The refusal to press charges is more based on the difficulty of proving it.
In the most basic understanding, the decision on whether to press charges depends on how likely a positive outcome is. Sometimes you have to go with it regardless, but mostly you get a choice where the truth and the evidence are not weighed for justice, but for victory.
Proving the officer lied when law enforcement is assumed to be telling the truth is rather difficult, and requires extraordinary evidence.
A document instructing law enforcement to lie doesn't mean law enforcement lied. You have to show the judge that someone lied. In that case, it is simple perjury. If the judge decides, it is also, or instead, contempt of court. Contempt is a judicial ruling, while perjury is determined by the legislature and prosecuted by the executive (aka the people who instructed their people to lie).
Contempt is usually immediate, so there is no reason to prosecute the exact same behavior for perjury if it is already being punished by contempt.
Lack of desire to prosecute is nowhere in a judge's mind when deciding to levy contempt of court.
People with brains, pleas meta moderate. This is at the same plus five as "ha, the whole federal gvmt is in on it and everyone with a government paycheck thinks exactly the same thing" above.
Only one can even remotely be correct. So either very stupid people have mod points, or there are a lot of moderators who don't bother to share their inside information with us.
Sounds like you are referencing a single recent case instead of an actual tendency. The case being IRS persecution of right-leaning tax-exempt applicants.
Or is there more to this trend that we should know about?
"Every one" won't cut it, because I'd really like specifics.
Who is they? And just what have you looked at to conclude they are ignoring it?
I'm assuming that, since Marshals are law enforcement, you mean that the judicial branch is ignoring law enforcement lying, admitting lying, and going on record as doing so.
I don't think many people are aware of this. If you are not surprised, you should have let us know, as well as the ACLU, EFF, and other related organizations. Because this is really big news.
Would you be so kind as to list any, and if you really could be arsed, every instance where the DoJ handed out any penalty for this behavior?
The DoJ is Executive, as is the Marshals service. They all have the same goal of lying to the Judicial branch to maximize convictions. DoJ is the second third of justice, the part where someone presses charges, and has nothing to do with actual justice. "Bring someone to justice" really just means bringing them to a court where a justice of the peace gets to rule on what is allowed.
Oddly, law enforcement is all on the same side. And judges are all on the other side. Legislative branch is out of the picture at this point.
So yes, "they", unless I misunderstand, are not only complicit, they are the people who are issuing this information. They are getting slaps on the wrist by they, who are the same person, and by definition complicit.
You only think this is true, as opposed to it being by definition true? Or did you under-explain something?
And did moderators completely understand something you did not type?
Because there are three branches. And judges really hate it when, as a whole, law enforcement lies to a judge repeatedly.
I'm sure there are exceptions, like small town law. And maybe federal district court in federal cases.
But any judge, for the most part, who finds that they ruled on unconstitutional information, is very likely to hold law enforcement to a way higher standard than "anonymous source".
There are exceptions. But don't let your cynicism abscond with the ability to read and think. You can do better, you and the three people who moderated you incorrectly.
The "Federal Government" is not one thing, and is not made up of people who all believe one thing. Both parties have lots of people who disagree with the general party line, and all three branches have people who disagree with the general government line. It's not hard to find exceptions to such a blatantly wrong opinion, but I can't find a list that will automatically be amenable to someone who has shown so little capability of thought, so I won't try.
Twitter shaming has always felt wrong to me. There is a whole story of a person's day, and life, that went into whatever that tweet was.
And Wired just assumes that everything somehow is in the context of MTGOX, and should be interpreted that way.
Karpeles seems to think the internet will happily retweet his thoughts on the weather, and that speaks to the strangely disassociated character of the man who build the worldâ(TM)s most successful bitcoin exchange, and then lost it all.
Nope, not buying it. Your magical ability to decide what people are thinking is stupid and doesn't work right.
To be fair, Karpeles has answered some investors, telling them that thereâ(TM)s an inquiry going on and to check with the companyâ(TM)s website for updates.
That's not being fair. Does every post have to have a "PS Sorry for losing your money" appended to it?
I don't read replies to my tweets. Celebrities don't. Sponsors of tweets don't. People who have their friends on twitter do. Which camp is this guy in? Hint: he's not just tweeting to his buddy. That's pretty obvious.
He couldnâ(TM)t be reached for this story.
Did you try twitter? Did he just ignore you like he ignores most of the responses? Oh, I'm guessing this isn't really a two-way communication system for him like you use it. In fact, it may be possible that people use communication platforms in entirely different ways compared to how one reporter at Wired does.
Fuckhats.
Sure this guy's a major douche canoe. That doesn't mean we can read intent into every inane unrelated tweet he sends into the void.
You are an anomaly. Statistically speaking, how many people in the world have a purely digital life?
And by answering that, you lead me to this question which is: how relevant do you think this comment is to the conversation? Because i think it is rare enough to be considered negligible. Assuming rounding errors, there is literally no person on the planet who does this.
And if you save something that your grandkids might read some day, even if they are purely digital, they may still save a tiny box of memorabilia from when humans sent important messages on pieces of trees.
On the other hand, if you want to get a share in that ad revenue, you're going to have to negotiate with the site owner.
From the various bits of news on this, Google is not allowing much negotiation. And that seems to be the problem.
I'm not sure what the financial difference is between what they are taking down vs. allowing, but it sounds like enough to make someone genuinely concerned. It doesn't seem to be just a matter of re-posting the videos and getting your revenue stream back. The licenses that are being rejected were likely better than the normal producer revenue sharing, again based on numerous discussions.
The choice of the independent labels seems to be accept our low payments or get kicked off the gravy train. That's not "both sides are making choices".
There are lots of little productions of all kinds of opera all over the place, using a piano. Yes, a piano, instead of an orchestra.
You want to know how it is received?
Very well. Especially because the venue tends to be tiny, and a huge operatic voice in a tiny venue is almost physically overpowering. Any loss in using a fake orchestra is gained in just having the purity and proximity of the human voice.
I saw La Boheme with just a piano, and it was great. As great as one of the most common operas ever can be, to be clear. Of course, the piano player is now at the Met so that might have influenced it a bit. I have heard lots of other reviews of similar performances. No complaints.
Turns out, people go to an opera to hear people singing. Or for the social scene, in which case no one cares about the performance. Who knew? If the orchestra isn't there, they still eat it up. If the costumes aren't there, they eat it up.
If the audience is there for a full performance, they are going to be pissed if it isn't a full performance. If they are okay with just live people, maybe that's the real attraction.
Call it karaoke if you want, and belittle the lack of interaction between a performer and a conductor. But it happens all the time, all day long, and on the weekends people pay to see it.
It's already happening, and it's popular. So go tell this guy that something he's planning to to *better* and *closer* to reality in certain respects isn't worth doing unless it's in quotes. Because the world is already on his side.
It's time to learn that the President does not matter to the direction of policy. The President is informed by long time position holders that certain things are of paramount importance to national security, or some such story.
You cannot expect a new President to keep his campaign promises. It will never happen, because of what he learns as part of the n00b initiation process. Either he is brainwashed, or genuinely believes, or considers it an obligation to acquiesce.
In no circumstance will a new President, even excluding corruption and lies, give way to the Executive Branch. I submit that there may be ways, but you have to go way outside of Republican and Democrat to get there.
You are a complete idiot if you think that your obligation as a taxpayer to accurately record the reasons for your federal tax return under penalty of perjury, is the same as retaining mundane mails which were not at the time subject to retention.
Unless of course you can present some sort of requirement that the mails were subject to retention, of course. Because then both you and the IRS technical staff would have known that they were subject to retention. And not just the request of Congress retroactively that they were potentially subject to retention.
Is there a law, or Executive order, which required their retention?
Because there is a law that your receipts be retained and serve as proof that your returns are accurate.
You have presented an assymetric argument, and one that does not make any sense. Refine it, or retract it.
Forgive me for being emphatic, but NO you stupid shithead, MORAL INTEGRITY is not a FUCKING PROBLEM you fucking IGNORANT SHITHOLE.
Warrants, and oversight, these are the check on abuse of power. Not the difference between "want" and "like" or even "think".
The "good" moral way is to do what you have permission to do. Not to stop once you break the lock. If you do anything else, you are guilty in at least half of the existing countries of some form of trespass. In the good old US of A, you are guilty if you break the lock.
And finally, why you want to join a force is irrelevant.
i kan reed is a fool. Forcibly entering peoples' homes is not constitutional, unless it has had proper judicial oversight. In that case, it is properly executing the laws of your jurisdiction. Anything else is blatantly the fuck illegal.
Killing another person is specifically allowed for in many state laws, specifically the "stand your ground" or "castle" type laws. You don't have to be a law enforcement dude to do this.
Demanding money has been the purvue of lots of grey-area but legal professions since ever. Owe the government money? Sure. Owe nobody? No, you can't.
i can reed's post is exactly the sort of cynicism we really do not need. It's completely horseshit and without merit. Other than a few bad apples, and a few bad court cases where the bad apples have gone unpunished, there is no basis for this sort of post.
And you have bitten, hook line and sinker, the bait. Why is irrelevant. No successful court case is going to hinge solely on why you wanted to sign up, or by its very definition it will fail. Liking the activity, or wanting to do the activity, are merely going to be evidence of the opposition. They will certainly be a factor, but they cannot be a factor when a legal judicial order says that what they wanted to do, or liked to do, is requested by the judicial branch.
It is only when they defy policy, procedure, order, and law, that want or like even comes in to play. And that is a mighty small number for you to say that the reason for wanting a job is a problem.
I agree with your sentiment. But your arguments fall way short of even sensible. If you picked it up a good bit, you would be able to 1) create a sensible argument against what you really don't like and 2) be more specific to yourself about what it is exactly you object to.
Both will help you immensely, and your argument subjects at least half as much.
You basically said "you are right, but here are some weasel words".
I do realize that the President is Chief Executive, but bound by the powers granted him. He is bound Constitutionally by this oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
If by "faithfully" you mean that anything he asks of the Executive branch is automatically okay, and therefore anything he requires is golden, you are an idiot.
If you had referenced IRTPA or the DNI, I might have taken you seriously. As it is, you have raised no objections at all, other than saying the President cannot control the rest of the Executive Branch.
A President cannot control what everyone in the Executive Branch does. A public statement could change military operation, since he in CiC. But he is not going to tell the FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS, EPA,or any other group what they can't do, unless they tend to agree already.
One person cannot change how the branch operates. They have their own mandates and charter and whatnot to determine what they do, but laws restrict how they do it.
Method is determined by a legal opinion stating something is legal, and President does not tell legal team how to rule.
It sounds right, and simple, to say one president can stop this. But it is wrong to the point of ignorance.
I bought everything worth buying. The rest isn't worth renting.
Transfer buying power to the generation that streams but doesn't buy.
Assume it it media preference instead of quality preference.
Reboot everything that wasn't made with the latest CGI.
Repeat until the shit sandwich you eat is your own. Then complain when people don't buy your shit. Give up and farm shit for a living. Get rich because no one farms for themselves.
I know several people who would be dead if not for you. Hate me if you like, but hospitals pay because insurance pays because people don't understand the value of insurance.
Hospitals charge because people don't pay.
People don't pay because insurance does.
Consider to whom you donate, but please do consider donating to someone.
Tell me to donate and shut up if you like, but I cannot. I can only remind you that people, flawed as they may be, deserve more than your cynicism.
You were probably doing things instinctively and reflexively, along with potentially being affected by stress. After you got comfortable with a routine, you did things automatically.
None of these explanations has to do with sleep deprivation, but they likewise do not trigger the "record memories" action.
Oh look, more poop to clean up. Change another diaper, attempt to insert food into mouth, rejected again. Should I remember this for later? No need.
How did you acquire this arcane knowledge that was not until this study known?
Was it all of the previous studies that linked sleep and memory without knowing the synapse-level effects of sleep deprivation?
Were you reporting your own personal experience as if it reflected the rest of the population?
Did you simply guess right?
Or did you somehow intuitively guess the results of a study that had not yet been performed?
I'm sure there are no more options, unless you count "vainly trumpeting a personal validation for repeating conventional wisdom" which, I'm sure, is totally not the case.
You seem to be assuming that everyone has the same experience you do, and especially the spatial intelligence that you have. It is a lot simpler to exclude every other person on the planet from your considerations, but it just makes you look like a douchebag.
Slashdot Mirror
The refusal to press charges is more based on the difficulty of proving it.
In the most basic understanding, the decision on whether to press charges depends on how likely a positive outcome is. Sometimes you have to go with it regardless, but mostly you get a choice where the truth and the evidence are not weighed for justice, but for victory.
Proving the officer lied when law enforcement is assumed to be telling the truth is rather difficult, and requires extraordinary evidence.
A document instructing law enforcement to lie doesn't mean law enforcement lied. You have to show the judge that someone lied. In that case, it is simple perjury. If the judge decides, it is also, or instead, contempt of court. Contempt is a judicial ruling, while perjury is determined by the legislature and prosecuted by the executive (aka the people who instructed their people to lie).
Contempt is usually immediate, so there is no reason to prosecute the exact same behavior for perjury if it is already being punished by contempt.
Lack of desire to prosecute is nowhere in a judge's mind when deciding to levy contempt of court.
People with brains, pleas meta moderate. This is at the same plus five as "ha, the whole federal gvmt is in on it and everyone with a government paycheck thinks exactly the same thing" above.
Only one can even remotely be correct. So either very stupid people have mod points, or there are a lot of moderators who don't bother to share their inside information with us.
Sounds like you are referencing a single recent case instead of an actual tendency. The case being IRS persecution of right-leaning tax-exempt applicants.
Or is there more to this trend that we should know about?
"Every one" won't cut it, because I'd really like specifics.
Who is they? And just what have you looked at to conclude they are ignoring it?
I'm assuming that, since Marshals are law enforcement, you mean that the judicial branch is ignoring law enforcement lying, admitting lying, and going on record as doing so.
I don't think many people are aware of this. If you are not surprised, you should have let us know, as well as the ACLU, EFF, and other related organizations. Because this is really big news.
Would you be so kind as to list any, and if you really could be arsed, every instance where the DoJ handed out any penalty for this behavior?
The DoJ is Executive, as is the Marshals service. They all have the same goal of lying to the Judicial branch to maximize convictions. DoJ is the second third of justice, the part where someone presses charges, and has nothing to do with actual justice. "Bring someone to justice" really just means bringing them to a court where a justice of the peace gets to rule on what is allowed.
Oddly, law enforcement is all on the same side. And judges are all on the other side. Legislative branch is out of the picture at this point.
So yes, "they", unless I misunderstand, are not only complicit, they are the people who are issuing this information. They are getting slaps on the wrist by they, who are the same person, and by definition complicit.
You only think this is true, as opposed to it being by definition true? Or did you under-explain something?
And did moderators completely understand something you did not type?
Because there are three branches. And judges really hate it when, as a whole, law enforcement lies to a judge repeatedly.
I'm sure there are exceptions, like small town law. And maybe federal district court in federal cases.
But any judge, for the most part, who finds that they ruled on unconstitutional information, is very likely to hold law enforcement to a way higher standard than "anonymous source".
There are exceptions. But don't let your cynicism abscond with the ability to read and think. You can do better, you and the three people who moderated you incorrectly.
The "Federal Government" is not one thing, and is not made up of people who all believe one thing. Both parties have lots of people who disagree with the general party line, and all three branches have people who disagree with the general government line. It's not hard to find exceptions to such a blatantly wrong opinion, but I can't find a list that will automatically be amenable to someone who has shown so little capability of thought, so I won't try.
Twitter shaming has always felt wrong to me. There is a whole story of a person's day, and life, that went into whatever that tweet was.
And Wired just assumes that everything somehow is in the context of MTGOX, and should be interpreted that way.
Nope, not buying it. Your magical ability to decide what people are thinking is stupid and doesn't work right.
That's not being fair. Does every post have to have a "PS Sorry for losing your money" appended to it?
I don't read replies to my tweets. Celebrities don't. Sponsors of tweets don't. People who have their friends on twitter do. Which camp is this guy in? Hint: he's not just tweeting to his buddy. That's pretty obvious.
Did you try twitter? Did he just ignore you like he ignores most of the responses? Oh, I'm guessing this isn't really a two-way communication system for him like you use it. In fact, it may be possible that people use communication platforms in entirely different ways compared to how one reporter at Wired does.
Fuckhats.
Sure this guy's a major douche canoe. That doesn't mean we can read intent into every inane unrelated tweet he sends into the void.
You are an anomaly. Statistically speaking, how many people in the world have a purely digital life?
And by answering that, you lead me to this question which is: how relevant do you think this comment is to the conversation? Because i think it is rare enough to be considered negligible. Assuming rounding errors, there is literally no person on the planet who does this.
And if you save something that your grandkids might read some day, even if they are purely digital, they may still save a tiny box of memorabilia from when humans sent important messages on pieces of trees.
Either you want me to read the article to you, or you are intentionally being dense. And someone wasted mod points because you're at 3 inexplicably.
You're not helping. I just wanted you to know that.
From the various bits of news on this, Google is not allowing much negotiation. And that seems to be the problem.
I'm not sure what the financial difference is between what they are taking down vs. allowing, but it sounds like enough to make someone genuinely concerned. It doesn't seem to be just a matter of re-posting the videos and getting your revenue stream back. The licenses that are being rejected were likely better than the normal producer revenue sharing, again based on numerous discussions.
The choice of the independent labels seems to be accept our low payments or get kicked off the gravy train. That's not "both sides are making choices".
Hold on to your hat.
Seriously.
There are lots of little productions of all kinds of opera all over the place, using a piano. Yes, a piano, instead of an orchestra.
You want to know how it is received?
Very well. Especially because the venue tends to be tiny, and a huge operatic voice in a tiny venue is almost physically overpowering. Any loss in using a fake orchestra is gained in just having the purity and proximity of the human voice.
I saw La Boheme with just a piano, and it was great. As great as one of the most common operas ever can be, to be clear. Of course, the piano player is now at the Met so that might have influenced it a bit. I have heard lots of other reviews of similar performances. No complaints.
Turns out, people go to an opera to hear people singing. Or for the social scene, in which case no one cares about the performance. Who knew? If the orchestra isn't there, they still eat it up. If the costumes aren't there, they eat it up.
If the audience is there for a full performance, they are going to be pissed if it isn't a full performance. If they are okay with just live people, maybe that's the real attraction.
Call it karaoke if you want, and belittle the lack of interaction between a performer and a conductor. But it happens all the time, all day long, and on the weekends people pay to see it.
It's already happening, and it's popular. So go tell this guy that something he's planning to to *better* and *closer* to reality in certain respects isn't worth doing unless it's in quotes. Because the world is already on his side.
It's stranger because you use the *left* hand.
It's time to learn that the President does not matter to the direction of policy. The President is informed by long time position holders that certain things are of paramount importance to national security, or some such story.
You cannot expect a new President to keep his campaign promises. It will never happen, because of what he learns as part of the n00b initiation process. Either he is brainwashed, or genuinely believes, or considers it an obligation to acquiesce.
In no circumstance will a new President, even excluding corruption and lies, give way to the Executive Branch. I submit that there may be ways, but you have to go way outside of Republican and Democrat to get there.
You are a complete idiot if you think that your obligation as a taxpayer to accurately record the reasons for your federal tax return under penalty of perjury, is the same as retaining mundane mails which were not at the time subject to retention.
Unless of course you can present some sort of requirement that the mails were subject to retention, of course. Because then both you and the IRS technical staff would have known that they were subject to retention. And not just the request of Congress retroactively that they were potentially subject to retention.
Is there a law, or Executive order, which required their retention?
Because there is a law that your receipts be retained and serve as proof that your returns are accurate.
You have presented an assymetric argument, and one that does not make any sense. Refine it, or retract it.
Forgive me for being emphatic, but NO you stupid shithead, MORAL INTEGRITY is not a FUCKING PROBLEM you fucking IGNORANT SHITHOLE.
Warrants, and oversight, these are the check on abuse of power. Not the difference between "want" and "like" or even "think".
The "good" moral way is to do what you have permission to do. Not to stop once you break the lock. If you do anything else, you are guilty in at least half of the existing countries of some form of trespass. In the good old US of A, you are guilty if you break the lock.
And finally, why you want to join a force is irrelevant.
i kan reed is a fool. Forcibly entering peoples' homes is not constitutional, unless it has had proper judicial oversight. In that case, it is properly executing the laws of your jurisdiction. Anything else is blatantly the fuck illegal.
Killing another person is specifically allowed for in many state laws, specifically the "stand your ground" or "castle" type laws. You don't have to be a law enforcement dude to do this.
Demanding money has been the purvue of lots of grey-area but legal professions since ever. Owe the government money? Sure. Owe nobody? No, you can't.
i can reed's post is exactly the sort of cynicism we really do not need. It's completely horseshit and without merit. Other than a few bad apples, and a few bad court cases where the bad apples have gone unpunished, there is no basis for this sort of post.
And you have bitten, hook line and sinker, the bait. Why is irrelevant. No successful court case is going to hinge solely on why you wanted to sign up, or by its very definition it will fail. Liking the activity, or wanting to do the activity, are merely going to be evidence of the opposition. They will certainly be a factor, but they cannot be a factor when a legal judicial order says that what they wanted to do, or liked to do, is requested by the judicial branch.
It is only when they defy policy, procedure, order, and law, that want or like even comes in to play. And that is a mighty small number for you to say that the reason for wanting a job is a problem.
I agree with your sentiment. But your arguments fall way short of even sensible. If you picked it up a good bit, you would be able to 1) create a sensible argument against what you really don't like and 2) be more specific to yourself about what it is exactly you object to.
Both will help you immensely, and your argument subjects at least half as much.
You basically said "you are right, but here are some weasel words".
I do realize that the President is Chief Executive, but bound by the powers granted him. He is bound Constitutionally by this oath: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
If by "faithfully" you mean that anything he asks of the Executive branch is automatically okay, and therefore anything he requires is golden, you are an idiot.
If you had referenced IRTPA or the DNI, I might have taken you seriously. As it is, you have raised no objections at all, other than saying the President cannot control the rest of the Executive Branch.
Thanks for playing, try again.
A President cannot control what everyone in the Executive Branch does. A public statement could change military operation, since he in CiC. But he is not going to tell the FBI, CIA, NSA, IRS, EPA,or any other group what they can't do, unless they tend to agree already.
One person cannot change how the branch operates. They have their own mandates and charter and whatnot to determine what they do, but laws restrict how they do it.
Method is determined by a legal opinion stating something is legal, and President does not tell legal team how to rule.
It sounds right, and simple, to say one president can stop this. But it is wrong to the point of ignorance.
I turned off all updates per app. Every time it requires an update with new permissions it gets a one star review with explanations.
More people need to do this, but don't.
Meanwhile, if I forget something past the preorder date, I never really wanted it.
I bought everything worth buying. The rest isn't worth renting.
Transfer buying power to the generation that streams but doesn't buy.
Assume it it media preference instead of quality preference.
Reboot everything that wasn't made with the latest CGI.
Repeat until the shit sandwich you eat is your own. Then complain when people don't buy your shit. Give up and farm shit for a living. Get rich because no one farms for themselves.
I know several people who would be dead if not for you. Hate me if you like, but hospitals pay because insurance pays because people don't understand the value of insurance.
Hospitals charge because people don't pay.
People don't pay because insurance does.
Consider to whom you donate, but please do consider donating to someone.
Tell me to donate and shut up if you like, but I cannot. I can only remind you that people, flawed as they may be, deserve more than your cynicism.
Sounds like you remember the details, though...
You were probably doing things instinctively and reflexively, along with potentially being affected by stress. After you got comfortable with a routine, you did things automatically.
None of these explanations has to do with sleep deprivation, but they likewise do not trigger the "record memories" action.
Oh look, more poop to clean up. Change another diaper, attempt to insert food into mouth, rejected again. Should I remember this for later? No need.
How did you acquire this arcane knowledge that was not until this study known?
Was it all of the previous studies that linked sleep and memory without knowing the synapse-level effects of sleep deprivation?
Were you reporting your own personal experience as if it reflected the rest of the population?
Did you simply guess right?
Or did you somehow intuitively guess the results of a study that had not yet been performed?
I'm sure there are no more options, unless you count "vainly trumpeting a personal validation for repeating conventional wisdom" which, I'm sure, is totally not the case.
An additional inflation-adjusted 12,000 mod points for Cptn Proton (29372).
You seem to be assuming that everyone has the same experience you do, and especially the spatial intelligence that you have. It is a lot simpler to exclude every other person on the planet from your considerations, but it just makes you look like a douchebag.