Mercedes-Benz. He probably made $500-$1000 per day until people got pissed and stood next to him with an enlarged picture of him in his car looking spiffy. Call these scammers out every time as publicly as possible.
At least it's illegal to pretend to be a vet while doing this.

You can't understand why he feels that way?

You take umbrage to peoples perception of police officers, yes? You think it's grossly unfair that people classify all of you by the actions of the notable few?

Well here's a little news flash. You get to take off your uniform at the end of the shift. You can go to a restaurant or a shopping center and be perfectly fine with no one sitting around thinking you're a fascist police state tool because of what you wear rather than who you are.

The guy in the video? He doesn't get to take off his skin. He doesn't get to stop being viewed with suspicion, doesn't stop getting harassed by idiots who don't care for the truth and are purely in it to pick on people and raise revenue. He lives with people making assumptions about him 24/7 because of who he is, not because of what he does.

Dig deep down and find that empathy that seems to be lurking in there somewhere. Assuming your one of the good guys (and apologies but your posting history doesn't really support that), don't you feel a deep abiding embarrassment when you see these yahoos make every cop look worse because of their actions?

Yes, it's not fair that people will ascribe the actions of a few bad eggs to an entire population. Not fair for anyone that is victimised by it.

@Shepppard

Restaurants like to be next to one another so long as they are different products. It creates a "food destination". Preferably lack of availability or a restriction would prevent users that have a product that is very similar.

Ever notice how most retail developments only have one coffee shop or one sandwich shop? Retail users ask landlords for an exclusive use. For example, Starbucks or Dunkin Donuts will say they can be the only store that sells coffee in a shopping center. Another restaurant may serve coffee as an incidental use - that is it can't be the central part of their business. This makes it harder for a new user to enter an established market.

You seem to be fixated on peak capacity of sit down restaurants. Restaurants have to complete their own analysis of how much square footage to have to accommodate the heaviest dining times, but still cover their costs when seats sit empty. Each square foot adds to their cost.

This video is very accurate in describing how users evaluate and respond to competition within a market.

I have worked in commercial retail brokerage for the last 10 years with several national users - pharmacies, banks, restaurants, and general retail use.

As a final comment, users can and will move. People do not notice as much but retailers relocate when they must to stay competitive or to block another user from coming into a market.

Cutting back on light pollution isn't too hard if lighting and building designers and the like would just care. For highlighting a building, rather than have lights pointing up, put the lights under the eaves pointing down. (I actually don't get why people light up their houses so much, especially if there are street lights nearby as well, that makes that much more light for a thief to have in the house without having to use a flashlight or turn on lights or anything else to give away their activity, plus it just doesn't make sense to me to highlight a house 99.999% of the time) Along the sidewalk of the local shopping center strip, they have these big 3' round lights shining light in all directions, but if they simply capped it, and had a reflector on top to direct light down and around, they could achieve better light distribution for pedestrians for far less energy, a win all the way around for them. Light is still reflected off the ground up, but isn't as intense. Street lights can be made to cause less glare and direct light better, which again saves energy while keeping the light needed for the road just as good if not better. The problem is, those fixtures aren't widely used yet, so they cost more than the normal ones (supply and demand working out there, plus just gouging). I would bet that even a major city could greatly cut their light pollution down without sacrificing safety, and perhaps increasing it, and saving energy with just a few steps. Problem is most people don't know much about it, nor care, save for those of us who would love to have a nice telescope, but find it hard to justify especially when the skies nearby aren't dark enough... Really just need to start modifying zoning laws and restrict accent lighting and do better on street lighting where/when needed (and cutting it when not needed, which is perhaps far more often the case, since it is usually just a security blanket while not providing any security at all)... But yeah, since that isn't likely to happen, not much is likely to happen and those of us wanting to see the night sky in its glory are stuck with long drives...

>> ^kevingrr:

@Yogi
I'm sorry my fellow sifters advocate "offing" these guys. These guys work seven days a week and they work to make a profit - just like every other business.
J.P. Morgan Chase was the go to entity to take over Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual when they failed. Why? Chase was strong enough to bear the burden.
Regarding TARP money Chase never wanted it or needed it. Link
The Dodd Frank and Consumer Protection act is a poorly written gargantuan hydra of a bill. I know this because the small community bankers I know are saying they are not going to be able to stay afloat.
My companies president - someone who I know for a fact has voted as a democrat for over 40 years - told me yesterday he will vote against Obama in the upcoming election. Why? We work in real estate and the paperwork needed to finance a project has multiplied - and with it the number of lawyers and legal hours required - that is if we can get something financed period. Good for lawyers - bad for anyone who might want to work building a new shopping center(architects, tradesmen, engineers, etc) or working there in the future.
Make the rules simple, make them fair, and enforce them effectively.


Oh Yay! Another lying apologist Fuckhead.

@Yogi

I'm sorry my fellow sifters advocate "offing" these guys. These guys work seven days a week and they work to make a profit - just like every other business.

J.P. Morgan Chase was the go to entity to take over Bear Stearns and Washington Mutual when they failed. Why? Chase was strong enough to bear the burden.

Regarding TARP money Chase never wanted it or needed it. Link

The Dodd Frank and Consumer Protection act is a poorly written gargantuan hydra of a bill. I know this because the small community bankers I know are saying they are not going to be able to stay afloat.

My companies president - someone who I know for a fact has voted as a democrat for over 40 years - told me yesterday he will vote against Obama in the upcoming election. Why? We work in real estate and the paperwork needed to finance a project has multiplied - and with it the number of lawyers and legal hours required - that is if we can get something financed period. Good for lawyers - bad for anyone who might want to work building a new shopping center(architects, tradesmen, engineers, etc) or working there in the future.

Make the rules simple, make them fair, and enforce them effectively.

>> ^bobknight33:

I would not call OBAMA gay but it is to believed that he and Rahm Emanuel were (are?) members of Chicago', Man’s Country, a one stop shopping" center for gay men.
It is said that Obama began frequenting Man’s Country in the mid-1990s, during the time he transitioned from a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School to his election as an Illinois State Senator in 1996. Emanuel, reportedly joined Man’s Country after he left the Clinton White House and moved back to Chicago in 1998, joining the investment firm of Wasserstein Perella and maintaining his membership during his 2002 campaign for the U.S. 5th District House seat vacated by Rod Blagojevich, who was elected governor.


It is widely believed that bobknight is a fucking moron who should not be allowed to drive a car, let alone vote.

It is said that he regularly sucks dogshit through a straw for breakfast.

I would not call OBAMA gay but it is to believed that he and Rahm Emanuel were (are?) members of Chicago', Man’s Country, a one stop shopping" center for gay men.

It is said that Obama began frequenting Man’s Country in the mid-1990s, during the time he transitioned from a lecturer at the University of Chicago Law School to his election as an Illinois State Senator in 1996. Emanuel, reportedly joined Man’s Country after he left the Clinton White House and moved back to Chicago in 1998, joining the investment firm of Wasserstein Perella and maintaining his membership during his 2002 campaign for the U.S. 5th District House seat vacated by Rod Blagojevich, who was elected governor.

Yeah, the shopping centre near to me has done this for 4 years or so each Christmas, with snowflakes on the floor that move away as you walk over them.

>> ^spoco2:

Just looks like it's projected down. Which if it is, is entirely nothing new. A shopping center near us has a bit of floor with something like this being projected on it, except it has a rotating selection of games. Soccer, hockey, skiing etc. The kids think it's awesome.

Just looks like it's projected down. Which if it is, is entirely nothing new. A shopping center near us has a bit of floor with something like this being projected on it, except it has a rotating selection of games. Soccer, hockey, skiing etc. The kids think it's awesome.

"A Dublin shopping center was the victim of a joyous flash mob attack on Sunday afternoon..."

Just once can't we end that with "that left 25 people dead and 44 wounded."

The whole "terrorist" thing really hit home for me during a mission midway through the game where you go blow up a shopping center that's frequented by the EOF soldiers and their families. Really? Instead of blowing up military targets or rescuing hostages or something, I'm blowing up a mall? I did keep playing, though, and I send Netflix in the mail all the time.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

Is the shopping centre not responsible for the unlawful use of its equipment by its employees? >> ^blankfist:

>> ^dag:
What gives them the right to publish her personage to the world?. TV appearances require signed releases by the participants and this should too. Presumably, the uploader is also profiting through YouTube ad revenue. The security officers were employed, doing their duties as representatives of the mall. I think she has a case against the Shopping Center.
Sure, she's a bit of an idiot- but this is not fair.

Not sure that answers the damages or rights violation question, but that's a good point you brought up about the signed releases for TV appearances. Releases are for companies/people who stand to make a profit from a production. It removes financial liability if the 'talent' comes back later laying claim to a percentage of the profits earned from sales or whatever. I'm not sure if this is law or not, but it has been set as precedence in most entertainment industries (film, tv, advertising, modeling, etc.) so that's as good as law as far as I know.
Conversely, most videos uploaded to YT aren't meant to make profit and are considered protected under free speech from government recourse I believe (as long as they don't violate a right or cause damage to another person). However, If the uploader is making ad revenue off the video, then she has a legitimate claim to some of that money if there wasn't a contract (aka the release). She probably could get that instance of the video pulled from YT, too.
But she has no case against the shopping center. How can she? They probably reprimanded or fired the security guards already, so what else are they obligated to do? I feel like you're just sympathetic to her plight, which is admirable, but this is really a case where reason should win over emotion, I think.

>> ^dag:

What gives them the right to publish her personage to the world?. TV appearances require signed releases by the participants and this should too. Presumably, the uploader is also profiting through YouTube ad revenue. The security officers were employed, doing their duties as representatives of the mall. I think she has a case against the Shopping Center.
Sure, she's a bit of an idiot- but this is not fair.


Not sure that answers the damages or rights violation question, but that's a good point you brought up about the signed releases for TV appearances. Releases are for companies/people who stand to make a profit from a production. It removes financial liability if the 'talent' comes back later laying claim to a percentage of the profits earned from sales or whatever. I'm not sure if this is law or not, but it has been set as precedence in most entertainment industries (film, tv, advertising, modeling, etc.) so that's as good as law as far as I know.

Conversely, most videos uploaded to YT aren't meant to make profit and are considered protected under free speech from government recourse I believe (as long as they don't violate a right or cause damage to another person). However, If the uploader is making ad revenue off the video, then she has a legitimate claim to some of that money if there wasn't a contract (aka the release). She probably could get that instance of the video pulled from YT, too.

But she has no case against the shopping center. How can she? They probably reprimanded or fired the security guards already, so what else are they obligated to do? I feel like you're just sympathetic to her plight, which is admirable, but this is really a case where reason should win over emotion, I think.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

What gives them the right to publish her personage to the world?. TV appearances require signed releases by the participants and this should too. Presumably, the uploader is also profiting through YouTube ad revenue. The security officers were employed, doing their duties as representatives of the mall. I think she has a case against the Shopping Center.

Sure, she's a bit of an idiot- but this is not fair.