How could there possibly not be enough to convict an officer (or officers)? Either they beat him or they didn't. If there is enough evidence to say that the police violated his rights and whatever was gathered by this action should be thrown out, how can there not be enough evidence that the police violated his rights and should be charged?
Arg. I agree with your goals, but you're still jumping to conclusions. Maybe there would be some martyr cops. But right now there are cops like that! They break the rules, and if they're caught all that happens is their case can't go forward. Maybe if there were some personal repercussions we could cut down on this shit. And where are you drawing this idea that more people will be harassed come from? Like I said, we already have cops who ignore the rules. Hell, the way things are right now, an officer can harass people _more_, since if he doesn't plan on actually charging anybody there's no downside to violating rights.
You have to see the difference though. One is an illegal attempt to generate false evidence (the confession) while the other is illegally gathering true evidence (say illegally recording a conversation with a lawyer.)
Right, in a slightly less sarcastic tone, let me point out that yes, it should be evidence at your trial. "Ladies and Gent of the Juror, here we present evidence that our client was assaulted by police and forced to give an illegal confession. This of course has no legal standing, but shows the incompetence and lack of professional conduct of the prosecutors."
And of course it would figure largely into the officer's trial.
Right. Because the police wiretapping you illegally or following your car illegally or entering your home illegally is/exactly/ the same as battery. Thanks for clearing that up.
No mixed message at all. Evidence collected about one crime (the violation of rights) can be used in another (murder investigation). Just like the evidence collected about one crime (theft) can be used in another (murder investigation).
You're missing my point. Violating the rights is a crime, it's not a question of whether it goes to trial. I recognize the practical problems inherent in that, but in my imagined system they would be charged for that. Right now the same incentive exists - if nothing goes to trial, illegal evidence doesn't matter, does it. Hell, there have been news stories here on slashdot about the DEA laundering evidence to hide the illegal nature of its collection.
If somebody is willing to throw away their career and go to jail for a few years in order to 'nail' a criminal, I think you need to stop and think long and hard about what person they're trying to hit.
If anybody else broke into the criminal's house and found a bunch of evidence of wrongdoing, we'd accept the evidence. I just don't see why we should treat the police any different.
Look, I don't mind that we disagree on this. I just don't agree with your arguments here. You're jumping from "punish the government (or police) such that they won't break the law" to "You MUST use this method!" You're not actually telling me why you think my method is worse.
We are willing to sacrifice a certain amount of freedom for safety, or we'd all live in Somolia. I don't have the freedom to punch you, or dig up the highway. It's all a question of where we draw the line.
That said, it's not even the point. Even if we value freedom to a very high degree, the information has already been uncovered. I simply think that we should treat it as primarily evidence of the violation of the suspect's rights. And like any other piece of evidence, it can also be used to prosecute other crimes.
Punishing the police by punishing ourselves just seems counterproductive. If we can generate the same punishing force without hurting ourselves, isn't that better?
I don't think he's a troll, because this is something I've thought about myself.
Maybe not get charged with the same crime, but throwing out evidence is stupid. If we know somebody say, committed murder, letting them go to punish the police for violating the rules is mindbogglingly stupid. No, what you need to do is use the evidence that was gathered to get the murderer off the streets, then you try the officer for violating the rights of the suspect.
I realize that there are some problems with this, mostly revolving around how difficult it is to try cops for anything. But right now the punishment that the cop faces is... not getting the conviction. IF he's caught. Of course cops are going to risk it once and a while!
Is it really intolerance? I mean, I disagree with boycotting Mozilla, but I can see where they're coming from. There are no rights involved here - Mozilla doesn't have a right to its customers, they are free to leave if they disagree with the actions of the company. The customers don't have the right to call for the CEO's removal, but they surely retain the right to stop using the software.
It was stupid, but you know I can understand why they did it. Here's the problem with the surface: The screen is too small to use a lot of programs comfortably. It's definitely too small to use touch on desktop programs! My index finger covers at least three buttons on most menus. This isn't a resolution problem, just actual physical dimensions. So they build metro, a touch screen interface. Which is good, but now MS has a new problem: How do they get software developers to actually write software that uses the new interface? Most are going to just write once for the desktop and be done. The solution is to make this interface the default for desktops too. Now everybody has reason to write software that supports the metro interface, and this solves the problem of not having lots of apps that work well on the surface.
It doesn't work that way of course, because nobody wants to use full screen applications on a desktop machine. But I can see why it made sense at the time. You just have to accept that MS based all their decisions around the Surface.
I doubt it. A lot of people probably don't have a use for a surface, but I find that a tablet/laptop hybrid was exactly what I needed. 95% of the time all I want is to be able to read documents, but that other 5% of the time I really need to use office, or would quite like to play a game. Windows 8 actually works reasonably well on it, which shouldn't be a surprise - it's pretty obvious that it was designed around the surface. The price point isn't sustainable but if they fix that, I see no reason that the Surface line can't stick around for quite a while.
You're right, but in the end you can't fix that kind of thing at all. All you can do is try and make your code base cleaner as time goes on. You call it a workflow problem, but the fact is people update coding standards all the time. If you can't use technical means to fix these problems (and you're right, there's very little one can do about how it breaks diffs and such) how are you supposed to fix them? The only 'workflow' answer I can see is "don't do it in the first place" which is like the trivial solution to a calculus problem - true, but not at all useful.
Can't tell if you're arguing for or against drones being able to pull more Gs. If you tried to slap an autonomous control system into a modern plane it might not be able to pull many more Gs than a manned one, but if you design a drone from scratch you could make it fly a lot better. And since you can build it smaller, you get less loading and even better gains.
I could be wrong, but I think he's saying that you should set up your repository to reject submitted files that contain tabs. I've never done such a thing, but I know you can get SVN to run a script on the file pre-commit. Implement that, and as each file gets checked out the person using it has to convert it before committing again. Easy, they can still check out old files, revision history remains intact, everything is good in the world.
You're not wrong about it being a truck, but your conclusion that there's not going to be much cost difference between a drone and a piloted vehicle seems to be a stretch. Why shouldn't it be cheaper? As OneAhead said, there are a whole pile of differences in the requirements that let you save on costs.
And in the end, all modern aircraft are pretty much just trucks to carry missiles of various types to where they need to be launched. The only exceptions to that are ground support aircraft like the A10 or AC130.
It's pretty obvious that you've never had to debug deployed embedded systems. This isn't ancient history buddy, it's something I have to do regularly. Certain fields have requirements that just aren't going to go away.
This actually makes some sense. Of course you're not going to -feed- all these people off of one farm, but it provides some food, a natural meeting place, and some open area that's not annoying subdivisions.
And hey, that's your choice. More power to you! But I frankly don't believe that if you hit eighty and still had the body of a thirty year old, you'd be ready to go to the hospital and be euthanized. I don't know your opinions better than you, and I don't pretend to. I have my doubts that you know what you'll really feel come the end, though. I don't know how I'll feel at 80 - maybe I'll agree with you! The benefit of actually having an extended life span is of course that I can make the decision then, instead of having it forced on me.
The arguments about dementia are very frustrating for people like me. If your brain fails it doesn't matter if your heart is ok. We know! Just like if your heart fails having a good brain isn't going to keep you going. That's one of the things that has to be covered before we can say that we've beat aging. Yeah, it's probably the hardest part, and maybe it's even a pipe dream, but you can't argue "well fixing aging is pointless because dementia."
And you've got a certificate from the universe saying that you can't keep the mind young?
Since neither of us has some kind of omniscient foreknowledge, I'm going to keep my current argument. We can't push broken organs much further than we already do. To extend life, we need to fix the actual problems. If your organs aren't broken, you're not likely to be suffering. Thus, significant life extension implies that we won't be adding years of suffering. If you want to argue any of those points, feel free.
Slashdot Mirror
How could there possibly not be enough to convict an officer (or officers)? Either they beat him or they didn't. If there is enough evidence to say that the police violated his rights and whatever was gathered by this action should be thrown out, how can there not be enough evidence that the police violated his rights and should be charged?
Arg. I agree with your goals, but you're still jumping to conclusions. Maybe there would be some martyr cops. But right now there are cops like that! They break the rules, and if they're caught all that happens is their case can't go forward. Maybe if there were some personal repercussions we could cut down on this shit. And where are you drawing this idea that more people will be harassed come from? Like I said, we already have cops who ignore the rules. Hell, the way things are right now, an officer can harass people _more_, since if he doesn't plan on actually charging anybody there's no downside to violating rights.
You have to see the difference though. One is an illegal attempt to generate false evidence (the confession) while the other is illegally gathering true evidence (say illegally recording a conversation with a lawyer.)
If they're never caught, it doesn't matter what system we're using! The system we use now is no less vulnerable to crap like that.
Right, in a slightly less sarcastic tone, let me point out that yes, it should be evidence at your trial. "Ladies and Gent of the Juror, here we present evidence that our client was assaulted by police and forced to give an illegal confession. This of course has no legal standing, but shows the incompetence and lack of professional conduct of the prosecutors."
And of course it would figure largely into the officer's trial.
Right. Because the police wiretapping you illegally or following your car illegally or entering your home illegally is /exactly/ the same as battery. Thanks for clearing that up.
No mixed message at all. Evidence collected about one crime (the violation of rights) can be used in another (murder investigation). Just like the evidence collected about one crime (theft) can be used in another (murder investigation).
You're missing my point. Violating the rights is a crime, it's not a question of whether it goes to trial. I recognize the practical problems inherent in that, but in my imagined system they would be charged for that. Right now the same incentive exists - if nothing goes to trial, illegal evidence doesn't matter, does it. Hell, there have been news stories here on slashdot about the DEA laundering evidence to hide the illegal nature of its collection.
If somebody is willing to throw away their career and go to jail for a few years in order to 'nail' a criminal, I think you need to stop and think long and hard about what person they're trying to hit.
If anybody else broke into the criminal's house and found a bunch of evidence of wrongdoing, we'd accept the evidence. I just don't see why we should treat the police any different.
Look, I don't mind that we disagree on this. I just don't agree with your arguments here. You're jumping from "punish the government (or police) such that they won't break the law" to "You MUST use this method!" You're not actually telling me why you think my method is worse.
I disagree with that as well.
We are willing to sacrifice a certain amount of freedom for safety, or we'd all live in Somolia. I don't have the freedom to punch you, or dig up the highway. It's all a question of where we draw the line.
That said, it's not even the point. Even if we value freedom to a very high degree, the information has already been uncovered. I simply think that we should treat it as primarily evidence of the violation of the suspect's rights. And like any other piece of evidence, it can also be used to prosecute other crimes.
Punishing the police by punishing ourselves just seems counterproductive. If we can generate the same punishing force without hurting ourselves, isn't that better?
I don't think he's a troll, because this is something I've thought about myself.
Maybe not get charged with the same crime, but throwing out evidence is stupid. If we know somebody say, committed murder, letting them go to punish the police for violating the rules is mindbogglingly stupid. No, what you need to do is use the evidence that was gathered to get the murderer off the streets, then you try the officer for violating the rights of the suspect.
I realize that there are some problems with this, mostly revolving around how difficult it is to try cops for anything. But right now the punishment that the cop faces is... not getting the conviction. IF he's caught. Of course cops are going to risk it once and a while!
Is it really intolerance? I mean, I disagree with boycotting Mozilla, but I can see where they're coming from. There are no rights involved here - Mozilla doesn't have a right to its customers, they are free to leave if they disagree with the actions of the company. The customers don't have the right to call for the CEO's removal, but they surely retain the right to stop using the software.
It was stupid, but you know I can understand why they did it. Here's the problem with the surface: The screen is too small to use a lot of programs comfortably. It's definitely too small to use touch on desktop programs! My index finger covers at least three buttons on most menus. This isn't a resolution problem, just actual physical dimensions. So they build metro, a touch screen interface. Which is good, but now MS has a new problem: How do they get software developers to actually write software that uses the new interface? Most are going to just write once for the desktop and be done. The solution is to make this interface the default for desktops too. Now everybody has reason to write software that supports the metro interface, and this solves the problem of not having lots of apps that work well on the surface.
It doesn't work that way of course, because nobody wants to use full screen applications on a desktop machine. But I can see why it made sense at the time. You just have to accept that MS based all their decisions around the Surface.
I doubt it. A lot of people probably don't have a use for a surface, but I find that a tablet/laptop hybrid was exactly what I needed. 95% of the time all I want is to be able to read documents, but that other 5% of the time I really need to use office, or would quite like to play a game. Windows 8 actually works reasonably well on it, which shouldn't be a surprise - it's pretty obvious that it was designed around the surface. The price point isn't sustainable but if they fix that, I see no reason that the Surface line can't stick around for quite a while.
You're right, but in the end you can't fix that kind of thing at all. All you can do is try and make your code base cleaner as time goes on. You call it a workflow problem, but the fact is people update coding standards all the time. If you can't use technical means to fix these problems (and you're right, there's very little one can do about how it breaks diffs and such) how are you supposed to fix them? The only 'workflow' answer I can see is "don't do it in the first place" which is like the trivial solution to a calculus problem - true, but not at all useful.
Can't tell if you're arguing for or against drones being able to pull more Gs.
If you tried to slap an autonomous control system into a modern plane it might not be able to pull many more Gs than a manned one, but if you design a drone from scratch you could make it fly a lot better. And since you can build it smaller, you get less loading and even better gains.
I could be wrong, but I think he's saying that you should set up your repository to reject submitted files that contain tabs. I've never done such a thing, but I know you can get SVN to run a script on the file pre-commit. Implement that, and as each file gets checked out the person using it has to convert it before committing again. Easy, they can still check out old files, revision history remains intact, everything is good in the world.
You're not wrong about it being a truck, but your conclusion that there's not going to be much cost difference between a drone and a piloted vehicle seems to be a stretch. Why shouldn't it be cheaper? As OneAhead said, there are a whole pile of differences in the requirements that let you save on costs.
And in the end, all modern aircraft are pretty much just trucks to carry missiles of various types to where they need to be launched. The only exceptions to that are ground support aircraft like the A10 or AC130.
It's pretty obvious that you've never had to debug deployed embedded systems. This isn't ancient history buddy, it's something I have to do regularly. Certain fields have requirements that just aren't going to go away.
This actually makes some sense. Of course you're not going to -feed- all these people off of one farm, but it provides some food, a natural meeting place, and some open area that's not annoying subdivisions.
Now that is a pile of steaming bullshit.
And hey, that's your choice. More power to you! But I frankly don't believe that if you hit eighty and still had the body of a thirty year old, you'd be ready to go to the hospital and be euthanized. I don't know your opinions better than you, and I don't pretend to. I have my doubts that you know what you'll really feel come the end, though. I don't know how I'll feel at 80 - maybe I'll agree with you! The benefit of actually having an extended life span is of course that I can make the decision then, instead of having it forced on me.
The arguments about dementia are very frustrating for people like me. If your brain fails it doesn't matter if your heart is ok. We know! Just like if your heart fails having a good brain isn't going to keep you going. That's one of the things that has to be covered before we can say that we've beat aging. Yeah, it's probably the hardest part, and maybe it's even a pipe dream, but you can't argue "well fixing aging is pointless because dementia."
And you've got a certificate from the universe saying that you can't keep the mind young?
Since neither of us has some kind of omniscient foreknowledge, I'm going to keep my current argument. We can't push broken organs much further than we already do. To extend life, we need to fix the actual problems. If your organs aren't broken, you're not likely to be suffering. Thus, significant life extension implies that we won't be adding years of suffering. If you want to argue any of those points, feel free.
That's kind of the problem though, isn't it? He tries to be treated like one.