As a humourous aside, we send people to Syria to be tortured to death. No trial, no process, just "Oh, you're on the list, come over here, we're going to put you on a special plane.
The Gestapo has nothing on us. We've privatized our sin.
We should only rebuild roads and bridges we've blown up in Iraq.
The only welfare should be guaranteed employment in the military or industries that create death machines.
If you disagree, we'll kill you, and then say your son or daughter or brother or sister or mother or father who come to kill us because we killed you did it because they hate our freedom.
The Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)".
If I shoot my boss the police get involved too. That's completely irrelevant, because it doesn't mean that they can suddenly get involved because I keep on texting after being told not to and he's getting frustrated.
As an adult, the police had no right to the phone under the 4th amendment. She wasn't accused of a crime, she wasn't accused of having an illegal object or substance, they searched and seized from her simply because it was their whim to do so -- a blatantly unconstitutional reason.
Police are serious fucking business. Once you start using them to enforce your little rules, those little rules stop being little rules and become serious fucking business with the force of law and people with guns behind them. For this reason, kids deserve full rights in these cases. If you let schools start enforcing their rules with guns and prisons, you're just fucking kids if they don't get any rights out of the deal.
I'm sorry, I must've blinked out there for a moment. What law says 100% legal contraband on school property is something police are allowed to confiscate and not wipe their asses with the bill of rights, specifically the 4th amendment?
Kids have a sense of entitlement(guess where they got that from?), so we need to get people with guns to come in and use the power of the state without any of the checks and balances of the state to control them?
I'm against fucking kids. If you're going to bring the police in to deal with simple rule infractions, then give the kids full rights under the law so at least the people with guns are as limited as they'd be if my boss tried to call 911 because I kept texting after being told not to.
In the real world, she'd get fired for not listening to her boss, but at NO point would her boss be able to get an agent of the state with a gun to enforce his whims.
In fact, an employer would probably get in trouble with the police for wasting their time, and rightly so.
Do you carry a gun? Are you a state sanctioned agent legally mandated to assist in restricting the rights of citizens?
Police are serious fucking business. If you're going to be using them to enforce school regulations, then kids deserve full rights under the law. If that were the case, the police could not ask for the phone because no crime had been committed.
If you bring people from the state with guns into the mix, the game is changed. If police are to be enforcing school policies with the full force of the law, then these kids deserve full rights under the law.
Under the 4th, the police weren't entitled to the phone. They had no reason to believe an actual crime had been committed, so they could not ask an adult for the cell phone, yet they have legal authority to search this girl. The state broke the rules that apply to everyone else.
Why should this girl bother following the rules if authority doesn't have to? I'm sick of people advocating fucking children.
By what law does the policeman have authority to demand the cell phone?
Adults are protected against unreasonable search and seizure by the constitution. Once you bring a state official, a person with a gun who has legal authority to take away your rights, into the mix, you've stopped treating the kids like kids. It's hypocritical to attack this kid for not following the rules while ignoring that the police were acting outside the legal scope of what they'd be allowed to do to an adult, effectively not following the rules.
You manufactured an actual offense to tack onto the non-offense of texting after being asked not to. You have to, because it's not against the law to text after being asked not to. Otherwise, I could ask you to shut up, and when you refuse, I could call the cops.
Educators do NOT have authority over the police. They do NOT set the rules for what is legal and illegal. They do NOT determine what is actionable and what is not actionable.
If you're going to treat kids as kids, then the school should deal with them and punish them within their mandate to do so. The moment you call the police, that's when they stop being kids. You're using an means to control adults to push kids around. You're taking someone with a gun, someone legally mandated to violate your rights, and pushing a kid around. At that point, you give that kid the same rights as the adult, or you're just fucking kids for fun.
The price of freedom for police is the law, and there's this perverse attitude that when it comes to kids, police don't have to follow the law.
In ten thousand years, my boss could NEVER get the police to come to my workplace and frisk me because I didn't stop texting after he told me to stop. It's not against the law, for one thing. For another thing, if the administrators hadn't bothered to try any other remedies, then they hadn't met the standard that an adult would be charged under.
We're just fucking kids at this point. Either they're kids and the school has to deal with them, or they're adults and the police have to deal with them and they should be afforded every single protection an adult is granted under the law.
Considering the horrible things I read on an almost daily basis about how children are treated, I'd disrespect authority too.
But then, I don't like fucking children. We're talking about taking people with guns and a legally mandated right to violate your rights, and using those people against children for non-crimes that no police force in the world would be used against adults for.
If I was texting and my boss told me to stop and I didn't, I could get fired. He wouldn't be able to get cops to arrest me for it.
America has insane attitudes towards children in criminal justice.
An adult who molests a 8 year old is entitled to a rehabilitation program that's based on a scientific consensus, and a fair trial. A child who molests another 8 year old will be sent to a re-programming center where discredited techniques meant to "cure" homosexuals in the 30s are used.
This is just another case of the same thing. If I refused to stop texting at work, I'd be fired. They couldn't call the police before even taking that step.
But hey, if you're going to fuck your kids to the tune of 12 trillion dollars, why not fuck them in a totalitarian sense too?
If you eat, you can predict that the food will turn into poop, but once you've eaten, the transformation into poop is simply what happens.
If you disrupt the market, you can predict that a bubble will be created which will burst and result in the new market value, but once the market is disrupted, the bubble and bust is simply what happens.
VISA is much different than mortgages. High failure rates are built into the price of the card. Having had a brief run-in with VISA, trust me -- they make their money. If you don't pay your bills, you end up paying through the nose.
I'm saying it's a natural process, unavoidable. Bubbles are axiomatic to capitalism and a free market. Somebody losing a fortune on something they should have known wasn't worth what they paid for it is the way prices are set.
Trying to prevent bubbles in a capitalist system would require elimination of the capitalist system. We're actually seeing that now.
The housing bubble was a result of simple changing economics of cities. Populations boomed, and a bubble was formed. A second bubble was created with the deregulation of the energy energy in 1996. Another bubble was induced by the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. A fourth bubble was induced by the high spending of Y2K readiness causing a re-valuation of tech stocks.
Bush helped create a second credit bubble by trying to ensure availability of cheap credit, and it actually worked pretty well, as far as temporarily inducing bubbles go. That bubble burst badly in early 2007, and it took until the election for anyone to realise what had happened.
The current troubles are caused by a number of bubbles bursting at once. The housing, Glass-Steagall, and credit bubbles all burst at once, and now investors are drained from all the unsustainable spending that kept them all going.
Understanding this, assuming my hypothesis is correct and bubbles can be predicted, the next step is to decide the role of bubbles in your economy.
Better planning would help reduce the impact of bubbles. Half the major bubbles that collapsed in the past decade were created by government. Instead of arbitrarily deregulating any number of big things over a period of time, introducing uncertainty to multiple areas of the market as the Bush and Clinton did, it would be more responsible to deregulate something, wait for the bubble and collapse, then deregulate something else. This would prevent the cascade bubble effect that caused the insane wealth of the late 90s and the insane economic decline of today.
Regulation will always come after the bubble ends and will be useless in mitigating it, while the free market won't allow a repetition. It's mostly useless.
Slashdot Mirror
As a humourous aside, we send people to Syria to be tortured to death. No trial, no process, just "Oh, you're on the list, come over here, we're going to put you on a special plane.
The Gestapo has nothing on us. We've privatized our sin.
Never assume anything is obvious. Typos exactly like that have gotten people killed. "Ok, I put 3 gallons into the tank -- what? They're litres?!"
I'm thinking the way this would have to be implemented is we'd see routers with gigabytes of storage for years worth of data.
I hope you like spending 500 bucks for a crappy router, because that's where we're headed.
We should only rebuild roads and bridges we've blown up in Iraq.
The only welfare should be guaranteed employment in the military or industries that create death machines.
If you disagree, we'll kill you, and then say your son or daughter or brother or sister or mother or father who come to kill us because we killed you did it because they hate our freedom.
Sorry, I missed your point. The sound of the "poor me I'm such an oppressed victim" was drowning everything else out.
You don't seem to realise how much police are used as enforcers in today's schools.
We used to give kids ritalin. Then that turned out to be immoral. Now we get cops to arrest kids.
As a mature moderator, I'd mod down both posts for your bitching about moderation.
Grow up.
And neither owning a cell phone nor texting with a cell phone are crimes.
The Oxford Companion to American Law defines probable cause as "information sufficient to warrant a prudent person's belief that the wanted individual had committed a crime (for an arrest warrant) or that evidence of a crime or contraband would be found in a search (for a search warrant)".
I've never had my learning disrupted by the slight beeping of someone playing with their cell phone.
If you choose to be distracted, you obviously aren't that interested in learning. It's not just to bring people with guns in to arrest distractions.
That's something else.
If I shoot my boss the police get involved too. That's completely irrelevant, because it doesn't mean that they can suddenly get involved because I keep on texting after being told not to and he's getting frustrated.
Bullshit.
As an adult, the police had no right to the phone under the 4th amendment. She wasn't accused of a crime, she wasn't accused of having an illegal object or substance, they searched and seized from her simply because it was their whim to do so -- a blatantly unconstitutional reason.
Police are serious fucking business. Once you start using them to enforce your little rules, those little rules stop being little rules and become serious fucking business with the force of law and people with guns behind them. For this reason, kids deserve full rights in these cases. If you let schools start enforcing their rules with guns and prisons, you're just fucking kids if they don't get any rights out of the deal.
I'm sorry, I must've blinked out there for a moment. What law says 100% legal contraband on school property is something police are allowed to confiscate and not wipe their asses with the bill of rights, specifically the 4th amendment?
This is insane.
Kids have a sense of entitlement(guess where they got that from?), so we need to get people with guns to come in and use the power of the state without any of the checks and balances of the state to control them?
I'm against fucking kids. If you're going to bring the police in to deal with simple rule infractions, then give the kids full rights under the law so at least the people with guns are as limited as they'd be if my boss tried to call 911 because I kept texting after being told not to.
In the real world, she'd get fired for not listening to her boss, but at NO point would her boss be able to get an agent of the state with a gun to enforce his whims.
In fact, an employer would probably get in trouble with the police for wasting their time, and rightly so.
Do you carry a gun? Are you a state sanctioned agent legally mandated to assist in restricting the rights of citizens?
Police are serious fucking business. If you're going to be using them to enforce school regulations, then kids deserve full rights under the law. If that were the case, the police could not ask for the phone because no crime had been committed.
If you bring people from the state with guns into the mix, the game is changed. If police are to be enforcing school policies with the full force of the law, then these kids deserve full rights under the law.
Under the 4th, the police weren't entitled to the phone. They had no reason to believe an actual crime had been committed, so they could not ask an adult for the cell phone, yet they have legal authority to search this girl. The state broke the rules that apply to everyone else.
Why should this girl bother following the rules if authority doesn't have to? I'm sick of people advocating fucking children.
By what law does the policeman have authority to demand the cell phone?
Adults are protected against unreasonable search and seizure by the constitution. Once you bring a state official, a person with a gun who has legal authority to take away your rights, into the mix, you've stopped treating the kids like kids. It's hypocritical to attack this kid for not following the rules while ignoring that the police were acting outside the legal scope of what they'd be allowed to do to an adult, effectively not following the rules.
You're the one with his head up his ass.
You manufactured an actual offense to tack onto the non-offense of texting after being asked not to. You have to, because it's not against the law to text after being asked not to. Otherwise, I could ask you to shut up, and when you refuse, I could call the cops.
Educators do NOT have authority over the police. They do NOT set the rules for what is legal and illegal. They do NOT determine what is actionable and what is not actionable.
If you're going to treat kids as kids, then the school should deal with them and punish them within their mandate to do so. The moment you call the police, that's when they stop being kids. You're using an means to control adults to push kids around. You're taking someone with a gun, someone legally mandated to violate your rights, and pushing a kid around. At that point, you give that kid the same rights as the adult, or you're just fucking kids for fun.
The price of freedom for police is the law, and there's this perverse attitude that when it comes to kids, police don't have to follow the law.
In ten thousand years, my boss could NEVER get the police to come to my workplace and frisk me because I didn't stop texting after he told me to stop. It's not against the law, for one thing. For another thing, if the administrators hadn't bothered to try any other remedies, then they hadn't met the standard that an adult would be charged under.
We're just fucking kids at this point. Either they're kids and the school has to deal with them, or they're adults and the police have to deal with them and they should be afforded every single protection an adult is granted under the law.
Considering the horrible things I read on an almost daily basis about how children are treated, I'd disrespect authority too.
But then, I don't like fucking children. We're talking about taking people with guns and a legally mandated right to violate your rights, and using those people against children for non-crimes that no police force in the world would be used against adults for.
If I was texting and my boss told me to stop and I didn't, I could get fired. He wouldn't be able to get cops to arrest me for it.
America has insane attitudes towards children in criminal justice.
An adult who molests a 8 year old is entitled to a rehabilitation program that's based on a scientific consensus, and a fair trial. A child who molests another 8 year old will be sent to a re-programming center where discredited techniques meant to "cure" homosexuals in the 30s are used.
This is just another case of the same thing. If I refused to stop texting at work, I'd be fired. They couldn't call the police before even taking that step.
But hey, if you're going to fuck your kids to the tune of 12 trillion dollars, why not fuck them in a totalitarian sense too?
If I refuse to turn off my phone during a meeting at work, they can fire me, but they can't criminally charge me.
But I know, this is kids, we've got to fuck them as hard as possible, so bring in the people with guns!
If you eat, you can predict that the food will turn into poop, but once you've eaten, the transformation into poop is simply what happens.
If you disrupt the market, you can predict that a bubble will be created which will burst and result in the new market value, but once the market is disrupted, the bubble and bust is simply what happens.
VISA is much different than mortgages. High failure rates are built into the price of the card. Having had a brief run-in with VISA, trust me -- they make their money. If you don't pay your bills, you end up paying through the nose.
I'm saying it's a natural process, unavoidable. Bubbles are axiomatic to capitalism and a free market. Somebody losing a fortune on something they should have known wasn't worth what they paid for it is the way prices are set.
Trying to prevent bubbles in a capitalist system would require elimination of the capitalist system. We're actually seeing that now.
The housing bubble was a result of simple changing economics of cities. Populations boomed, and a bubble was formed. A second bubble was created with the deregulation of the energy energy in 1996. Another bubble was induced by the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act in 1999. A fourth bubble was induced by the high spending of Y2K readiness causing a re-valuation of tech stocks.
Bush helped create a second credit bubble by trying to ensure availability of cheap credit, and it actually worked pretty well, as far as temporarily inducing bubbles go. That bubble burst badly in early 2007, and it took until the election for anyone to realise what had happened.
The current troubles are caused by a number of bubbles bursting at once. The housing, Glass-Steagall, and credit bubbles all burst at once, and now investors are drained from all the unsustainable spending that kept them all going.
Understanding this, assuming my hypothesis is correct and bubbles can be predicted, the next step is to decide the role of bubbles in your economy.
Better planning would help reduce the impact of bubbles. Half the major bubbles that collapsed in the past decade were created by government. Instead of arbitrarily deregulating any number of big things over a period of time, introducing uncertainty to multiple areas of the market as the Bush and Clinton did, it would be more responsible to deregulate something, wait for the bubble and collapse, then deregulate something else. This would prevent the cascade bubble effect that caused the insane wealth of the late 90s and the insane economic decline of today.
Regulation will always come after the bubble ends and will be useless in mitigating it, while the free market won't allow a repetition. It's mostly useless.