I believe the OP story. I have a Vertex 3, all it does is lose data. I get DRDY errors left and right in linux. Sometimes the drive goes for seconds or minutes where all it does it spit out IO read errors. This is the third vertex 3 I've been through (first two were sent as replacements). Finally, I just figured out if you ignore all the errors, and let it run its course, they eventually go away and the drive returns to normal. Though randomly the errors come back, and sometimes I lose data, but I've become accustomed to this "flakyness" and just put my linux root partition on the SSD drive, and all/home and senstive data on a HDD.
There has been a few times when I thought it was bricked, but taking the SSD out and putting it as a 2nd drive in another computer then running the OCZ software works (or maybe its just coincidence). I first run the TRIM commands from the OCZ software, then if that doesn't work, I start over with a secure erase. And of course the latest firmware...
In any case, I always wondered what caused all the IO errors, I thought it was too many read/writes to sectors because of/tmp wasn't moved to ram in fstab (which I later did). Now I know that its the power failures (which I have had).
Is not for terrorism, or even drug fighting. Its a tool for the Democrats or Republicans, whoever is in power, to snoop on their political opponents and line their pockets by stealing civilian secrets. Look at the IRS scandal, look at Fast & Furious / Gunwalker. Nothing is beyond this out of control, corrupt as heck govt. Probably more corrupt than Russia or wherever in the world, they just were able to hide most of it (until Snowden).
And a GPS tracker planted on your car isn't tracking YOUR movements, its tracking the movements of the govt owned GPS tracker. LOL at your distinction.
Also, tell me where in the Constitution this is stated as something the govt is to do. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the constitution knows its duties are enumerated, not infinite.
Agreed, several times I've seen a cop from a mile back go 20mph+ to tailgate me (at an illegal following distance). They are above the law, and the law only applies to citizens.
You have the state govt's confused with the federal. Federal govt can only do what is authorized in the constitution, no more. States are only bound by their constitution (and by the bill of rights via 14ths incorporation).
You need to read what Madison wrote in his veto of a public works bill. Or maybe you need to read who Madison was...
His stat was not correct, it was 89%. Here's the source http://archive.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp -------- "In April 1996, the Freedom Forum published a report by Chicago Tribune writer Elaine Povich titled, “Partners and Adversaries: The Contentious Connection Between Congress and the Media.” Buried in Appendix D was the real news for those concerned about media bias: Based on the 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents who returned the Freedom Forum questionnaire, the Washington-based reporters — by an incredible margin of nine-to-one — overwhelmingly cast their presidential ballots in 1992 for Democrat Bill Clinton over Republican incumbent George Bush."
- 89 percent of Washington-based reporters said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only seven percent voted for George Bush, with two percent choosing Ross Perot.
- Asked “How would you characterize your political orientation?” 61 percent said “liberal” or “liberal to moderate.” Only nine percent labeled themselves “conservative” or “moderate to conservative.”
- Fifty-nine percent dismissed the Republican’s 1994 Contract with America “an election-year campaign ploy.” Just three percent considered it “a serious reform proposal.”
No. The Constitution is exactly that, a constitution. It is a base governing document that lays out the form of government and various rights and responsibilities. It is silent on many things. It says nothing about how much money Social Security is getting next year, or the Marines, or if section 205 of the Patriot Act even exists.
Guns were a right from 1791 onwards, yet police weren't in every city until the 1900s.
Guns were largely unregulated until the NFA of 1934 and more tightly regulated in the GCA of 1968, and even more so in recent years. About the only deregulation was the sunset of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. But if you follow the interpretations (from letters to the BATFE), regulation has become much more strict in the last 30 years. Heck a shoe-string is considered a NFA machinegun now. http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/
Yet as that right becomes increasingly regulated (a right is not unlimited according to SCOTUS), police have become more militarized. Though you are right, if accidentally, that we should expect them to become more so
How about punishing people for crimes they do commit instead of making rules against behavior that may lead to harm? IE nanny state.
If the punishment for harming someone in an automobile accident were high enough... Just a few months ago some lady was driving too fast at night in downpouring conditions. A lane change in front of her caused her to slam on her brakes. Driver behind her slammed into her, the truck behind that hit them both and went off a bridge. Driver in critical condition. The person at fault had no charges filed, despite her reckless behavior that left a CDL driver in a coma.
Yet if I drive 65 in a 55 I'll get a ticket in my state, and nobody was harmed.
And you believe that? After all the lies regarding the existence of PRISM? Try googling "SOD NSA parallel construction"
Very likely IMO they caught him using PRISM or other illegal techniques and put together this fake ID as a front to protect the true source. If you read the pdf of the court filings, it says not all information is presented, just enough for probable cause. SOD/Local police have lied to the courts about the source of information in the past, why would they stop?
The article: -http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/05/sod_squad_found_feeding_nsa_surveillance_info_to_drug_enforcement/ "But part of the deal for getting this data is that the DEA and others should cover up the information's source by setting up a fake investigation trail – a process known as "parallel construction". For example, the police could say the arrest was made during a routine traffic stop or on the word of an informant.
"It's just like laundering money you work it backwards to make it clean," said Finn Selander, a DEA agent from 1991 to 2008.
One federal prosecutor told how he was dealing with a drug case in Florida when a DEA agent lied about the source of information that led to an arrest, saying it had come from an informant. When pressed, the agent admitted the data had come from SOD.
"I was pissed," the prosecutor said. "Lying about where the information came from is a bad start if you're trying to comply with the law because it can lead to all kinds of problems with discovery and candor to the court." He later dropped the case.
Law enforcement agents said that the practice was not uncommon in drug cases. Often a suspect will plead guilty and there's no need to examine evidence in court, but in some cases where the defendant has fought their corner, legal actions have been dropped rather than expose SOD to public scrutiny."
Just look at Hank from Breaking Bad. Sure he's a fictional character, but he's exactly how most agents are. These DEA people are psychopaths bent on ruining the lives of normal people who use drugs (seeing all the online activity post-SR bust tells me a lot of the people who use drugs are just avg people). They demonize them, despise and have contempt for the drug user, all while sitting around drinking adult beverages. I hear about how drugs ruin people's lives... Not nearly as often as govt does.
In my state, the state you transmission is in is irrelevant. You have to exit your vehicle to be considered park. You can have your vehicle sit in a handicap spot as long as you don't exit the vehicle (that is considered park). Whether you car is on, off, in park, in neutral, etc does not matter.
Police are almost always exempt from most traffic laws. If they do break traffic laws, its usually intra-department disciplinary action. Though one cop was driving 135 on the interstate, for no official reason (he stated he wanted to test drive the car to its limits). He got fired for that. Little did he know one of the guys he blew by doing 135 was the police commissioner.
Its not hard to make the law exactly how they want it. The law is usually crafted by think tank organizations who's sole purpose is to lobby and craft legislation. The reason its not "perfect" to you, is its not made to suit you. Its made to suit the lobbyist group. An example is gun legislation, is almost always crafted by a group like HCI (handgun control Inc). Obamacare was crafted by lobbyist groups, read about it here http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/26/from-architect-to-lobbyists-obamacare-designers-stand-to-profit-handsomely-from-bill/
Follow the money. If you think the senators/reps actually wrote the bills themselves, you're in for a rude awakening.
The reason they blame the officer is there's a metric tonne of laws that aren't regularly enforced against the general public that if they were, people would be irate. Its called officer discretion, and the average person receives it every time they don't do a 1 second stop at a stop sign, drive 67 in a 65 etc. People think they're benevolent and the strict enforcement of the law should only apply to DUI, druggies and drug dealers etc, and they should only be given a warning for whatever laws they break.
This is part of the toolset of the LEO. Politicians and traffic engineers purposefully make the law difficult to not break (IE low speed limits) and gives the officer the ability to pretty much pull anyone over at any time. They don't because they're only after bad guys like drug dealers, so soccer moms get warnings or officer discretion all day long. Then you get instances like in the OP where the law is equally applied, and people throw hissy fits about how its BS.
We live in a very strict set of laws, and the reason 95% of us aren't pulled over every trip to work is officer discretion.
I guess you probably think search warrants are stupid too, I mean what citizen wants the police to jump through hoops to catch criminals? If you have nothing to hide you should have no problem getting rid of police obstacles to ensuring our safety, right?
Slashdot Mirror
I believe the OP story. I have a Vertex 3, all it does is lose data. I get DRDY errors left and right in linux. Sometimes the drive goes for seconds or minutes where all it does it spit out IO read errors. This is the third vertex 3 I've been through (first two were sent as replacements). Finally, I just figured out if you ignore all the errors, and let it run its course, they eventually go away and the drive returns to normal. Though randomly the errors come back, and sometimes I lose data, but I've become accustomed to this "flakyness" and just put my linux root partition on the SSD drive, and all /home and senstive data on a HDD.
There has been a few times when I thought it was bricked, but taking the SSD out and putting it as a 2nd drive in another computer then running the OCZ software works (or maybe its just coincidence). I first run the TRIM commands from the OCZ software, then if that doesn't work, I start over with a secure erase. And of course the latest firmware...
In any case, I always wondered what caused all the IO errors, I thought it was too many read/writes to sectors because of /tmp wasn't moved to ram in fstab (which I later did). Now I know that its the power failures (which I have had).
Is not for terrorism, or even drug fighting. Its a tool for the Democrats or Republicans, whoever is in power, to snoop on their political opponents and line their pockets by stealing civilian secrets. Look at the IRS scandal, look at Fast & Furious / Gunwalker. Nothing is beyond this out of control, corrupt as heck govt. Probably more corrupt than Russia or wherever in the world, they just were able to hide most of it (until Snowden).
And a GPS tracker planted on your car isn't tracking YOUR movements, its tracking the movements of the govt owned GPS tracker. LOL at your distinction.
Also, tell me where in the Constitution this is stated as something the govt is to do. Anyone with a rudimentary understanding of the constitution knows its duties are enumerated, not infinite.
Then why do people get upset at surveillance man? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7tBHV0xu68
There's no expectation of privacy standing around talking in a parking lot
Agreed, several times I've seen a cop from a mile back go 20mph+ to tailgate me (at an illegal following distance). They are above the law, and the law only applies to citizens.
In my state, police are completely exempted from speed limits.
You have the state govt's confused with the federal. Federal govt can only do what is authorized in the constitution, no more. States are only bound by their constitution (and by the bill of rights via 14ths incorporation).
You need to read what Madison wrote in his veto of a public works bill. Or maybe you need to read who Madison was...
http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm
Well its not criminal as they control washington and make the rules up as they go along.
Or campbx.com...
His stat was not correct, it was 89%. Here's the source http://archive.mrc.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
--------
"In April 1996, the Freedom Forum published a report by Chicago Tribune writer Elaine Povich titled, “Partners and Adversaries: The Contentious Connection Between Congress and the Media.” Buried in Appendix D was the real news for those concerned about media bias: Based on the 139 Washington bureau chiefs and congressional correspondents who returned the Freedom Forum questionnaire, the Washington-based reporters — by an incredible margin of nine-to-one — overwhelmingly cast their presidential ballots in 1992 for Democrat Bill Clinton over Republican incumbent George Bush."
- 89 percent of Washington-based reporters said they voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only seven percent voted for George Bush, with two percent choosing Ross Perot.
- Asked “How would you characterize your political orientation?” 61 percent said “liberal” or “liberal to moderate.” Only nine percent labeled themselves “conservative” or “moderate to conservative.”
- Fifty-nine percent dismissed the Republican’s 1994 Contract with America “an election-year campaign ploy.” Just three percent considered it “a serious reform proposal.”
Too much incorrect to tackle all of it, but the last thing you said is the most incorrect. You cannot consent to give away any right.
Agreed, it doesn't fit any of the description of the banned displays.
Back up cameras / displays do fit.
Seems california legislatures are for killing kids. http://autos.aol.com/article/back-up-cameras-law/
No. The Constitution is exactly that, a constitution. It is a base governing document that lays out the form of government and various rights and responsibilities. It is silent on many things. It says nothing about how much money Social Security is getting next year, or the Marines, or if section 205 of the Patriot Act even exists.
Wrong on all counts. Parent post was right. Source: James Madison, father of the Constitution. http://www.constitution.org/jm/18170303_veto.htm
Guns were a right from 1791 onwards, yet police weren't in every city until the 1900s.
Guns were largely unregulated until the NFA of 1934 and more tightly regulated in the GCA of 1968, and even more so in recent years. About the only deregulation was the sunset of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. But if you follow the interpretations (from letters to the BATFE), regulation has become much more strict in the last 30 years. Heck a shoe-string is considered a NFA machinegun now. http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2010/01/25/shoestring-machine-gun/
Yet as that right becomes increasingly regulated (a right is not unlimited according to SCOTUS), police have become more militarized. Though you are right, if accidentally, that we should expect them to become more so
That's just not true, this study says safety inspections will save somewhere between 100-200 lives in PA
http://www.dot3.state.pa.us/pdotforms/inspections/Inspection%20Program%20Effectiveness%20Study.pdf
How about punishing people for crimes they do commit instead of making rules against behavior that may lead to harm? IE nanny state.
If the punishment for harming someone in an automobile accident were high enough... Just a few months ago some lady was driving too fast at night in downpouring conditions. A lane change in front of her caused her to slam on her brakes. Driver behind her slammed into her, the truck behind that hit them both and went off a bridge. Driver in critical condition. The person at fault had no charges filed, despite her reckless behavior that left a CDL driver in a coma.
Yet if I drive 65 in a 55 I'll get a ticket in my state, and nobody was harmed.
And you believe that? After all the lies regarding the existence of PRISM? Try googling "SOD NSA parallel construction"
Very likely IMO they caught him using PRISM or other illegal techniques and put together this fake ID as a front to protect the true source. If you read the pdf of the court filings, it says not all information is presented, just enough for probable cause. SOD/Local police have lied to the courts about the source of information in the past, why would they stop?
The article:
-http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/05/sod_squad_found_feeding_nsa_surveillance_info_to_drug_enforcement/
"But part of the deal for getting this data is that the DEA and others should cover up the information's source by setting up a fake investigation trail – a process known as "parallel construction". For example, the police could say the arrest was made during a routine traffic stop or on the word of an informant.
"It's just like laundering money you work it backwards to make it clean," said Finn Selander, a DEA agent from 1991 to 2008.
One federal prosecutor told how he was dealing with a drug case in Florida when a DEA agent lied about the source of information that led to an arrest, saying it had come from an informant. When pressed, the agent admitted the data had come from SOD.
"I was pissed," the prosecutor said. "Lying about where the information came from is a bad start if you're trying to comply with the law because it can lead to all kinds of problems with discovery and candor to the court." He later dropped the case.
Law enforcement agents said that the practice was not uncommon in drug cases. Often a suspect will plead guilty and there's no need to examine evidence in court, but in some cases where the defendant has fought their corner, legal actions have been dropped rather than expose SOD to public scrutiny."
Just look at Hank from Breaking Bad. Sure he's a fictional character, but he's exactly how most agents are. These DEA people are psychopaths bent on ruining the lives of normal people who use drugs (seeing all the online activity post-SR bust tells me a lot of the people who use drugs are just avg people). They demonize them, despise and have contempt for the drug user, all while sitting around drinking adult beverages. I hear about how drugs ruin people's lives... Not nearly as often as govt does.
You believe any of that? You are naive. Google "NSA SOD parallel construction." NSA lied about prism until one of their agents blew the whistle.
Eeek, grammar/spelling is terrible in my last post. Sorry guys.
In my state, the state you transmission is in is irrelevant. You have to exit your vehicle to be considered park. You can have your vehicle sit in a handicap spot as long as you don't exit the vehicle (that is considered park). Whether you car is on, off, in park, in neutral, etc does not matter.
Police are almost always exempt from most traffic laws. If they do break traffic laws, its usually intra-department disciplinary action. Though one cop was driving 135 on the interstate, for no official reason (he stated he wanted to test drive the car to its limits). He got fired for that. Little did he know one of the guys he blew by doing 135 was the police commissioner.
Its not hard to make the law exactly how they want it. The law is usually crafted by think tank organizations who's sole purpose is to lobby and craft legislation. The reason its not "perfect" to you, is its not made to suit you. Its made to suit the lobbyist group. An example is gun legislation, is almost always crafted by a group like HCI (handgun control Inc). Obamacare was crafted by lobbyist groups, read about it here http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/08/26/from-architect-to-lobbyists-obamacare-designers-stand-to-profit-handsomely-from-bill/
Follow the money. If you think the senators/reps actually wrote the bills themselves, you're in for a rude awakening.
The reason they blame the officer is there's a metric tonne of laws that aren't regularly enforced against the general public that if they were, people would be irate. Its called officer discretion, and the average person receives it every time they don't do a 1 second stop at a stop sign, drive 67 in a 65 etc. People think they're benevolent and the strict enforcement of the law should only apply to DUI, druggies and drug dealers etc, and they should only be given a warning for whatever laws they break.
This is part of the toolset of the LEO. Politicians and traffic engineers purposefully make the law difficult to not break (IE low speed limits) and gives the officer the ability to pretty much pull anyone over at any time. They don't because they're only after bad guys like drug dealers, so soccer moms get warnings or officer discretion all day long. Then you get instances like in the OP where the law is equally applied, and people throw hissy fits about how its BS.
We live in a very strict set of laws, and the reason 95% of us aren't pulled over every trip to work is officer discretion.
I guess you probably think search warrants are stupid too, I mean what citizen wants the police to jump through hoops to catch criminals? If you have nothing to hide you should have no problem getting rid of police obstacles to ensuring our safety, right?