It is good that people can discuss the issues, especially in such a controversial case
And that's the concern - once the police are allowed to control you - not your actions, but you yourself - your thoughts, your privacy, your basic freedoms, you lose the ability to discuss and fight for them.
That's the point, and why I'm willing to risk getting cracked on the skull - to give up a little temporary security in the name of freedom. Because once you give it away, little bit by little bit, you never get it back.
Please see any other post - my own or someone else's by someone that has some understanding of personal liberty, or go get a copy of the U.S. constitution.
Next time, don't feel the need to end your post like an asshat, and I won't treat you like one.
I believe that the person's right to life has priority over another person's right to be a beligerent yahoo with a bat (or a gun).
And that's the problem here. You're living in a country that is designed - at it's very core - to support liberty and the persuit of happiness with just as much fervor as life. And I agree - what value does life have without the other two attributes? We support the beligerent yahoo, as long as he stays on his own lawn.
There's a lot to cover here, and I've been doing this all day, so I'll just do it bullet-point style.
o It's not illegal to be defensive. o It's not illegal to be belligerent. o Its not illegal to insist a cop obey your rights. o It's not illegal to hang outside of a truck. o Adding up a bunch of stuff that isn't illegal doesn't give you reasonable cause - you don't run on "cop sense" - you run on fact. o Your id is protected under the fourth amendment - I wasn't talking about the truck. o A cop can't invent crimes to go on a fishing expidition - if he hadn't tried to force an illegal search, there would have been no crime at all.
Yes, I recognize that this is a tough world, and cops are often fearful of thier lives. If this drives them to break the law, they should quit. No cop has a duty to stick his nose anywhere - his first job in this case was to determine if anyone had been assaulted. No one was, and he should have determined this, and gone on his way. No ID required.
Or the guy would have shot you before you got out of the car. Or slapped you with an AIDS infected needle when you went to cuff him. Or had the girl drive over you when you walked behind the car.
It's a tough job. Pulling someone's ID doesn't make it any safer. It does make him testify against himself, so your humble opinions notwithstanding, it absolutely does violate his fifth amedment rights. It also seizure without cause or a warrant - therefore it does absolutely violate your fourth amendment rights.
The constitution is the law of this land. Change it or accept it, because as of now, your safety isn't as important as my freedom.
The person who wasted 10 minutes wasn't the guy in the hat - it was the cop. If he had asked the questions he had to, determined there was no issue and taken off, there would have been no problem.
It was the deputy's insistence on violating the rancher's rights that wasted all that time and money, and maybe kept that "what if" crime from being prevented.
Functioning freedom requires eternal vigilance. Usually foisted upon authority by belligerant yahoos, often while drunk. That means excercising those rights, whether you have anything to hide or not. If you're afraid of being dented, get yourself a baseball bat, or maybe work to help the world create less scum. The cops aren't going to help you, because prevention isn't their job - they do followup work.
Hey, I wouldn't lie to you - we're friends, arent we?
Cops get paid by us to put their necks on the line - for us. Not against us. By the way, us includes the "criminals" - especially the ones, that haven't been convicted.
Bringing more violence to the table isn't going to fix the violence problem. Trust, self reliance and education are the keys there.
No doubt, people lie to cops. The way many cops behave, they probably should - it's safer.
Our government was founded on the belief that stopping a criminal is less important than presenting certain inalienable rights to all of it's citizens - innocent or guilty. If you'd like to live under a different set of laws, where it is illegal to lie to authority, you'll either have to change the ones we have or live elsewhere.
It's interesting to see how a cop thinks about this sort of situation - and interesting to see how you ignore a citizen's rights, probably just because whoever trained you did.
If you ask me to show you papers, and I say no, then the answer is no. I'm not required to testify against myself - thats the fifth amendment. I'm also not required to give you permission to search and sieze anything in my "persons, houses, papers, and effects". That's the 4th amendment, and the law of the land.
If you have cause to arrest me, then go ahead. Seeing my ID won't make any difference in cause. Otherwise, I'm innocent until you can prove me otherwise, and you should go about your business.
Cops should keep in mind that every one of them is just another citizen, not one of the the "King's Men." I have no requirement to allow you to violate my rights, and you have no power to "detain" me beyond the gun that you will threaten me with.
Public servant positions, like police officers and presidents, need a serious overhaul - Start serving the public again, instead of yourselves and your own opinions of how the world should work. Read the constitution, and if you accept the job, live by it.
Shame on you for stating that demending my rights is a sign of guilt. It does not point to probable cause. Shame on you thinking that you are allowed to decide if a crime is being committed based on somoene's willingness to excercise those rights, as guaranteed by the constitution.
What should have happened there? I'll play next-day quarterback, since you did too.
d: Please step away from the vehicle. h: Ok. d: There has been a report of domestic abuse going on here. Is there any going on? h: No. d: Can I see your papers? h: No. d: Ok, I'm going to ask these same questions of the lady in the truck. Please stay where I can see your hands, for my own safety. h: Ok. d: Hi. Young lady, can I see your papers? h: No. d: Ok, what happened here? g: My dad and I got in a fight because he doesn't like my boyfriend. d: How big fo a fight? Did your dad hit you? g: No, I hit him. d: Are you sure? You can tell us, and we'll keep you safe. g: No, really. I hit him - I was driving. d: Sir, is this what happened? h: Yes. d: Do you intend to press charges against your daughter? h: No. d: Ok, then. Please move along here - cars on the side of the road make people nervous and can cause accidents. You could continue your conversations - calmly - at the resturaint a few miles up the road. As long as no one is hitting anyone else, I'm sure they'd be happy to let you guys work this out. Young lady, here's my card, just to be sure. You two have a nice day, and for all our sakes, try to be more civil.
Cops have the possibility to regain th epublic trust they once had. When I was a kid, we'd think nothing of going to a street cop to ask for help . Now, I'd teach my kids to steer clear - cops are mean and badly trained, concerned more for thier own safety and protecting business interests than upholding thie rights of others.
Re:python & ruby are fine,but they lack {}'s a
on
Perl's Extreme Makeover
·
· Score: 2, Informative
a) Ruby uses brackets or end statements to delineate blocks, not indentation.
b) Why would anyone have a problem with this? Python code is remarkably easy to read and modify, primarily because there are no block delimiters to deal with. Maybe your editor is faulty?
I don't think this is a laziness device. I think it's intended as a retune-during-performance device, to dramtically increase a single guitar's playable range.
I'm reasonably sure that Jimmy Page knows how to tune a guitar.
But some Corporation's ability to make a buck off of me shouldn't be more important than my freedom to do whatever the heck I want to with my own property.
The U.S. has to stop treating corporations - tools designed to deflect liability and dodge taxes - as living entities. A Corporation's goals do not benefit mankind - they benefit the stockholders.
When you give a non-human entity greater rights and priveleges than you do actual people, it enslaves us.
This document does not indicate SCO-owned source code that has been copied into Linux. This document is SCO outlining IBM-owned source code that we all knew they had donated to Linux. That IBM's RCU and XFS were existing technologies is well known.
This lawsuit is not about whether the copying took place - it did. It is about whether IBM has the right to use code they developed internally (or purchased from those who developed internally) from thier own version of UNIX into whatever they want. SCO's claim is that anything that was used with UNIX in the past is somehow a UNIX derivative.
None of this is about SCO claiming to own this code (yet, anyway) - they claim the right to prevent it's use in Linux, because it was first used with UNIX. This is the "hook" of the lawsuit that anyone who would find for SCO would have to swallow. Historic AT&T, Modern Novell and just about everyone who has looked at the facts understand that using two things together doesn't make one derived from the other, and presumably a judge will be able to understand this as well.
What happens when a new version is released? Will there be the same set of maintainers ? Will the next version be supported ? If you're used to the Rwandan (or Finnish or whichever language) version, and you don't have language support in the next version, what do you do ? Keep using the old version ? Look for alternatives ?
I haven't read the article yet, but I assume you send the patch to the OO team, and they incorporate it into the next version. Next time, 10 or 20 strings will need to be translated instead of 20k. That's a big part of OSS - the money you spent helps the entire comunity going forward.
Slashdot Mirror
That's the point, and why I'm willing to risk getting cracked on the skull - to give up a little temporary security in the name of freedom. Because once you give it away, little bit by little bit, you never get it back.
I'm getting sick of dealing with pinheads today.
Please see any other post - my own or someone else's by someone that has some understanding of personal liberty, or go get a copy of the U.S. constitution.
Next time, don't feel the need to end your post like an asshat, and I won't treat you like one.
Just curious: where are you from, originally?
There's a lot to cover here, and I've been doing this all day, so I'll just do it bullet-point style.
o It's not illegal to be defensive.
o It's not illegal to be belligerent.
o Its not illegal to insist a cop obey your rights.
o It's not illegal to hang outside of a truck.
o Adding up a bunch of stuff that isn't illegal doesn't give you reasonable cause - you don't run on "cop sense" - you run on fact.
o Your id is protected under the fourth amendment - I wasn't talking about the truck.
o A cop can't invent crimes to go on a fishing expidition - if he hadn't tried to force an illegal search, there would have been no crime at all.
Yes, I recognize that this is a tough world, and cops are often fearful of thier lives. If this drives them to break the law, they should quit. No cop has a duty to stick his nose anywhere - his first job in this case was to determine if anyone had been assaulted. No one was, and he should have determined this, and gone on his way. No ID required.
Or the guy would have shot you before you got out of the car. Or slapped you with an AIDS infected needle when you went to cuff him. Or had the girl drive over you when you walked behind the car.
It's a tough job. Pulling someone's ID doesn't make it any safer. It does make him testify against himself, so your humble opinions notwithstanding, it absolutely does violate his fifth amedment rights. It also seizure without cause or a warrant - therefore it does absolutely violate your fourth amendment rights.
The constitution is the law of this land. Change it or accept it, because as of now, your safety isn't as important as my freedom.
The person who wasted 10 minutes wasn't the guy in the hat - it was the cop. If he had asked the questions he had to, determined there was no issue and taken off, there would have been no problem.
It was the deputy's insistence on violating the rancher's rights that wasted all that time and money, and maybe kept that "what if" crime from being prevented.
Functioning freedom requires eternal vigilance. Usually foisted upon authority by belligerant yahoos, often while drunk. That means excercising those rights, whether you have anything to hide or not. If you're afraid of being dented, get yourself a baseball bat, or maybe work to help the world create less scum. The cops aren't going to help you, because prevention isn't their job - they do followup work.
Hey, we're friends? Neat.
Hey, I wouldn't lie to you - we're friends, arent we?
Cops get paid by us to put their necks on the line - for us. Not against us. By the way, us includes the "criminals" - especially the ones, that haven't been convicted.
Bringing more violence to the table isn't going to fix the violence problem. Trust, self reliance and education are the keys there.
Three things the Michigan Militia are all about.
No doubt, people lie to cops. The way many cops behave, they probably should - it's safer.
Our government was founded on the belief that stopping a criminal is less important than presenting certain inalienable rights to all of it's citizens - innocent or guilty. If you'd like to live under a different set of laws, where it is illegal to lie to authority, you'll either have to change the ones we have or live elsewhere.
They can have problems all they want - it still wasn't the bnetd group that was breaking the law. They should go crack down on those who were.
If someone has stolen something from you, go get them - not the people who built the getaway car.
It's interesting to see how a cop thinks about this sort of situation - and interesting to see how you ignore a citizen's rights, probably just because whoever trained you did.
If you ask me to show you papers, and I say no, then the answer is no. I'm not required to testify against myself - thats the fifth amendment. I'm also not required to give you permission to search and sieze anything in my "persons, houses, papers, and effects". That's the 4th amendment, and the law of the land.
If you have cause to arrest me, then go ahead. Seeing my ID won't make any difference in cause. Otherwise, I'm innocent until you can prove me otherwise, and you should go about your business.
Cops should keep in mind that every one of them is just another citizen, not one of the the "King's Men." I have no requirement to allow you to violate my rights, and you have no power to "detain" me beyond the gun that you will threaten me with.
Public servant positions, like police officers and presidents, need a serious overhaul - Start serving the public again, instead of yourselves and your own opinions of how the world should work. Read the constitution, and if you accept the job, live by it.
Shame on you for stating that demending my rights is a sign of guilt. It does not point to probable cause. Shame on you thinking that you are allowed to decide if a crime is being committed based on somoene's willingness to excercise those rights, as guaranteed by the constitution.
What should have happened there? I'll play next-day quarterback, since you did too.
d: Please step away from the vehicle.
h: Ok.
d: There has been a report of domestic abuse going on here. Is there any going on?
h: No.
d: Can I see your papers?
h: No.
d: Ok, I'm going to ask these same questions of the lady in the truck. Please stay where I can see your hands, for my own safety.
h: Ok.
d: Hi. Young lady, can I see your papers?
h: No.
d: Ok, what happened here?
g: My dad and I got in a fight because he doesn't like my boyfriend.
d: How big fo a fight? Did your dad hit you?
g: No, I hit him.
d: Are you sure? You can tell us, and we'll keep you safe.
g: No, really. I hit him - I was driving.
d: Sir, is this what happened?
h: Yes.
d: Do you intend to press charges against your daughter?
h: No.
d: Ok, then. Please move along here - cars on the side of the road make people nervous and can cause accidents. You could continue your conversations - calmly - at the resturaint a few miles up the road. As long as no one is hitting anyone else, I'm sure they'd be happy to let you guys work this out. Young lady, here's my card, just to be sure. You two have a nice day, and for all our sakes, try to be more civil.
Cops have the possibility to regain th epublic trust they once had. When I was a kid, we'd think nothing of going to a street cop to ask for help . Now, I'd teach my kids to steer clear - cops are mean and badly trained, concerned more for thier own safety and protecting business interests than upholding thie rights of others.
a) Ruby uses brackets or end statements to delineate blocks, not indentation.
b) Why would anyone have a problem with this? Python code is remarkably easy to read and modify, primarily because there are no block delimiters to deal with. Maybe your editor is faulty?
I suspect the target market is professionals who need to change tunings rapidly without stopping the show, buying more guitars or hiring a flunky.
Those pros probably don't care about how "cool" it is to use it, they see it from a cost/perfomance standpoint.
I don't think this is a laziness device. I think it's intended as a retune-during-performance device, to dramtically increase a single guitar's playable range.
I'm reasonably sure that Jimmy Page knows how to tune a guitar.
But some Corporation's ability to make a buck off of me shouldn't be more important than my freedom to do whatever the heck I want to with my own property.
The U.S. has to stop treating corporations - tools designed to deflect liability and dodge taxes - as living entities. A Corporation's goals do not benefit mankind - they benefit the stockholders.
When you give a non-human entity greater rights and priveleges than you do actual people, it enslaves us.
You may be thinging of RMS - I think I recall seeing this video.
I suppose the new Xfree clause is a legal rstriction, whereas the Gnu/Linux thing is just a request for consideration (albeit a forceful one.)
No one is *forced* call it gnu/Linux in order to use it.
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
presumably to keep people from "diluting" it with concessions.
It's too early to be posting - XFS came from SGI via IRIX.
This document does not indicate SCO-owned source code that has been copied into Linux. This document is SCO outlining IBM-owned source code that we all knew they had donated to Linux. That IBM's RCU and XFS were existing technologies is well known.
This lawsuit is not about whether the copying took place - it did. It is about whether IBM has the right to use code they developed internally (or purchased from those who developed internally) from thier own version of UNIX into whatever they want. SCO's claim is that anything that was used with UNIX in the past is somehow a UNIX derivative.
None of this is about SCO claiming to own this code (yet, anyway) - they claim the right to prevent it's use in Linux, because it was first used with UNIX. This is the "hook" of the lawsuit that anyone who would find for SCO would have to swallow. Historic AT&T, Modern Novell and just about everyone who has looked at the facts understand that using two things together doesn't make one derived from the other, and presumably a judge will be able to understand this as well.
Libertarian?
Or if it's free speech, or what, but ... listening to this, someone sure went to a heck of lot of effort to completely trash the White Album.
Are you cold or something?
Yup. And in the end, IBM will give that little punk a kick in the rear on the way out the door.
I meant Netscape Navigator, which is still very much alive, as far as I know.