No kidding. Here in Omaha we had an independent police auditor. She had the audacity to actually do her job, and issued a report saying that the Omaha Police disproportionately pull over black people. The mayor promptly fired her and eliminated the position.
Generally speaking, prosecutorial immunity is a) applied to civil, not criminal, offenses, and b) does not cover acts that prosecutor knows or should know are illegal.
Bullshit. Hell there was recently a case headed for the Supreme Court involving a couple of prosecutors who knowingly framed an innocent (black) man. That is criminal behavior, for which they were never charged. The guy sued and it was eventually settled.
In a strict technical sense, you're right. Prosecutorial immunity only applies to civil acts, because you'll never see a prosecutor charge another prosecutor for anything. Even Nifong wasn't charged with any crimes by a prosecutor, only held in contempt (for one day!) by a judge.
What's needed is somebody, like Allison, to dig in their heels and push it and push it, until it gets to the Supreme Court, where he will win.
If he wins (big IF), the case just gets tossed out. No consequences for the prosecutor who filed the charges, and no deterrent for future prosecutors to keep doing the same thing.
And if you want prosecutors put in prison for abusing their power, vote for people who will do so.
Doesn't work. The system is rigged to keep all anti-authoritarian, anti-corporate candidates out of the running.
Prosecutors are able to get away with these bad faith prosecutions because of a doctrine called "prosecutorial immunity". We need a way to hold these prosecutors responsible for their actions, that will require the abolition of prosecutorial immunity.
McDonalds main appeal (to me) is when traveling, as I know exactly what I'm going to get when I drive up: the exact same taste, quality, and experience found in every other McDonalds.
Or to put it another way, McDonalds is just as bad anywhere. If you're traveling, take a chance on a local place. I make it a point to try out any non-chain restaurant I can find when I'm on the road. I've NEVER had a worse meal than I would if I had gone to McDonalds. Not once. Ever. The whole point of traveling is to experience what new locations have to offer. Food is on the top of that list. Even if you're traveling for business, being able to expense a new and exciting meal is a great perk.
I can see eating McDonalds if you've spent a couple months in a foreign country, and it's the only place you can get anything resembling a hamburger. But that's only after you've tried every place the locals recommend, and have tried everything on the menu of the good places. But if that were the case, you'd be settled enough to have some cookware and be able to make something superior yourself. I actually can't see any reason to ever willingly eat at McDonalds now that I think of it.
Your lawmakers didn't put any conditions on those subsidies that allow you to dictate terms.
We don't need to have put conditions on those subsidies. If the cable companies don't play nice with their toys, we will take them away. We, the people, make the rules. If they are not behaving in a way that benefits society, we can change the law to deal with that.
Or to put it another way, those subsidies didn't come with any restrictions, but they didn't come with any promises either.
Start by shooting business leaders. They need to learn that if the justice system isn't working for the American people we have other ways to get justice.
I've been reading Matt Taibbi's book, "Griftopia" (http://www.amazon.com/Griftopia-Machines-Vampire-Breaking-America/dp/0385529953), and having worked in finance for ~10 years, I'm coming to realize more and more that the powers that be -- corporations, CEOs, and everybody that's basically not *you* are the people who are going to run the US for the coming future.
Did it really take that long for you to figure that out? That's something most of us come to grips with in high school. Not only has will it be this way for the forseeable future, it's been this way my entire life.
Why would FOX be in favor of saving NetFlix? More NetFlix means less cable TV subscriptions which means less FOX advertising dollars. Don't be surprised if your F-I-L changes his mind and comes back with a bunch of talking points that have no basis in reality.
When you grow up, you find that you have less time for gaming.
8 to 5 is pretty much spoken for. But hey, there's no homework, no after school programs etc, to worry about. I find that I have as much time for games at 30 as I did at 15.
You find that some of your friends and colleagues stop gaming, because of life.
Is "life" here a euphemism for "kids"?
If you've managed to find one or two like-minded folk who happen to want to play the same game on the same platform, you have to deal with aligning everyone's schedules so that they can get together.
Just like every other activity adults engage in. Not sure what the point is here.
Then, you get to lug some hardware around and rearrange furniture.
Hello? We're talking about split screen multiplayer. One screen, one console, two controllers. Nobodys lugging anything around.
It's far easier to just have a seat on the couch or office chair and make use of that thing called the "Internet".
Still more fun to drink beer and talk shit in person. Even if I have to break out the N64 (or 2600 for that matter).
The politican may have made a bad decision when dealing with the crisis, but the banker is responsible for the crisis. Neither of them have clean hands and they are both thugs in my book.
Personally, I'm not concerned about the individual investors wiped out by the financial crisis. The people who really fucked over are the millions of people unemployed today who wouldn't be if not for the crimes of the banking industry.
At least in HS science classes there's some lip service to the scientific method. At the beginning of a lab you come up with a hypothesis, you perform the lab, and you see if your hypothesis was confirmed. There's nothing like that in CS.
So it's entirely impossible for a bank to over extend itself entirely out of its own greed, panic, and stop lending to your boss causing him to go out of business and you to lose your job? Have you been paying attention at all the last two years? The irresponsible behavior of banks affects the entire economy, whether you've been responsible with your money or not.
As long as bankers are the greatest villains of our age, no discussion concerning bankers should pass without acknowledging that they are in fact the greatest villains of our age.
So uh a business whose employees deal with customers on a daily basis in an industry where projecting an image of professionalism is very important has developed a guide to aid their employees? This just sounds like common sense to me.
It is common sense. The interesting part is that common sense reigns here, but not in the actual operations of the bank. If they spent as much time ensuring that their employees were doing their job properly, and not just dressing the part, they may have avoided the financial crisis they find themselves in.
43 pages sounds a bit insane, until you actually look at it. Large print, lots of diagrams, lots of whitespace/formatting not 43 walls of text. It actually looks pretty clean and readable.
No fine print? Bet they don't offer their customers the same courtesy.
Even geeks like myself who cringe when they have to put on a tie tend to expect the people dealing with our savings to look the part. If the guy I'm greeted by has a nose ring, I'm out of there.
I guess if you look respectable enough, you don't actually have to act respectably. I'd be willing to bet that any UBS employee that got a nose ring would be shown the door much, much more quickly than any UBS employee that engaged in mortgage fraud.
A suit and tie are the colors for the most powerful gang in the world. Sure, a thug in a red bandana might steal your wallet. A thug in a suit and tie will steal your entire future, and get a million dollar bonus for it.
Should that police officer be punished? I certainly think not as he definitely acted in good faith
Without legal authorization for his actions, he is nothing but a thug with a gun harassing motorists. He should be treated as such. Ask his victim whether he cares about "good faith".
If you wish to provide a good faith defense for all criminal defendants, then the officer should be entitled to one too. But as long as ignorance of the law is no defense for us, it should not be one for them.
When arrested should the evidence from the first search where the chain of custody was screwed up be admissable?
Breaking the chain of custody does not retroactively make a legal search illegal. So I wouldn't try the officers involved for tresspassing or anything. The jury should be made aware that the evidence exists, but they should be aware of the broken chain of custody, and instructed that it is reasonable to doubt its veracity.
Slashdot Mirror
No kidding. Here in Omaha we had an independent police auditor. She had the audacity to actually do her job, and issued a report saying that the Omaha Police disproportionately pull over black people. The mayor promptly fired her and eliminated the position.
Indeed. It's like they *want* people to not use it.
Generally speaking, prosecutorial immunity is a) applied to civil, not criminal, offenses, and b) does not cover acts that prosecutor knows or should know are illegal.
Bullshit. Hell there was recently a case headed for the Supreme Court involving a couple of prosecutors who knowingly framed an innocent (black) man. That is criminal behavior, for which they were never charged. The guy sued and it was eventually settled.
In a strict technical sense, you're right. Prosecutorial immunity only applies to civil acts, because you'll never see a prosecutor charge another prosecutor for anything. Even Nifong wasn't charged with any crimes by a prosecutor, only held in contempt (for one day!) by a judge.
What's needed is somebody, like Allison, to dig in their heels and push it and push it, until it gets to the Supreme Court, where he will win.
If he wins (big IF), the case just gets tossed out. No consequences for the prosecutor who filed the charges, and no deterrent for future prosecutors to keep doing the same thing.
And if you want prosecutors put in prison for abusing their power, vote for people who will do so.
Doesn't work. The system is rigged to keep all anti-authoritarian, anti-corporate candidates out of the running.
It stops being the rule of law and becomes the rule of man when you cannot punish the prosecutor for abusing his power.
Prosecutors are able to get away with these bad faith prosecutions because of a doctrine called "prosecutorial immunity". We need a way to hold these prosecutors responsible for their actions, that will require the abolition of prosecutorial immunity.
Yes, that would stand to reason.
McDonalds main appeal (to me) is when traveling, as I know exactly what I'm going to get when I drive up: the exact same taste, quality, and experience found in every other McDonalds.
Or to put it another way, McDonalds is just as bad anywhere. If you're traveling, take a chance on a local place. I make it a point to try out any non-chain restaurant I can find when I'm on the road. I've NEVER had a worse meal than I would if I had gone to McDonalds. Not once. Ever. The whole point of traveling is to experience what new locations have to offer. Food is on the top of that list. Even if you're traveling for business, being able to expense a new and exciting
meal is a great perk.
I can see eating McDonalds if you've spent a couple months in a foreign country, and it's the only place you can get anything resembling a hamburger. But that's only after you've tried every place the locals recommend, and have tried everything on the menu of the good places. But if that were the case, you'd be settled enough to have some cookware and be able to make something superior yourself. I actually can't see any reason to ever willingly eat at McDonalds now that I think of it.
Your lawmakers didn't put any conditions on those subsidies that allow you to dictate terms.
We don't need to have put conditions on those subsidies. If the cable companies don't play nice with their toys, we will take them away. We, the people, make the rules. If they are not behaving in a way that benefits society, we can change the law to deal with that.
Or to put it another way, those subsidies didn't come with any restrictions, but they didn't come with any promises either.
What makes you think the Republicans don't want the government to control the Internet?
Start by shooting business leaders. They need to learn that if the justice system isn't working for the American people we have other ways to get justice.
I've been reading Matt Taibbi's book, "Griftopia" (http://www.amazon.com/Griftopia-Machines-Vampire-Breaking-America/dp/0385529953), and having worked in finance for ~10 years, I'm coming to realize more and more that the powers that be -- corporations, CEOs, and everybody that's basically not *you* are the people who are going to run the US for the coming future.
Did it really take that long for you to figure that out? That's something most of us come to grips with in high school. Not only has will it be this way for the forseeable future, it's been this way my entire life.
Why would FOX be in favor of saving NetFlix? More NetFlix means less cable TV subscriptions which means less FOX advertising dollars. Don't be surprised if your F-I-L changes his mind and comes back with a bunch of talking points that have no basis in reality.
When you grow up, you find that you have less time for gaming.
8 to 5 is pretty much spoken for. But hey, there's no homework, no after school programs etc, to worry about. I find that I have as much time for games at 30 as I did at 15.
You find that some of your friends and colleagues stop gaming, because of life.
Is "life" here a euphemism for "kids"?
If you've managed to find one or two like-minded folk who happen to want to play the same game on the same platform, you have to deal with aligning everyone's schedules so that they can get together.
Just like every other activity adults engage in. Not sure what the point is here.
Then, you get to lug some hardware around and rearrange furniture.
Hello? We're talking about split screen multiplayer. One screen, one console, two controllers. Nobodys lugging anything around.
It's far easier to just have a seat on the couch or office chair and make use of that thing called the "Internet".
Still more fun to drink beer and talk shit in person. Even if I have to break out the N64 (or 2600 for that matter).
No! He'd have to stop doing the show.
No. If you visit the site, it loads javascript on your machine which does the DDOS from your machine. It's not a proxy.
Not my boss, thankfully. Perhaps you should ask yours how commercial paper works.
The politican may have made a bad decision when dealing with the crisis, but the banker is responsible for the crisis. Neither of them have clean hands and they are both thugs in my book.
Personally, I'm not concerned about the individual investors wiped out by the financial crisis. The people who really fucked over are the millions of people unemployed today who wouldn't be if not for the crimes of the banking industry.
At least in HS science classes there's some lip service to the scientific method. At the beginning of a lab you come up with a hypothesis, you perform the lab, and you see if your hypothesis was confirmed. There's nothing like that in CS.
Computer/computing--tomato/tomahto. I'm more interested in the "Science". Do computer scientists follow the scientific method?
So it's entirely impossible for a bank to over extend itself entirely out of its own greed, panic, and stop lending to your boss causing him to go out of business and you to lose your job? Have you been paying attention at all the last two years? The irresponsible behavior of banks affects the entire economy, whether you've been responsible with your money or not.
As long as bankers are the greatest villains of our age, no discussion concerning bankers should pass without acknowledging that they are in fact the greatest villains of our age.
So uh a business whose employees deal with customers on a daily basis in an industry where projecting an image of professionalism is very important has developed a guide to aid their employees? This just sounds like common sense to me.
It is common sense. The interesting part is that common sense reigns here, but not in the actual operations of the bank. If they spent as much time ensuring that their employees were doing their job properly, and not just dressing the part, they may have avoided the financial crisis they find themselves in.
43 pages sounds a bit insane, until you actually look at it. Large print, lots of diagrams, lots of whitespace/formatting not 43 walls of text. It actually looks pretty clean and readable.
No fine print? Bet they don't offer their customers the same courtesy.
Even geeks like myself who cringe when they have to put on a tie tend to expect the people dealing with our savings to look the part. If the guy I'm greeted by has a nose ring, I'm out of there.
I guess if you look respectable enough, you don't actually have to act respectably. I'd be willing to bet that any UBS employee that got a nose ring would be shown the door much, much more quickly than any UBS employee that engaged in mortgage fraud.
A suit and tie are the colors for the most powerful gang in the world. Sure, a thug in a red bandana might steal your wallet. A thug in a suit and tie will steal your entire future, and get a million dollar bonus for it.
That quote is from Civil Disobedience. It's a short read and and very much worthwhile. You can find it with a search engine.
Yeah, and we'll be greeted as liberators, right? It'll only take six months, tops.
Should that police officer be punished? I certainly think not as he definitely acted in good faith
Without legal authorization for his actions, he is nothing but a thug with a gun harassing motorists. He should be treated as such. Ask his victim whether he cares about "good faith".
If you wish to provide a good faith defense for all criminal defendants, then the officer should be entitled to one too. But as long as ignorance of the law is no defense for us, it should not be one for them.
When arrested should the evidence from the first search where the chain of custody was screwed up be admissable?
Breaking the chain of custody does not retroactively make a legal search illegal. So I wouldn't try the officers involved for tresspassing or anything. The jury should be made aware that the evidence exists, but they should be aware of the broken chain of custody, and instructed that it is reasonable to doubt its veracity.