If you think what he did (wasting the time of the emergency phone service) is deserving ot some punishment, then you should listen to the 911 tapes at some media-frenzied event such as Columbine or after an earthquake.
Television news reporters call 911 to get interviews and information. They tie up this operator for sometimes 5-10 minutes asking questions. In that same span the operator could probably have taken 3-5 legitimate calls.
If a news media reporter calls 911 as a source for a report or interview, that person should at a minimum be fired, and should serve a manditory jain sentence of 15 days. Also the responsible entity (TV station, newspaper, etc) should be fined; $1 per average daily viewer/reader... the proceeds to be used exclusively for emergency telephone service improvements for the department they abused.
This wasn't an "attack" Any number of modified systems should not be labled terrorism. Terrorism is not messing with the public infrastrucure, it's making people terrified. I don't see how even a million affected systems dialing 911 instead of the local number would affect the public terror level.
This does however bring up a very good point... I've always hated that these "cunsumer devices" like WebTV and my satellite reciever don't display the phone number they are dialing on the screen.
Issues like this would be eliminated if the system displayed "dialing 867-5309" then waited 5 seconds before doin g so, with a "press any key to not dial" message.
No, the act of picking a log is to open the lock without the key/combination/code/whatever normally opens the lock and without damaging the lock. If you blow the door off a safe you haven't picked the lock, you've bypassed it.
Will this technique really reduce the amount of false-header spam or will is simply annoy the spammers a little? I think the latter, and I think that Microsoft did nothink about this before writing their standard. I predict that if a "standard" such as this is proposed, there will be a temporary drop off of spam, then things will return to normal, and get worse.
Current situation: Spammer sets up some machines to connect to foreign SMTP servers and send emails in bulk
Future situation: Spammer sets up a domain name for $5 and free DNS hosting at any of several services Spammer puts authoritative records for each spamming maching in the zone file Spammer sets up some machines to connect to foreign SMTP servers and send email in bulk
In the end, knowing the domain name is legitimate is not worth much for limiting spam. Or are we going to propose as part of the standard that there are only allowed to be up to 5 legal sources for mail from any one domain?
We know that spammers and other malicious people can worm their way in to literally millions of systems, once compromised a system could "phone home" to have the master server update the DNS. Keep in mind that this master server does not need to be owned (in a legal sense) by the spammer. The domain names could be purchased with stolen credit cards. The whole process simply takes an extra three days for the DNS system to propigate completely and a minor extra hassle.
The result: Spammers spend an extra $50/year on domain names and an extra hour per month maintaining code and database files, this is trivial to them. Also, legitimate DNS servers must handle a larger load, network loads increase with all the extra XML crap floating around, and in general every mail server on the planet must be modified to work with the system, all for a plan that won't change much of anything.
Many here have pointed out flaws, problems or complications with the proposal, I have a fundamental problem with it. They released it as a.doc file. Who releases a proposed "standard" in a proprietary format? Shouldn't this have been plain text, RTF, HTML or even PDF so that everyone could read it properly?
Using a Mac without Office installed I get lots of document formatting commands interspersed with the text. Apparently Apple hasn't figured out all of the.doc formatting in TextEdit yet.
I'm very easy to find, as long as you have a reason to find me. The only people who would have a hard time finding a valid email address for me are those that have no acceptable reason to be emailing me. I don't know if that's what you call being "private", but I have about 17 publicly viewable email addresses out there on various discussion forums, web pages and such. I certainly don't consider that hard to find or private. The limitation I create is that I'm only easily locatable within the contexts I choose.
Another "fun" seat-horn trick is to get a 9V battery a mercury/tilt switch and a small 100dB+ horn. Wire it all up so that when a person sits in a chair and tils back, the horn goes off.
More than a few people have wound up on the foor or on the ceiling with this hack.
I disagree with you basic premis that the Internet is supposed to make me easier to find. I think the Internet is supposed to make me easier to contact. I should be able to remain as anonymous as I want, but still be findable.
In situations such as yours it may be unavoidable to have a publically known email address. But then again... can't each class have a separate one, or each semester or shool year have a unique address? You can then phase out older addresses as necessary. Or there's the web form for inbound messages, then you can respond to those with a standard client and use either a bogus address, or another disposable one.
No, I'm not at all suggesting that you just change your email address on a regular basis and re-inform all your firends and family of it.
If you have an address that you give only to your family, or particular family members, and they don't give that address to anyone either, then there's no reason to expect you'll ever see any spam at that address. No spam, no address change. One of my addresses is only known by my parents and my wife's parents, one that's only known by my sister and a few of my close friends, one for most of my acquaintences, each of my clients has their own address which is simply their business name at my domain. If any of these addresses starts recieving spam I can change just that one address and inform the small group of people affected of a new address.
The only addresses you would change on anything close to a regular basis would be those that you allow displayed on public forums (slashdot for example). For the most part when you change those addresses there's no-one to inform, you just post the new address in your profile. Anyone that would email you regularly would have a more private address that you set up for them.
The 3-5 spams I get a month are due to a few publically accessible/known/assumable addresses that I have out there like hostmaster, postmaster, webmaster, etc from the several domains that I run. There is no brute force there, just a stubborn adherence to customs/standards. In 5 years I've never recieved a legitimate email on one of those addresses so I'm really close to just disabling them also.
The core "problem" with the internet is that just about anyone can create a domain and the associated zone files and have them served as authoritative. There are at lesat two free DNS services out there that will host whatever zone data you wish to throw at them. Personally I don't consider this a problem, but a very nice feature.
When you can register domains in bulk for $5, perhaps less, and can host the DNS for free or just a few dollars a year, how exactly is any DNS based verification system going to operate to limit spam? Al the spammers have to do is fudge up the zone file so that any verification system will succeede because the spamming server is "legit". The server may very well be anonyous or hacked or have 20 IP addresses.
I still say the single best solution to spam is for ISPs to start a policy of disposable email addresses. This is a relatively simple matter to impliment with Sendmail and a few CGI scripts, or even via email messages. An end user is given lets say 8 email addresses. These addresses are never to be given out to anyone for email purposes, they are simply for sorting incoming mail among several family/household members. Each account can have up to 50 aliases at any time. Aliases are created on the fly by the end user, and can be set to expire at some future date, or be removed manually. When you go to sign up for a discussion forum you create an alias for just that forum, ex: gjslashdot@ispdomain.com. If you start getting spam on that address, you can simply delete it and create another one, there's no attachment to the address outside that forum.
I've been using this system myself for about a year and have gone from 500+ spams a month to 3-5 a month. Again... as soon as I get spam at an address, I delete it and create a new one if necessary.
What's causing the spam problem is human ignorance. Layering technological complexity on top of the existing system will not eliminate the underlying ignorance. My solution does that.
As far as corporations go.... get your email addresses off of your business cards, and stop using employee names as the basis for email addresses. If someone has access to an email client, they probably have access to a web client. Out-side emailers should use a web form to send email to employees unless there is an existing relationship. Once there is a relationship, siret email can be used. Email addresses on business cards... business cards handed out like candy on haloween... no wonder you get inundated with spam.
If a person can be arrested on the testimony of a single person, the accuser of all people, then the system fails and justice can not be done.
What is to prevent a person from having consensual sex, then claiming rape? Nothing. The alledged victim would even have much evidence required to make a stong case, but the evidence just shows that intercourse took place and perhaps some of the circumstances of it. What it doesn't show is precense or absense of concent. People do thngs concentually that when presented properly could appear as rape.
In a single-witness scenareo you wind up with two people's testimony, both are diabolically opposed on the key points, and both bear the same legal weight. Convictions are sporadic.
When you go to third party witnesses or recordings of the incident, then you get to where justice can be served.
My view is that unless the accused is a flight risk, that there should be no arrest until objective evidence is in the poseesion of investigators.
There are several reasons radio is still the dominant player:
1. ubiquity: every car comes from he factory with an radio, you can get a radio for $3 that runs on a single battery 2. simplicity. There's no special antennas, just turn on and tune in. 3. price. AM and FM radio are free (via commercials) and do not require any monthly subscription 4. mobility. You can't take streaming internet radio with you easily 5. locality. radio is community based, if something happens in the area you can get alerts, news, weather. That's not easy to do with satellite or internet streams which are "one size fits all".
When you can get a satellite radio reciever for less than $10 that fits in your pocket with no external antenna and runs for hours if not days on a standard 9v battery, then it will give tower based radio a run for the money.
I find it ironic that many people complain about the homoginization of radio due to companies like Clear Channel, but think that satellite is a better option. If anything, satellite is an even worse case if you want diversification in broadcasting.
It's not cheating. It's taking advantage of a flaw. Cheating is when you change the rules or play of the game to suit your needs, such as moving chess peices when your opponent is not looking or dealing cards from the bottom of the deck(or your sleeve).
This all hinges on who or what witnessed the bank robbery.
If your witness is a single person, there's not enough probable cause to be arresting anybody. Witnesses are notoriously fallible. Unless you have corrooboration of facts by several witnesses, or have video or photographic evidence on the crime, I don't see probably cause for arrests.
See... if you tell the police that you saw me rob the bank, how are they to know that you aren't creating a distraction and pointing them in the wrong direction? Perhaps you robbed the bank wearing a mask that looked like me, and stayed at the crime scene to "be helpful".
If they then find me, not driving a vehicle and I have no I.D., no money and no weapons on me then again, I state there is no probable cause to arrest.
No-one should ever be arrested based on the testimony of a single witness, ID withholding or not.
The man in this situation was not "behind the wheel". He was standing outside the vehicle on the passenger side leaning in through the window. The driver's seat was occupied by his 16 year old daughter who had been driving the vehicle.
From what I can tell, Mr. Hiibel instigated the confrontation. Mr Hiible instigated nothing. The police came to him, the police could not answer basic questions about probably cause, and the police are the ones who commited all of the violence.
First off, a police officer has the right to ask you basic pedigree information, such as name, address, and reason for being somewhere. The officer did not ask him any of that. The officer repeatedly asked him for his I.D. If the officer had asked Hiibel his name or reason for being there he may have gotten an answer, but the officer failed to do that in instead chose to play macho policeman games.
If you have reasonable suspicion, and the person does not produce ID, they may be detained until they are identified I agree. but in this case there was at the time of arrest/detention any reasonable suspision. The officer had not even seen the supposedly assaulted female, never mind questioned her about the alledged incident. If there's one thing that the police should know after two days on the job, it's that witnesses are unreliable. People almost always exaggerate what they saw, or they add in details that they don't really see. This happens, usually, uncouncously in an attempt to help the police. Sometimes the police themselves are responsible for this with the manner or topic of questioning of the witness.
Also, in NY, where I am a PO, it is not a crime not to have ID, but if I stop you for a crime or violation and you fail to give me your id when I ask and have it on you at the time, it is a violation offense. You are referring to a person driving a vehicle I think, where motor vehicle laws require the presentation of a valid driver's license when stopped by an officer. Or does the law require a pedestrian to also carry a driver's license?
My opinion is that the patrol officers completely mis-handled this situation in their all too typical way.
Option 4 is the only legally permissable reason to arrest someone that you put forth. You, like many other I think, mis-understand what the police are there for. You can only be arrested if you are witnessed commiting an illegal act, or there is probable cause to think that you have already commited an illegal act.
Police are not crime preventers, that would require pre-congicence. The police are not there to protect you. There is only perhaps 1 on-duty, active patrol officer per 5,000 -10,000 citizens. One officer can not "protect" that many people. The police are not law enforcement officers, despite theit claims, for the reasons above. Law enforcement means that you prevent people from breaking laws/rules.
The police are there to clean up after crimes and other illegal acts. Their job is to collect evidence and identify/find/arrest suspects an present all that to the proscecutors and courts where further action and punishment may occur. That's pretty much it, other than directing traffic.
Yes there was a reason. You blasted the poster for having a Hollywood/delusional view of the US and its policies. I made the comparison to show that his view of the US is not an illusion created by Hollywood, but it is in fact official policy.
The fact that any number of people may disagree with the policy does not make it any less the official policy of the country.
If you can't see the connection then I can't help you, perhaps you should seek tutouring in critical thinking or debate.
You're arguing a point that I didn't make or imply in either of my posts. I never claimed you were responding to or referring to Bush. You made a statement, Bush made statements. I compared the viewpoints of the two people based on the published statements. Just because you didn't reference Bush or his policies doesn't mean I can't legitimately draw a comparison between the two comments.
I did not say you are for or against anything. I did not state or imply any moral value or judgement on your statement or Bush's.
If you had said "I think orange juice is nasty", and someone from the orange growers' union had said "orange juice is yummie", I could fairly and accurately state that you had a major disconnect with the orange growers' union.
I comprehend completely that citizens of the US can and do have different points of view from their elected leaders. Why can't you comprehend the concept of "compare and contrast"? Things do not have to reference or be related to each other to be compared. The lack of direct reference does not preclude or invalidate comparison.
Your exact words were: "No, national self-flagellation is actively encouraged here. However, it is preferred if it isn't mired in ideological foofa like yours. You clearly have an outsider view, and seem hellbent on seeing the world in purely monochromatic good versus evil terms. Real life is about a billion times more complex than that."
From this we know that you think the world is full of "grey areas" to paraphrase a little. From many statements by Bush we know he thinks that is not the case.
Apparently you have a major disconnect with the leadership of this country. I don't see where I made any error in reading or understanding your statements.
You trivialize the original poster's views about this country as Hollywood fantasy, a dream world. I pointed out that it is not Hollywood fantasty, the monochromatic divide is official US policy according to the President and his administration.
I think perhaps it is you who needs to read (and write) a little slower to understand what is beind stated and what you are stating or implying.
You clearly have an outsider view, and seem hellbent on seeing the world in purely monochromatic good versus evil terms. Real life is about a billion times more complex than that.
Apparently you have a major dicconect with the leadership of the country. Bush has stated many times in no uncertain terms that there are only two groups of people: 1: The evil-doers (the people we don't like) 2: the people who are against evil-doers
That's it. He's left no room for those who think that terrorism is bad, but that US actions in retaliation are also bad. According to George W. Bush and his administration, the world is in fact monochomatically good vs evil.
Getting out of debt would be rather simple: eliminate the Federal Reserve system and allow the American public to own their money instead of the large commercial banks. Better yet, put the U.S. back on the gold standard so the money will have some actual value.
Slashdot Mirror
If you think what he did (wasting the time of the emergency phone service) is deserving ot some punishment, then you should listen to the 911 tapes at some media-frenzied event such as Columbine or after an earthquake.
Television news reporters call 911 to get interviews and information. They tie up this operator for sometimes 5-10 minutes asking questions. In that same span the operator could probably have taken 3-5 legitimate calls.
If a news media reporter calls 911 as a source for a report or interview, that person should at a minimum be fired, and should serve a manditory jain sentence of 15 days. Also the responsible entity (TV station, newspaper, etc) should be fined; $1 per average daily viewer/reader... the proceeds to be used exclusively for emergency telephone service improvements for the department they abused.
This wasn't an "attack"
Any number of modified systems should not be labled terrorism. Terrorism is not messing with the public infrastrucure, it's making people terrified. I don't see how even a million affected systems dialing 911 instead of the local number would affect the public terror level.
This does however bring up a very good point... I've always hated that these "cunsumer devices" like WebTV and my satellite reciever don't display the phone number they are dialing on the screen.
Issues like this would be eliminated if the system displayed "dialing 867-5309" then waited 5 seconds before doin g so, with a "press any key to not dial" message.
No, the act of picking a log is to open the lock without the key/combination/code/whatever normally opens the lock and without damaging the lock.
If you blow the door off a safe you haven't picked the lock, you've bypassed it.
Will this technique really reduce the amount of false-header spam or will is simply annoy the spammers a little? I think the latter, and I think that Microsoft did nothink about this before writing their standard.
I predict that if a "standard" such as this is proposed, there will be a temporary drop off of spam, then things will return to normal, and get worse.
Current situation:
Spammer sets up some machines to connect to foreign SMTP servers and send emails in bulk
Future situation:
Spammer sets up a domain name for $5 and free DNS hosting at any of several services
Spammer puts authoritative records for each spamming maching in the zone file
Spammer sets up some machines to connect to foreign SMTP servers and send email in bulk
In the end, knowing the domain name is legitimate is not worth much for limiting spam. Or are we going to propose as part of the standard that there are only allowed to be up to 5 legal sources for mail from any one domain?
We know that spammers and other malicious people can worm their way in to literally millions of systems, once compromised a system could "phone home" to have the master server update the DNS. Keep in mind that this master server does not need to be owned (in a legal sense) by the spammer. The domain names could be purchased with stolen credit cards. The whole process simply takes an extra three days for the DNS system to propigate completely and a minor extra hassle.
The result: Spammers spend an extra $50/year on domain names and an extra hour per month maintaining code and database files, this is trivial to them. Also, legitimate DNS servers must handle a larger load, network loads increase with all the extra XML crap floating around, and in general every mail server on the planet must be modified to work with the system, all for a plan that won't change much of anything.
Many here have pointed out flaws, problems or complications with the proposal, I have a fundamental problem with it. .doc file. Who releases a proposed "standard" in a proprietary format? Shouldn't this have been plain text, RTF, HTML or even PDF so that everyone could read it properly?
.doc formatting in TextEdit yet.
They released it as a
Using a Mac without Office installed I get lots of document formatting commands interspersed with the text. Apparently Apple hasn't figured out all of the
I'm very easy to find, as long as you have a reason to find me. The only people who would have a hard time finding a valid email address for me are those that have no acceptable reason to be emailing me. I don't know if that's what you call being "private", but I have about 17 publicly viewable email addresses out there on various discussion forums, web pages and such. I certainly don't consider that hard to find or private. The limitation I create is that I'm only easily locatable within the contexts I choose.
Another "fun" seat-horn trick is to get a 9V battery a mercury/tilt switch and a small 100dB+ horn. Wire it all up so that when a person sits in a chair and tils back, the horn goes off.
More than a few people have wound up on the foor or on the ceiling with this hack.
Yup, that's what actually gave me the idea to do this.
I disagree with you basic premis that the Internet is supposed to make me easier to find. I think the Internet is supposed to make me easier to contact. I should be able to remain as anonymous as I want, but still be findable.
In situations such as yours it may be unavoidable to have a publically known email address. But then again... can't each class have a separate one, or each semester or shool year have a unique address? You can then phase out older addresses as necessary. Or there's the web form for inbound messages, then you can respond to those with a standard client and use either a bogus address, or another disposable one.
No, I'm not at all suggesting that you just change your email address on a regular basis and re-inform all your firends and family of it.
If you have an address that you give only to your family, or particular family members, and they don't give that address to anyone either, then there's no reason to expect you'll ever see any spam at that address. No spam, no address change. One of my addresses is only known by my parents and my wife's parents, one that's only known by my sister and a few of my close friends, one for most of my acquaintences, each of my clients has their own address which is simply their business name at my domain. If any of these addresses starts recieving spam I can change just that one address and inform the small group of people affected of a new address.
The only addresses you would change on anything close to a regular basis would be those that you allow displayed on public forums (slashdot for example). For the most part when you change those addresses there's no-one to inform, you just post the new address in your profile. Anyone that would email you regularly would have a more private address that you set up for them.
The 3-5 spams I get a month are due to a few publically accessible/known/assumable addresses that I have out there like hostmaster, postmaster, webmaster, etc from the several domains that I run. There is no brute force there, just a stubborn adherence to customs/standards. In 5 years I've never recieved a legitimate email on one of those addresses so I'm really close to just disabling them also.
The core "problem" with the internet is that just about anyone can create a domain and the associated zone files and have them served as authoritative. There are at lesat two free DNS services out there that will host whatever zone data you wish to throw at them. Personally I don't consider this a problem, but a very nice feature.
When you can register domains in bulk for $5, perhaps less, and can host the DNS for free or just a few dollars a year, how exactly is any DNS based verification system going to operate to limit spam? Al the spammers have to do is fudge up the zone file so that any verification system will succeede because the spamming server is "legit". The server may very well be anonyous or hacked or have 20 IP addresses.
I still say the single best solution to spam is for ISPs to start a policy of disposable email addresses. This is a relatively simple matter to impliment with Sendmail and a few CGI scripts, or even via email messages.
An end user is given lets say 8 email addresses. These addresses are never to be given out to anyone for email purposes, they are simply for sorting incoming mail among several family/household members.
Each account can have up to 50 aliases at any time. Aliases are created on the fly by the end user, and can be set to expire at some future date, or be removed manually.
When you go to sign up for a discussion forum you create an alias for just that forum, ex: gjslashdot@ispdomain.com. If you start getting spam on that address, you can simply delete it and create another one, there's no attachment to the address outside that forum.
I've been using this system myself for about a year and have gone from 500+ spams a month to 3-5 a month. Again... as soon as I get spam at an address, I delete it and create a new one if necessary.
What's causing the spam problem is human ignorance. Layering technological complexity on top of the existing system will not eliminate the underlying ignorance. My solution does that.
As far as corporations go.... get your email addresses off of your business cards, and stop using employee names as the basis for email addresses. If someone has access to an email client, they probably have access to a web client. Out-side emailers should use a web form to send email to employees unless there is an existing relationship.
Once there is a relationship, siret email can be used.
Email addresses on business cards... business cards handed out like candy on haloween... no wonder you get inundated with spam.
I don't see, at all, how I did that.
If a person can be arrested on the testimony of a single person, the accuser of all people, then the system fails and justice can not be done.
What is to prevent a person from having consensual sex, then claiming rape? Nothing. The alledged victim would even have much evidence required to make a stong case, but the evidence just shows that intercourse took place and perhaps some of the circumstances of it. What it doesn't show is precense or absense of concent. People do thngs concentually that when presented properly could appear as rape.
In a single-witness scenareo you wind up with two people's testimony, both are diabolically opposed on the key points, and both bear the same legal weight. Convictions are sporadic.
When you go to third party witnesses or recordings of the incident, then you get to where justice can be served.
My view is that unless the accused is a flight risk, that there should be no arrest until objective evidence is in the poseesion of investigators.
There are several reasons radio is still the dominant player:
1. ubiquity: every car comes from he factory with an radio, you can get a radio for $3 that runs on a single battery
2. simplicity. There's no special antennas, just turn on and tune in.
3. price. AM and FM radio are free (via commercials) and do not require any monthly subscription
4. mobility. You can't take streaming internet radio with you easily
5. locality. radio is community based, if something happens in the area you can get alerts, news, weather. That's not easy to do with satellite or internet streams which are "one size fits all".
When you can get a satellite radio reciever for less than $10 that fits in your pocket with no external antenna and runs for hours if not days on a standard 9v battery, then it will give tower based radio a run for the money.
I find it ironic that many people complain about the homoginization of radio due to companies like Clear Channel, but think that satellite is a better option. If anything, satellite is an even worse case if you want diversification in broadcasting.
It's not cheating.
It's taking advantage of a flaw.
Cheating is when you change the rules or play of the game to suit your needs, such as moving chess peices when your opponent is not looking or dealing cards from the bottom of the deck(or your sleeve).
This all hinges on who or what witnessed the bank robbery.
If your witness is a single person, there's not enough probable cause to be arresting anybody. Witnesses are notoriously fallible. Unless you have corrooboration of facts by several witnesses, or have video or photographic evidence on the crime, I don't see probably cause for arrests.
See... if you tell the police that you saw me rob the bank, how are they to know that you aren't creating a distraction and pointing them in the wrong direction? Perhaps you robbed the bank wearing a mask that looked like me, and stayed at the crime scene to "be helpful".
If they then find me, not driving a vehicle and I have no I.D., no money and no weapons on me then again, I state there is no probable cause to arrest.
No-one should ever be arrested based on the testimony of a single witness, ID withholding or not.
The man in this situation was not "behind the wheel". He was standing outside the vehicle on the passenger side leaning in through the window.
The driver's seat was occupied by his 16 year old daughter who had been driving the vehicle.
From what I can tell, Mr. Hiibel instigated the confrontation.
Mr Hiible instigated nothing. The police came to him, the police could not answer basic questions about probably cause, and the police are the ones who commited all of the violence.
First off, a police officer has the right to ask you basic pedigree information, such as name, address, and reason for being somewhere.
The officer did not ask him any of that. The officer repeatedly asked him for his I.D. If the officer had asked Hiibel his name or reason for being there he may have gotten an answer, but the officer failed to do that in instead chose to play macho policeman games.
If you have reasonable suspicion, and the person does not produce ID, they may be detained until they are identified
I agree. but in this case there was at the time of arrest/detention any reasonable suspision. The officer had not even seen the supposedly assaulted female, never mind questioned her about the alledged incident. If there's one thing that the police should know after two days on the job, it's that witnesses are unreliable. People almost always exaggerate what they saw, or they add in details that they don't really see. This happens, usually, uncouncously in an attempt to help the police. Sometimes the police themselves are responsible for this with the manner or topic of questioning of the witness.
Also, in NY, where I am a PO, it is not a crime not to have ID, but if I stop you for a crime or violation and you fail to give me your id when I ask and have it on you at the time, it is a violation offense.
You are referring to a person driving a vehicle I think, where motor vehicle laws require the presentation of a valid driver's license when stopped by an officer. Or does the law require a pedestrian to also carry a driver's license?
My opinion is that the patrol officers completely mis-handled this situation in their all too typical way.
Option 4 is the only legally permissable reason to arrest someone that you put forth. You, like many other I think, mis-understand what the police are there for. You can only be arrested if you are witnessed commiting an illegal act, or there is probable cause to think that you have already commited an illegal act.
Police are not crime preventers, that would require pre-congicence.
The police are not there to protect you. There is only perhaps 1 on-duty, active patrol officer per 5,000 -10,000 citizens. One officer can not "protect" that many people.
The police are not law enforcement officers, despite theit claims, for the reasons above. Law enforcement means that you prevent people from breaking laws/rules.
The police are there to clean up after crimes and other illegal acts. Their job is to collect evidence and identify/find/arrest suspects an present all that to the proscecutors and courts where further action and punishment may occur. That's pretty much it, other than directing traffic.
Yes there was a reason. You blasted the poster for having a Hollywood/delusional view of the US and its policies.
I made the comparison to show that his view of the US is not an illusion created by Hollywood, but it is in fact official policy.
The fact that any number of people may disagree with the policy does not make it any less the official policy of the country.
If you can't see the connection then I can't help you, perhaps you should seek tutouring in critical thinking or debate.
You're arguing a point that I didn't make or imply in either of my posts. I never claimed you were responding to or referring to Bush. You made a statement, Bush made statements. I compared the viewpoints of the two people based on the published statements. Just because you didn't reference Bush or his policies doesn't mean I can't legitimately draw a comparison between the two comments.
I did not say you are for or against anything. I did not state or imply any moral value or judgement on your statement or Bush's.
If you had said "I think orange juice is nasty", and someone from the orange growers' union had said "orange juice is yummie", I could fairly and accurately state that you had a major disconnect with the orange growers' union.
I comprehend completely that citizens of the US can and do have different points of view from their elected leaders. Why can't you comprehend the concept of "compare and contrast"? Things do not have to reference or be related to each other to be compared. The lack of direct reference does not preclude or invalidate comparison.
Your exact words were:
"No, national self-flagellation is actively encouraged here. However, it is preferred if it isn't mired in ideological foofa like yours. You clearly have an outsider view, and seem hellbent on seeing the world in purely monochromatic good versus evil terms. Real life is about a billion times more complex than that."
From this we know that you think the world is full of "grey areas" to paraphrase a little.
From many statements by Bush we know he thinks that is not the case.
Apparently you have a major disconnect with the leadership of this country. I don't see where I made any error in reading or understanding your statements.
You trivialize the original poster's views about this country as Hollywood fantasy, a dream world. I pointed out that it is not Hollywood fantasty, the monochromatic divide is official US policy according to the President and his administration.
I think perhaps it is you who needs to read (and write) a little slower to understand what is beind stated and what you are stating or implying.
You clearly have an outsider view, and seem hellbent on seeing the world in purely monochromatic good versus evil terms. Real life is about a billion times more complex than that.
Apparently you have a major dicconect with the leadership of the country. Bush has stated many times in no uncertain terms that there are only two groups of people:
1: The evil-doers (the people we don't like)
2: the people who are against evil-doers
That's it. He's left no room for those who think that terrorism is bad, but that US actions in retaliation are also bad. According to George W. Bush and his administration, the world is in fact monochomatically good vs evil.
It was called Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI). The media dubbed it "Star Wars".
On the "moontomars" site they list that quote as:
We choose to explore space because doing so inspires our lives, and lifts our national spirit
That's just corny at best. I tend to think this is accurate though, it was spoken by the man who claimed that "...terrorism affects our phycology..."
*sigh*
Getting out of debt would be rather simple: eliminate the Federal Reserve system and allow the American public to own their money instead of the large commercial banks.
Better yet, put the U.S. back on the gold standard so the money will have some actual value.