Why bother? I read it, and I still don't know silly details like what the name of this app is, or whether it's been pulled from the Android Market. Actually, now that I think about it, I don't even know *if* it was in the Android Market, or if it's a side-load app. For all I know, Kaspersky "discovered" a proof-of-concept app that they developed themselves. Yeah, that last bit is pretty unlikely, but reading TFA is no help at all in ruling it out.....
Since I don't know where you're calling I can't directly argue the rate, but for me Google Voice is [marginally] cheaper, and is built into the dialer in Android phones. Skype's big draw for me was the ability to make calls when I had wifi but no cell service, so Skype's Android client, even if it were available on my non-Verizon phone, would be completely useless. No problem though, because I picked up Fring, which allowed Skype-out calls over wifi. Then Skype told them to cut it out, and they dropped Skype support and Skype was once again useless to me from my phone. But wait; then Nimbuzz came out, and supports Skype-out over wifi, and hopefully will continue to do so until one of the following happens: 1) Skype releases a full client, and not the Verizon-inspired crippled version (I know you like that version, but there's no reason that a full version can't have a "use cell network" option as well as wifi) 2) Google rolls Gizmo5 into Google-Voice, at which point it's bye-bye Skype.
and if this is what happens routinely why did you have to reach back 40 years? Nobody is arguing that this kind of thing never happens, the point is that it's rare. By going to the Kent State shootings, you're supporting Dhalka's assertion, since otherwise you'd have a list of similar incidents from the past year or so.....
Let's call it "healthy skepticism" based on the knowledge that we can count on Franken to always do one thing right, be on the wrong side of an issue.
Yeah, let's look at some of the atrocities he's committed since he became a senator.....[linkey] Senator Franken's first piece of legislation was the Service Dogs for Veterans Act (S. 1495), which he wrote jointly with Sen. Johnny Isakson (R). The bill, which passed the Senate via unanimous consent, established a program with the United States Department of Veterans Affairs to pair disabled veterans with service dogs.
Citing the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, Senator Franken offered an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR "if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court." It passed the US Senate, 68 to 30, in a roll-call vote. All 30 of the "nay" votes came from Republicans.
Christ on a pony, the guy wants to give disabled veterans service animals and keep companies from penalizing women for being raped? What a maniac! I can see why you're so sure you should always side against him with radical ideas like this floating around in his head.
Why shouldn't Google, Fox, CNN, Netflix, etc would pay their fair share by buying higher priority packets?
Because you're already paying for it, this is just a blatant attempt by the ISPs to double dip. Doesn't it bother you that this plan will potentially degrade the access you're probably already overpaying for? Put another way, what if you were a Verizon customer, and they decided that since AT&T didn't want to pay them for "priority access" all calls you made/received with AT&T people were given an additional layer of static and dropped the call more often than if it were a call with a T-Mobile customer. Would that be okay? After all, why shouldn't AT&T pay their fair share for that call?
So because you don't like the messenger you're going to instantly switch positions? If Franken came out and did an interview about how he firmly believes in the force of gravity, would you jump out a window because you'd no longer believe that things fall? If he said swimming in raw-sewage was bad for you would you race to the nearest waste-treatment plant to go for a quick dip? Comments like that are a great example of why our system is so hopelessly broken.
Here's a time saving summary of about 90% of the posts here today for those who don't feel like doing them one by one:
I haven't the vaguest idea what actually happened here, so I'm going to go ahead and assume that the fascist/conservative/liberal/communist/megacorps/illuminati/mole-people have usurped our freedom once again by taking down a half a billion websites that hosted nothing but honest discourse that they, the aforementioned fascist/conservative/liberal/communist/megacorps/illuminati/mole-people don't want YOU to read. Clearly, the U.S. is as bad as China/Soviet Russia/Somalia/Cuba/The Romulan Empire/The Sith/Microsoft, and any ideas that you live in a free society stem from the idea that you're stupid and just another sheeple being led about by the nose by THE MAN. If, somehow, it turns out that the server in question was hosting Child Pornography/Snuff Films/how-to guides to build Nuclear Weapons/Disney Movies, you can safely assume that those things were just planted in order to steal your freedom, except that you didn't have any, so it's just there to steal your imaginary sense of freedom. Since this sense of freedom was imaginary, it's just Imaginary Property anyway, and couldn't have been stolen from you in the first place, so really, nothing of value was lost. I know all this because years ago I threw out my TV because it only showed mindless pablum like American Idol, and worse yet, they make you watch ads, so now I download American Idol on Bit-torrent instead and watch it on my computer, which is inherently better than watching it on TV, so I'm smarter than you. Something about Old People In Korea, Natalie Portman Naked and Petrified, and Hot Grits. In conclusion, in Soviet Amerikkka, websites view you, and this is probably all Steve Jobs' fault.
WebOS initially was totally locked down, iOS style.
Well, it took a couple of months before they had the APIs published and available, but I think that was more an issue of being ready than being locked-down.
I don't like the fact that it only runs (ran? I don't know if Palm allowed native code later) JS-based applets either. I know they opened it up some more later, but that was too late for me.
I'm pretty sure it was only about 2 or 3 months before they'd opened up their APIs for third-party code, but there was quite a bit of "off-label" development going on before then, which Palm not only didn't stop, but encouraged. The Pre never REQUIRED that you get apps and patches through the app catalog, and there were alternatives available almost from the start. The homebrew community always did a pretty amazing job hacking around with WebOS, largely because unlike Android and iOS, it's trivially easy to get root on the phone, as opposed to iOS jailbreak or loading custom ROMs on Android.
You didn't like it, which is completely fine, but to say it was locked down like the iPhone is just incorrect.
Maemo 5, the OS on the N900, is just a Debian-based Linux distro that you can install whatever you want on.
I'm not sure how that's different from WebOS, which is also a Linux distro, and I've never seen any restrictions on what you can install. I had one from release-day on Sprint until the day the Evo came out.....
then they released the Pre with a locked-down OS and that settled it
What did you find locked-down about WebOS? I had a Pre (switched when the Evo came out), and I still haven't seen anything close with Android to how absurdly easy it is to mod the Pre. If it weren't for the lack of apps that I wanted, and the disappointing pace of hardware development, I'd probably have stuck with Palm. I've never used an N900, so I really can't say anything about comparing them, but what makes it less locked-down than WebOS?
I specifically suggested defining "wedlock" as (a) having the means to, and (b) the commitment to, raising a child and not as traditional marriage. Call it "childlock" if you prefer: making kids while not able to support them or not committing to support them (this can include adoption out if approved by a court), should be a crime punishable by death.
And for your next trick will you redefine chocolate as "tastes like liver" or soft as "consistency of concrete"? "Wedlock", regardless of the goal, still implies multiple people. Are you suggesting that Minnie Driver, going back to my example, would have to "enter into wedlock" with herself?
As for the rest of your batshit insanity, this is why you don't get to make the rules. The rest of us, you know; the not-crazy people, don't think any of your reasons for killing people make any sense.
Oh, since I'm here anyway, "deadbeat dads" are not single parents in the traditional sense. The custodial parent, the one that the "deadbeat" owes the child-support to, is the single parent. We also don't typically lock them up. If you owe child support, and suddenly find, through no fault of your own, that you can no longer afford that amount, you return to court and renegotiate it. The people who get locked up are [supposed to be] the ones who *refuse* to pay their child-support, not the ones who can't because they lost their job.
Make pregnancy out of "wedlock", with a legal definition of "wedlock" altered to focus on support of progeny, rather than present interpretations of "marriage", punishable by death, and it would be a good start.
......and that's because there are absolutely no single people who are more capable of raising a kid than a many couples are? Awesome idea, 'cause we all know that Minnie Driver's kid will be doomed to a life of poverty and suffering, as opposed to the lavish childhood that will be rained upon the children of Cleefus and Jolene at the Happy-Garden trailer park.
I'm not so sure about that. LucasFilm makes a lot of money from marketing Star Wars toys. I suspect at least part of this is related to the fact that they don't want to see headlines reading "Six year old boy blinds and burns sister with toy Lightsaber". Yes, we know that these things A) aren't toys, and B) aren't Lightsabers, but that won't stop the headlines from playing out that way. I suspect LucasFilm would rather it just look like something else, and probably wouldn't allow a licensing deal even if Wicked offered to pay.
Sure, the Japanese *say* that this is being done for research purposes, but just wait until the leftover asteroid-meat starts turning up in markets around Tokyo. My new group, "Space Shepherds" stands against the Japanese asteroid-fleet, using a decommissioned space-shuttle, and we will interfere with their phony "research" in any way we can. C'mon people, at this rate, in only a few billion years, the Japanese will have decimated the population of asteroids to the point where these majestic clumps of ice and rock will no longer roam the skies. We need to save them for our grandchildren, er, well, great-grandchildren....no, great-great......whatever, we need to save them so future-people can see them.
That's a non sequitur. He said that anyone anywhere can be arrested for anything. He can walk up to you on the public street and demand you sit. If you don't, you will be arrested. Then he tells you to get up. If you don't, you get arrested. Then he tells you to move to the curb. If you don't, you will be arrested.
I understand what he's claiming. He's wrong, and so are you. If the officer walks up to you while you're waiting for the bus and tells you to sit for absolutely no reason, it is not a lawful order because it is not part of his duties to do so. If he walks up to you and tells you to sit because he suspects that you're trying to sell drugs on the corner, and he wants to keep you in one place while he checks your ID, it is a lawful order, because it is an order given during the course of his duties as a police officer.
Then he tells you to perform a field sobriety test. If you speak, you will be arrested (unless part of the test). Remember, saying "I will comply with your order" is a violation of the order because it's delaying execution of it. People have been arrested (And convicted) for less.
So in your scenario, he suspects that you're intoxicated and wants to conduct a field sobriety test. Part of the test is an ability to follow instructions, and one of them is to be quiet. For some reason, you can't keep your mouth shut, and you're surprised that you get arrested for failing the test. Here's a hint; if you're being stopped for public intoxication or DUI, and you're given a field sobriety test, just follow the instructions without trying to be a smartass. You have no reason to say "I will comply with your order", just do it. In this instance, btw, you're being arrested on suspicion of public drunkenness, or DUI, although an outright refusal to take the test can lead to an added charge of failure to follow a lawful order, depending on the circumstances and jurisdiction.
They can't give a stupid order and then arrest you for not complying, but they can give a string of orders, some conflicting, and the moment you hesitate, question, or execute the wrong one, you can be arrested. You are changing the "any cop can arrest you for not following an order" to "any cop can arrest you for not following a specific order."
I'm not changing anything. The post I replied to said: In the US, its the law. Its called, failure to comply with a lawful order. It basically empowers police to arrest anyone for anything. If they tell you to do something and you don't, even if its within your legal right to not follow it, you can be legally arrested. I countered with an example of what is definitely not a lawful order, and therefore within your legal right not to follow it. Simple as that.
There's nothing a cop should be able to tell you to do that would result in your arrest.
Okay, so here's one. You've just suffered a heart attack. As you're being loaded into the ambulance, a moving truck pulls into the street, blocking the ambulance's only route out of your neighborhood, which is on a dead-end. The police tell the driver of the truck to move it. In your world where the police can not tell you to do something under threat of arrest, the driver tells the cop he's on a tight schedule and he'll move when he's damn good and ready. The police then write him a parking ticket, and stand back and wait because they don't have the authority to arrest the driver and move the truck themselves. You die while waiting.
Either you are already under arrest (you are under some perverted "arrest" while receiving a traffic ticket, for example) or they should have no power over you at all. The police should only have power over criminals, not everyone.
And you don't think a system like that would lead to far more people being arrested, since the police wouldn't be able to do
To recap: Malaika Brooks got a speeding ticket. The officer demanded she sign it, and she refused, saying that she wasn't speeding, and didn't want to incriminate herself
The purpose of getting the signature isn't an admission of guilt, it's to confirm that you received the ticket. The reason is to make it more difficult for a driver to say "it wasn't me, this is a mistake, I've never even been there" when they get to court. That being the case, she had no right to not "incriminate herself", unless she was suggesting that she wasn't really there, and they weren't really giving her a ticket.
In this jurisdiction, there is no law saying that a ticket must be signed by the accused, and a ticket does not have to be signed to be valid, so the officer's demand was unlawful.
This appears to be wrong. The incident was in 2004. The legal requirement to sign a citation wasn't dropped until 2006. The officer's demand, his later behaviour notwithstanding, appears to have been lawful.
The officers then grabbed her keys, tasered her three times, dragged her to the ground and arrested her.
Which is awful, and a complete overreaction, but irrelevant to the charge itself. If the cops tune-up a guy as he comes running out of a liquor store that he just robbed (not in self defense, just because they can), then that's a problem with the discipline and professionalism of those particular cops, it's not a problem with the law against robbery. Further, what exactly were these cops supposed to do? I guess they could have blocked her car in and just waited until she finally signed the ticket, but then the headlines would have been "Cops waste $X amount on issuing speeding ticket". If she'd just signed the damn thing, as the law appears to have required at the time, she would have gone on her way and that would have been it.
You can't be prosecuted, but you can be assaulted, repeatedly tasered, and arrested. And the courts will side with the police officers.
That's beside the point though, since those are abuses of the law. You can get those results from abusing ANY law, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws though. The answer is still to not tolerate those abuses, and if your current political leadership can't or won't stop them, it's time for new leadership who will.
Clever, that's right up there with "I know you are, but what am I". And yet you go on to call me dumb? Wow.
Are you really so simple you don't see what's obvious to police and everyone abused by such laws?
"Sit down."
"I have a bad back."
You can now be arrested. When asked, all he needs to do is to say I feared he may attack me, jump into a traffic, hurt himself, flee, so on and so on. As such, failing to comply with such an order is the legal definition of failure to comply.
Yes, you've hit a lawful order example. The officer is not your doctor, and if the situation is one where he needs you to stay put for everyone's safety, he doesn't have time to review your medical records. He also has the problem that a)most people don't have bad backs that are so bad that they can't sit down, and b) someone who actually wants to jump him the second he turns around will probably lie to put themselves in position to do it. You called me naive before, but expecting a cop in a potentially dangerous situation to just take your word for something that could mean the difference between him getting jumped or not is pretty staggeringly naive.
Are you really so simple that you believe an officer who is willing to break the law to arrest you is beyond lying to justify his actions?
Who said anything about the officer lying. You asserted that it's illegal to disobey *any* order from a police officer. You are wrong. If the officer walks up to your girlfriend and say "Show me your tits baby", are you going to say that "it's the law cause he said to do it?". Again, you're calling me simple, yet you're the one with an almost childlike understanding of the law. Your girlfriend in that instance wouldn't be arrested, and if she was, she wouldn't be convicted. Let's go back to your bad-back example. It happens the way you said, and you're charged. You give your defense lawyer the documentation of your "bad back", and he meets with the prosecutor. Assuming your condition is bad enough that it explains your actions, the prosecutor will probably drop that charge, and if he doesn't, the judge will dismiss. Then again, maybe the bad-back thing is an excuse that gets used all the time and you're yet another person who claims it but it only seems to act up selectively, like when someone tells you to do something you don't want to do.
Regardless of what you want to believe, my original post on the subject is accurate - even if you want to close your eyes and mislead everyone else; including yourself.
Really? Here's your original post, specifically the part I challenged:
In the US, its the law. Its called, failure to comply with a lawful order. It basically empowers police to arrest anyone for anything. If they tell you to do something and you don't, even if its within your legal right to not follow it, you can be legally arrested.
Now, the officer walks up to you on a public street, and tells you to drop your pants and cluck like a chicken. Do you expect to be arrested and charged with failure to comply with a lawful order?
I restate my original answer. The problem is not that you can be arrested for failure to comply with a lawful order. The problem is when that authority is abused, and the answer is not to tolerate those abuses and add strict punishments for anyone who does abuse their position.
In the US, its the law. Its called, failure to comply with a lawful order. It basically empowers police to arrest anyone for anything. If they tell you to do something and you don't, even if its within your legal right to not follow it, you can be legally arrested.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong and wrong. A lawful order is directive given by a police officer in the execution of his duties AS DEFINED BY LAW. For instance, if an officer tells you to drop your pants and cluck like a chicken because he's bored, that is NOT a lawful order, and therefore you can not be prosecuted for failure to comply with it. If an officer tells you to get on the ground after he chases you through three backyards while he's investigating a robbery and you don't, or if he tells you to turn down the giant stereo on your back porch because you're violating the local noise ordinence and you don't, you have failed to comply with a lawful order. Big difference. In this case, had the photographer been in the U.S., he would not have been guilty of failure to follow a lawful order, as the officer had no basis or authority to tell him to stop photographing.
And guess what, this law is abused on a daily basis in the US.
True, but you just said it yourself, it's ABUSED. When an officer cites failure to follow a lawful order, when he had no authority to issue the order, the officer is in the wrong. The solution is to lower our tolerance to abuse of the system, and increase punishment for those abuses.
Either English isn't your first language, or you just don't understand what you're responding to. Let's try it again:
Slashdot is run by Americans, after all, and the vast majority of our readership is in the U.S
Note the bold part. This has nothing to do with national pride, or position in the world. It is a statement of fact that, as far as Slashdot's staff knows, most Slashdot readers are located in the United States.
Really, if you're going to go all vitriolic you should at least understand what you're ranting about.
Interesting point, but right now Apple is on top of the world, while Flash has a real potential problem with HTML 5 making its offering less attractive. Now is the time for Adobe to push flash to be ubiquitous, to try to fend off HTML 5 which (theoretically) will run on anything with a modern browser. Apple would have to fall inconceivably far (in the short term) for Adobe to be safe in purposely passing on them.
Slashdot Mirror
Why bother? I read it, and I still don't know silly details like what the name of this app is, or whether it's been pulled from the Android Market. Actually, now that I think about it, I don't even know *if* it was in the Android Market, or if it's a side-load app. For all I know, Kaspersky "discovered" a proof-of-concept app that they developed themselves. Yeah, that last bit is pretty unlikely, but reading TFA is no help at all in ruling it out.....
Content fail for TFA.
Since I don't know where you're calling I can't directly argue the rate, but for me Google Voice is [marginally] cheaper, and is built into the dialer in Android phones. Skype's big draw for me was the ability to make calls when I had wifi but no cell service, so Skype's Android client, even if it were available on my non-Verizon phone, would be completely useless. No problem though, because I picked up Fring, which allowed Skype-out calls over wifi. Then Skype told them to cut it out, and they dropped Skype support and Skype was once again useless to me from my phone. But wait; then Nimbuzz came out, and supports Skype-out over wifi, and hopefully will continue to do so until one of the following happens:
1) Skype releases a full client, and not the Verizon-inspired crippled version (I know you like that version, but there's no reason that a full version can't have a "use cell network" option as well as wifi)
2) Google rolls Gizmo5 into Google-Voice, at which point it's bye-bye Skype.
Skype should be worrying about option 2.
Well, now you're up to 6, so you're right about that at least.
You're certain, huh?
and if this is what happens routinely why did you have to reach back 40 years? Nobody is arguing that this kind of thing never happens, the point is that it's rare. By going to the Kent State shootings, you're supporting Dhalka's assertion, since otherwise you'd have a list of similar incidents from the past year or so.....
Yeah, let's look at some of the atrocities he's committed since he became a senator.....[linkey]
Senator Franken's first piece of legislation was the Service Dogs for Veterans Act (S. 1495), which he wrote jointly with Sen. Johnny Isakson (R). The bill, which passed the Senate via unanimous consent, established a program with the United States Department of Veterans Affairs to pair disabled veterans with service dogs.
Citing the case of Jamie Leigh Jones, Senator Franken offered an amendment to the 2010 Defense Appropriations bill that would withhold defense contracts from companies like KBR "if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court." It passed the US Senate, 68 to 30, in a roll-call vote. All 30 of the "nay" votes came from Republicans.
Christ on a pony, the guy wants to give disabled veterans service animals and keep companies from penalizing women for being raped? What a maniac! I can see why you're so sure you should always side against him with radical ideas like this floating around in his head.
Because you're already paying for it, this is just a blatant attempt by the ISPs to double dip. Doesn't it bother you that this plan will potentially degrade the access you're probably already overpaying for?
Put another way, what if you were a Verizon customer, and they decided that since AT&T didn't want to pay them for "priority access" all calls you made/received with AT&T people were given an additional layer of static and dropped the call more often than if it were a call with a T-Mobile customer. Would that be okay? After all, why shouldn't AT&T pay their fair share for that call?
So because you don't like the messenger you're going to instantly switch positions? If Franken came out and did an interview about how he firmly believes in the force of gravity, would you jump out a window because you'd no longer believe that things fall? If he said swimming in raw-sewage was bad for you would you race to the nearest waste-treatment plant to go for a quick dip?
Comments like that are a great example of why our system is so hopelessly broken.
What are they going to do, play whistling sounds and static into his phone-line to slow down the connection?
Here's a time saving summary of about 90% of the posts here today for those who don't feel like doing them one by one:
I haven't the vaguest idea what actually happened here, so I'm going to go ahead and assume that the fascist/conservative/liberal/communist/megacorps/illuminati/mole-people have usurped our freedom once again by taking down a half a billion websites that hosted nothing but honest discourse that they, the aforementioned fascist/conservative/liberal/communist/megacorps/illuminati/mole-people don't want YOU to read. Clearly, the U.S. is as bad as China/Soviet Russia/Somalia/Cuba/The Romulan Empire/The Sith/Microsoft, and any ideas that you live in a free society stem from the idea that you're stupid and just another sheeple being led about by the nose by THE MAN. If, somehow, it turns out that the server in question was hosting Child Pornography/Snuff Films/how-to guides to build Nuclear Weapons/Disney Movies, you can safely assume that those things were just planted in order to steal your freedom, except that you didn't have any, so it's just there to steal your imaginary sense of freedom. Since this sense of freedom was imaginary, it's just Imaginary Property anyway, and couldn't have been stolen from you in the first place, so really, nothing of value was lost. I know all this because years ago I threw out my TV because it only showed mindless pablum like American Idol, and worse yet, they make you watch ads, so now I download American Idol on Bit-torrent instead and watch it on my computer, which is inherently better than watching it on TV, so I'm smarter than you. Something about Old People In Korea, Natalie Portman Naked and Petrified, and Hot Grits. In conclusion, in Soviet Amerikkka, websites view you, and this is probably all Steve Jobs' fault.
Well, it took a couple of months before they had the APIs published and available, but I think that was more an issue of being ready than being locked-down.
I'm pretty sure it was only about 2 or 3 months before they'd opened up their APIs for third-party code, but there was quite a bit of "off-label" development going on before then, which Palm not only didn't stop, but encouraged. The Pre never REQUIRED that you get apps and patches through the app catalog, and there were alternatives available almost from the start. The homebrew community always did a pretty amazing job hacking around with WebOS, largely because unlike Android and iOS, it's trivially easy to get root on the phone, as opposed to iOS jailbreak or loading custom ROMs on Android.
You didn't like it, which is completely fine, but to say it was locked down like the iPhone is just incorrect.
I'm not sure how that's different from WebOS, which is also a Linux distro, and I've never seen any restrictions on what you can install. I had one from release-day on Sprint until the day the Evo came out.....
What did you find locked-down about WebOS? I had a Pre (switched when the Evo came out), and I still haven't seen anything close with Android to how absurdly easy it is to mod the Pre. If it weren't for the lack of apps that I wanted, and the disappointing pace of hardware development, I'd probably have stuck with Palm. I've never used an N900, so I really can't say anything about comparing them, but what makes it less locked-down than WebOS?
And for your next trick will you redefine chocolate as "tastes like liver" or soft as "consistency of concrete"? "Wedlock", regardless of the goal, still implies multiple people. Are you suggesting that Minnie Driver, going back to my example, would have to "enter into wedlock" with herself?
As for the rest of your batshit insanity, this is why you don't get to make the rules. The rest of us, you know; the not-crazy people, don't think any of your reasons for killing people make any sense.
Oh, since I'm here anyway, "deadbeat dads" are not single parents in the traditional sense. The custodial parent, the one that the "deadbeat" owes the child-support to, is the single parent. We also don't typically lock them up. If you owe child support, and suddenly find, through no fault of your own, that you can no longer afford that amount, you return to court and renegotiate it. The people who get locked up are [supposed to be] the ones who *refuse* to pay their child-support, not the ones who can't because they lost their job.
I'm not so sure about that. LucasFilm makes a lot of money from marketing Star Wars toys. I suspect at least part of this is related to the fact that they don't want to see headlines reading "Six year old boy blinds and burns sister with toy Lightsaber". Yes, we know that these things A) aren't toys, and B) aren't Lightsabers, but that won't stop the headlines from playing out that way. I suspect LucasFilm would rather it just look like something else, and probably wouldn't allow a licensing deal even if Wicked offered to pay.
Sure, the Japanese *say* that this is being done for research purposes, but just wait until the leftover asteroid-meat starts turning up in markets around Tokyo. My new group, "Space Shepherds" stands against the Japanese asteroid-fleet, using a decommissioned space-shuttle, and we will interfere with their phony "research" in any way we can. C'mon people, at this rate, in only a few billion years, the Japanese will have decimated the population of asteroids to the point where these majestic clumps of ice and rock will no longer roam the skies. We need to save them for our grandchildren, er, well, great-grandchildren....no, great-great......whatever, we need to save them so future-people can see them.
I understand what he's claiming. He's wrong, and so are you. If the officer walks up to you while you're waiting for the bus and tells you to sit for absolutely no reason, it is not a lawful order because it is not part of his duties to do so. If he walks up to you and tells you to sit because he suspects that you're trying to sell drugs on the corner, and he wants to keep you in one place while he checks your ID, it is a lawful order, because it is an order given during the course of his duties as a police officer.
So in your scenario, he suspects that you're intoxicated and wants to conduct a field sobriety test. Part of the test is an ability to follow instructions, and one of them is to be quiet. For some reason, you can't keep your mouth shut, and you're surprised that you get arrested for failing the test. Here's a hint; if you're being stopped for public intoxication or DUI, and you're given a field sobriety test, just follow the instructions without trying to be a smartass. You have no reason to say "I will comply with your order", just do it. In this instance, btw, you're being arrested on suspicion of public drunkenness, or DUI, although an outright refusal to take the test can lead to an added charge of failure to follow a lawful order, depending on the circumstances and jurisdiction.
I'm not changing anything. The post I replied to said:
In the US, its the law. Its called, failure to comply with a lawful order. It basically empowers police to arrest anyone for anything. If they tell you to do something and you don't, even if its within your legal right to not follow it, you can be legally arrested.
I countered with an example of what is definitely not a lawful order, and therefore within your legal right not to follow it. Simple as that.
Okay, so here's one. You've just suffered a heart attack. As you're being loaded into the ambulance, a moving truck pulls into the street, blocking the ambulance's only route out of your neighborhood, which is on a dead-end. The police tell the driver of the truck to move it. In your world where the police can not tell you to do something under threat of arrest, the driver tells the cop he's on a tight schedule and he'll move when he's damn good and ready. The police then write him a parking ticket, and stand back and wait because they don't have the authority to arrest the driver and move the truck themselves. You die while waiting.
And you don't think a system like that would lead to far more people being arrested, since the police wouldn't be able to do
There are several problems with your post:
The purpose of getting the signature isn't an admission of guilt, it's to confirm that you received the ticket. The reason is to make it more difficult for a driver to say "it wasn't me, this is a mistake, I've never even been there" when they get to court. That being the case, she had no right to not "incriminate herself", unless she was suggesting that she wasn't really there, and they weren't really giving her a ticket.
This appears to be wrong. The incident was in 2004. The legal requirement to sign a citation wasn't dropped until 2006. The officer's demand, his later behaviour notwithstanding, appears to have been lawful.
Which is awful, and a complete overreaction, but irrelevant to the charge itself. If the cops tune-up a guy as he comes running out of a liquor store that he just robbed (not in self defense, just because they can), then that's a problem with the discipline and professionalism of those particular cops, it's not a problem with the law against robbery. Further, what exactly were these cops supposed to do? I guess they could have blocked her car in and just waited until she finally signed the ticket, but then the headlines would have been "Cops waste $X amount on issuing speeding ticket". If she'd just signed the damn thing, as the law appears to have required at the time, she would have gone on her way and that would have been it.
That's beside the point though, since those are abuses of the law. You can get those results from abusing ANY law, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws though. The answer is still to not tolerate those abuses, and if your current political leadership can't or won't stop them, it's time for new leadership who will.
Clever, that's right up there with "I know you are, but what am I". And yet you go on to call me dumb? Wow.
Yes, you've hit a lawful order example. The officer is not your doctor, and if the situation is one where he needs you to stay put for everyone's safety, he doesn't have time to review your medical records. He also has the problem that a)most people don't have bad backs that are so bad that they can't sit down, and b) someone who actually wants to jump him the second he turns around will probably lie to put themselves in position to do it. You called me naive before, but expecting a cop in a potentially dangerous situation to just take your word for something that could mean the difference between him getting jumped or not is pretty staggeringly naive.
Who said anything about the officer lying. You asserted that it's illegal to disobey *any* order from a police officer. You are wrong. If the officer walks up to your girlfriend and say "Show me your tits baby", are you going to say that "it's the law cause he said to do it?". Again, you're calling me simple, yet you're the one with an almost childlike understanding of the law. Your girlfriend in that instance wouldn't be arrested, and if she was, she wouldn't be convicted.
Let's go back to your bad-back example. It happens the way you said, and you're charged. You give your defense lawyer the documentation of your "bad back", and he meets with the prosecutor. Assuming your condition is bad enough that it explains your actions, the prosecutor will probably drop that charge, and if he doesn't, the judge will dismiss. Then again, maybe the bad-back thing is an excuse that gets used all the time and you're yet another person who claims it but it only seems to act up selectively, like when someone tells you to do something you don't want to do.
Really? Here's your original post, specifically the part I challenged:
Now, the officer walks up to you on a public street, and tells you to drop your pants and cluck like a chicken. Do you expect to be arrested and charged with failure to comply with a lawful order?
I restate my original answer. The problem is not that you can be arrested for failure to comply with a lawful order. The problem is when that authority is abused, and the answer is not to tolerate those abuses and add strict punishments for anyone who does abuse their position.
You spelled Lieberman wrong.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong and wrong.
A lawful order is directive given by a police officer in the execution of his duties AS DEFINED BY LAW. For instance, if an officer tells you to drop your pants and cluck like a chicken because he's bored, that is NOT a lawful order, and therefore you can not be prosecuted for failure to comply with it. If an officer tells you to get on the ground after he chases you through three backyards while he's investigating a robbery and you don't, or if he tells you to turn down the giant stereo on your back porch because you're violating the local noise ordinence and you don't, you have failed to comply with a lawful order. Big difference.
In this case, had the photographer been in the U.S., he would not have been guilty of failure to follow a lawful order, as the officer had no basis or authority to tell him to stop photographing.
True, but you just said it yourself, it's ABUSED. When an officer cites failure to follow a lawful order, when he had no authority to issue the order, the officer is in the wrong. The solution is to lower our tolerance to abuse of the system, and increase punishment for those abuses.
Wait, you mean Flash doesn't work on my MacBook? Wow, I wonder why Hulu still works for me.....
The site's FAQ disagrees with you....
Either English isn't your first language, or you just don't understand what you're responding to. Let's try it again:
Note the bold part. This has nothing to do with national pride, or position in the world. It is a statement of fact that, as far as Slashdot's staff knows, most Slashdot readers are located in the United States.
Really, if you're going to go all vitriolic you should at least understand what you're ranting about.
Interesting point, but right now Apple is on top of the world, while Flash has a real potential problem with HTML 5 making its offering less attractive. Now is the time for Adobe to push flash to be ubiquitous, to try to fend off HTML 5 which (theoretically) will run on anything with a modern browser. Apple would have to fall inconceivably far (in the short term) for Adobe to be safe in purposely passing on them.