Every time I pass this display I think, "Wow, those trees must have done something really bad."
Whole Guantanamo: Indefinite Fir Detention
Tags: firstperson, photography, sf
Location: 37° 46' 52.80" N, 122° 24' 1.80" W
11 Responses:
Every time I pass this display I think, "Wow, those trees must have done something really bad."
Damn firriners.
Totally should have tagged this "firries".
I used to work at a garden store when I was in high school. I worked there over two Christmases and at least once that I recall I had a guy offer me $20 to toss a tree over the fence to him.
I was a budding grumpy atheist even then, but I was offended by the idea of celebrating a religious event around a thing you got a 16 year old to steal for you. Heck, I still find it offensive.
Anyway, I'm unsurprised by the sign - it's there for a reason.
Right, but when the attendant offered to cut 1 ft off a 7ft tree ($50) and sell it to me as a 5ft tree ($20), I shared some of the savings with him. And I was prepared to spend about $30 for a 6ft tree, but they didn't have any, nor any intermediate price point. But since they were trying to get rid of trees that'll be worth $0 in 10 days, I guess everybody wins.
BTW, jwz's original comment made the picture. I suspect the trees were watching or filming cops during an occupy clearout.
I saw a sign in the TL that said "This area is under intermittent surveillance." Why would they announce that they can't afford full-time surveillance?
They're just making sure you stay on your toes.
Bentham and Foucault agree with you.
Exactly. If it's intermittent, you don't know if anyone's watching you RIGHT NOW.
Should I interpret this as a Foucault reference or a B. F. Skinner reference?
Dunno, but Skinner pretty clearly showed that variable reinforcement is the definitive way to inspire superstitious paranoia.
Gotta love the logic to that, actually - if they just said 'under surveillance' and anyone else "relied" on it (think assault, theft, being set on fire over a debt, etc etc) they'd be on the hook for negligent misrepresentation.
So yeah, better go with 'intermittent', since it's [maybe] just as creepy for security purposes but doesn't 'offer to the world' that you're logging tape reliably.