Of course the cops fucked up. I said they fucked up. But from the sound of it, so did he. I'm not claiming his fuck up as justified their fuck up. I'm just saying, sounds like he was being a drunken dick that night.
So you say, your words sound like those of a petulant child.
If they were arresting him for his behavior they have charges for it (drunk and disorderly, etc). That could even cover the entire group if necessary. They wouldn't even need to ask their names.
But not showing ID still isn't a crime and that's what they charged him with. That's just the tip of the iceberg though, which extends to evidence tampering, perjury, conspiracy (and thus other participants), etc.
You're incapable of separating things you don't like (his behavior) from unjust behavior (a police officer intentionally destroying evidence).
I'm incapable?!? I absolutely and completely separated them. Can you just not read? You are the one who is incapable of separating unjust behavior (the cops arresting him) from his bad behavior.
I never even talked about this guys arrest. The fact that he was arrested was wrong. I said it before, the cops fucked up. You can't see nuance, can you? You seem to think that if the cops are bad, this guy must be good?
Seriously, though, why so angry? I was merely pointing out a fact. This guy was wandering around drunkenly hitting foam golf balls at people who they then heckled. Nobody denies that. They were being assholes. But I never claimed that being an asshole was a reason to get arrested.
No, it isn't irrelevant. The facts about what this person was engaged in that night are relevant. I'm not attacking someone who was wrongfully arrested. That is irrelevant. I'm attacking someone who was drunkenly wandering around with thirty other people hitting foam golf balls at things and insulting people who complained.
Why do you care that I point this fact out, anyhow? I'm confused. I'm not defending the cops, I'm saying, don't wander around in large groups drunkenly hitting things and insulting people. That shouldn't even be a controversial statement. Somehow, in all the ass kissing this guy is getting, that pertinent fact seems to have been missed. It's possible for assholes to do good things, or good people to act like assholes, and doing one good thing doesn't mean that everything you do is good.
Yeah he was. He just wasn't the guy who hit the guy who called 911. He was part of a group of thirty drunken goons wandering around whacking foam golf balls at things and insulting people who complained. I used to do stupid shit like that. Then I grew up.
How many states have laws against drunk and disorderly conduct? How many have laws against assault? All of them. The cops were assholes, but that does not mean this guy is a good guy. Try a little nuance in your thinking, not everything is black and white, the hero fighting the villain. Sometimes it's just two villains fighting.
WTF? I do not understand HOW so many people think I'm defending the cops here. It's almost as if people are so simple minded, they think that if someone is a bad guy, the fellow fighting him must be a good guy.
Thank you, AC. I'm glad someone gets it. The cops handled this wrong, but the group definitely should have paid for their activities that night. People need to take personal responsibility for their actions.
They were a drunken mob. Only one guy called the cops but who knows how many more folks these assholes intimidated that night, or how much more damage they did?
One guy who was smacked called 911. There were thirty people out drunkenly playing 'street golf.' Do you suppose this was the only damage these assholes did that night?
I already said the police were wrong. And this douchebag just did what he had to to protect himself, I doubt he was looking to help others.
This douchebag was wandering around with a group of thirty or so people, drunkenly smacking people in the face with foam golf balls and then heckling them. I'm not sying the cops were right, they weren't, but this guy is no hero.
I seem to remember some sort of large revolt against centralized authority in one of the major religions. What was that rebel's name again? Lex Luther? Buddha said, "Trust nothing anyone tells, you, even me, unless it agrees with your own reasoning." Lao Tzu was a rabid individualist. Now, some religious leaders may make claims that go against the teachings of their religion, and some backwards religions, like the one with the guy who wears funny hats and touches little boys, still venerate central authority. But I don't think that all religions do.
Okay, so you're for cooperation unless you are forced. How about if you are offered a choice of cooperating or being left to starve with no source of income, food, water, or shelter? Would that be okay? How about taking care of the less fortunate? Only voluntarily, right? Okay, so here's the deal: you pay your taxes, some of which go to help the less fortunate, or you don't get to force the rest of us (a.k.a society) to cooperate with you. Take the deal we offer or leave, it's a fair choice, right?
It does automated network scanning for assets, asset tracking, alerts and notifications, SNMP data collection, reporting, and yes, it has a.svg based network mapper that you can customize with your own graphics. It comes with MIBS for hundreds of devices, but you can easily import your own MIBS for unsupported devices. It's open source, of course. Nagios is just a bunch of disassembled parts. You have to wire it together for each device. Adding new devices is a pain: you have to install the Nagios monitors on each new device. Nagios does not speak SNMP! OpenNMS does speak SNMP, and it will autoscan networks for devices, and devices for capabilities. Adding thousands of devices at a time is a snap. Plus, OpenNMS uses a modular architecture that scales well. We use it on a network consisting of over 2,000 clients at 50 offices, 30 IBM Blade servers hosting hundreds of VMWare virtual hosts, and innumerable network devices, printers, etc.
It's always of your own free will. And there will always be consequences, whichever way you decide. It is perfectly acceptable for we, the people, to require you to take care of the less fortunate in exchange for the benefits of citizenship. If you don't like the deal, no one is forcing you to stay. So pony up, you freeloader, or GTFO.
According to most religions, unquestioning adherence to arbitrary rules handed down by unassailable masters is also a good thing. You might want to look for new lines of argument.
Really? Which religions say that? Can you get me some quotes?
But more importantly, it looks as though you are disagreeing with my premise. Are you saying cooperation is bad, or taking care of the less fortunate, or both? Uh oh, it seems you've backed yourself into a corner: you can admit you are an evil bastard, or admit you were being a contrary asshole for the fun of it. Or run away with your little tail between your legs, as I suspect you will.
I thought they were here to promote the worship of the Free Market Fairy. Mental eight year olds don't understand Marxism, just look at all the teabaggers who think Obama is a Marxist.
Slashdot Mirror
People hitting other people in the streets and then insulting them. Call the cops. Oops, the cops were fucking assholes too.
No, but is anyone denying they were being drunken assholes? I don't think they are. And I never claimed it was a justification for their arrest.
Of course the cops fucked up. I said they fucked up. But from the sound of it, so did he. I'm not claiming his fuck up as justified their fuck up. I'm just saying, sounds like he was being a drunken dick that night.
So you say, your words sound like those of a petulant child.
If they were arresting him for his behavior they have charges for it (drunk and disorderly, etc). That could even cover the entire group if necessary. They wouldn't even need to ask their names.
But not showing ID still isn't a crime and that's what they charged him with. That's just the tip of the iceberg though, which extends to evidence tampering, perjury, conspiracy (and thus other participants), etc.
You're incapable of separating things you don't like (his behavior) from unjust behavior (a police officer intentionally destroying evidence).
I'm incapable?!? I absolutely and completely separated them. Can you just not read? You are the one who is incapable of separating unjust behavior (the cops arresting him) from his bad behavior.
I never even talked about this guys arrest. The fact that he was arrested was wrong. I said it before, the cops fucked up. You can't see nuance, can you? You seem to think that if the cops are bad, this guy must be good?
Seriously, though, why so angry? I was merely pointing out a fact. This guy was wandering around drunkenly hitting foam golf balls at people who they then heckled. Nobody denies that. They were being assholes. But I never claimed that being an asshole was a reason to get arrested.
Point out where I'm defending the cops.
No, it isn't irrelevant. The facts about what this person was engaged in that night are relevant. I'm not attacking someone who was wrongfully arrested. That is irrelevant. I'm attacking someone who was drunkenly wandering around with thirty other people hitting foam golf balls at things and insulting people who complained.
Why do you care that I point this fact out, anyhow? I'm confused. I'm not defending the cops, I'm saying, don't wander around in large groups drunkenly hitting things and insulting people. That shouldn't even be a controversial statement. Somehow, in all the ass kissing this guy is getting, that pertinent fact seems to have been missed. It's possible for assholes to do good things, or good people to act like assholes, and doing one good thing doesn't mean that everything you do is good.
Yeah he was. He just wasn't the guy who hit the guy who called 911. He was part of a group of thirty drunken goons wandering around whacking foam golf balls at things and insulting people who complained. I used to do stupid shit like that. Then I grew up.
How many states have laws against drunk and disorderly conduct? How many have laws against assault? All of them. The cops were assholes, but that does not mean this guy is a good guy. Try a little nuance in your thinking, not everything is black and white, the hero fighting the villain. Sometimes it's just two villains fighting.
WTF? I do not understand HOW so many people think I'm defending the cops here. It's almost as if people are so simple minded, they think that if someone is a bad guy, the fellow fighting him must be a good guy.
Thank you, AC. I'm glad someone gets it. The cops handled this wrong, but the group definitely should have paid for their activities that night. People need to take personal responsibility for their actions.
They were a drunken mob. Only one guy called the cops but who knows how many more folks these assholes intimidated that night, or how much more damage they did?
One guy who was smacked called 911. There were thirty people out drunkenly playing 'street golf.' Do you suppose this was the only damage these assholes did that night?
I already said the police were wrong. And this douchebag just did what he had to to protect himself, I doubt he was looking to help others.
You seem to be arguing against something other than what I wrote.
This douchebag was wandering around with a group of thirty or so people, drunkenly smacking people in the face with foam golf balls and then heckling them. I'm not sying the cops were right, they weren't, but this guy is no hero.
I seem to remember some sort of large revolt against centralized authority in one of the major religions. What was that rebel's name again? Lex Luther? Buddha said, "Trust nothing anyone tells, you, even me, unless it agrees with your own reasoning." Lao Tzu was a rabid individualist. Now, some religious leaders may make claims that go against the teachings of their religion, and some backwards religions, like the one with the guy who wears funny hats and touches little boys, still venerate central authority. But I don't think that all religions do.
Okay, so you're for cooperation unless you are forced. How about if you are offered a choice of cooperating or being left to starve with no source of income, food, water, or shelter? Would that be okay? How about taking care of the less fortunate? Only voluntarily, right? Okay, so here's the deal: you pay your taxes, some of which go to help the less fortunate, or you don't get to force the rest of us (a.k.a society) to cooperate with you. Take the deal we offer or leave, it's a fair choice, right?
It does automated network scanning for assets, asset tracking, alerts and notifications, SNMP data collection, reporting, and yes, it has a .svg based network mapper that you can customize with your own graphics. It comes with MIBS for hundreds of devices, but you can easily import your own MIBS for unsupported devices. It's open source, of course. Nagios is just a bunch of disassembled parts. You have to wire it together for each device. Adding new devices is a pain: you have to install the Nagios monitors on each new device. Nagios does not speak SNMP! OpenNMS does speak SNMP, and it will autoscan networks for devices, and devices for capabilities. Adding thousands of devices at a time is a snap. Plus, OpenNMS uses a modular architecture that scales well. We use it on a network consisting of over 2,000 clients at 50 offices, 30 IBM Blade servers hosting hundreds of VMWare virtual hosts, and innumerable network devices, printers, etc.
It's always of your own free will. And there will always be consequences, whichever way you decide. It is perfectly acceptable for we, the people, to require you to take care of the less fortunate in exchange for the benefits of citizenship. If you don't like the deal, no one is forcing you to stay. So pony up, you freeloader, or GTFO.
According to most religions, unquestioning adherence to arbitrary rules handed down by unassailable masters is also a good thing. You might want to look for new lines of argument.
Really? Which religions say that? Can you get me some quotes?
But more importantly, it looks as though you are disagreeing with my premise. Are you saying cooperation is bad, or taking care of the less fortunate, or both? Uh oh, it seems you've backed yourself into a corner: you can admit you are an evil bastard, or admit you were being a contrary asshole for the fun of it. Or run away with your little tail between your legs, as I suspect you will.
Aww, can't take a joke back? Poor thing.
Did you read all the questions people have been asking?
Of course you can plan an economy. You just need a replacement for price signals, even a simple analog information system from the early 70s could do it. Heck, the Brits simulated their entire economy with incredible accuracy using a hydraulic computer back in 1949.
Well, according to all world religions and spiritual philosophies, cooperation and taking care of the less fortunate are good things,
Are we playing the game of questions?
I thought they were here to promote the worship of the Free Market Fairy. Mental eight year olds don't understand Marxism, just look at all the teabaggers who think Obama is a Marxist.