I see zero reason why any company would pay for business or first class. It's like paying ten times the what it would otherwise cost, for...what, the chance to have 3 nips of something on the way? Good for Amazon for not flushing its money down the drain.
I get the impression you have never traveled business class. On a trans-atlantic filght, it makes a world of difference. It is the difference between stepping off the plane feeling like you have been shipped in a crate and feeling like you just woke up from a nice nap. When I flew business class, I didn't want to get off the plane and when we arrived I was like, "Oh, were here already?"
You missed the point and are being naive. Cultures and attitudes vary across the world - not every culture mirrors yours.
What does that have to do with US law? HP broke US law. They should be held to account for that. If your point is that HP couldn't do business in these countries without breaking US law, then perhaps HP shouldn't do business in these countries. However, from what I read, they broke the laws of these other countries as well. So it seems that this is not simply how business is conducted. I understand that you can't get a building built on Staten Island without the okay from the local boss. But that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean we should just accept it as business as usual.
From TFA: "The Polish government has elected to charge several individuals — both from HP and the government — in criminal cases in an investigation related to the guilty plea from HP" . So charges in fact have been filed, just not in USA.
Corporations are not people. They don't make decisions. Executives make decisions.
Lock the bastards up.
Of course, one of the purposes of a corporation is to limit liability. That way, if you start a business and fail, the creditors can't come after you personally. This is often seen as a good thing, encouraging risk taking without the fear of personal ruin. I might generally agree with that. But we are now seeing this limit on liability being used to shield decision-makers from the consequences of their decisions. This is especially true if the company is politically connected. What large company isn't these days? I'm starting to think the best way to commit crime is to start a corporation and have the "company" do it.
Yes, I do see the difference. I think the exclusionary rule is important for keeping the state and its law enforcement honest. As you acknowledged in your original post, it's hard to get the cops to go after other cops. So keeping their ill-gotten evidence, even if it is factual, out of the courtroom helps to keep them on the up and up. Letting them use such evidence places a value on their law-breaking. We're basically saying, "What you did was wrong, and you will be punished, but we'll still use what you got." That's why I said earlier that it sends a mixed message. It's like saying it's wrong to rob a bank, but we'll help you spend the money. See what I'm saying?
Right, in a slightly less sarcastic tone, let me point out that yes, it should be evidence at your trial. "Ladies and Gent of the Juror, here we present evidence that our client was assaulted by police and forced to give an illegal confession. This of course has no legal standing, but shows the incompetence and lack of professional conduct of the prosecutors."
And of course it would figure largely into the officer's trial.
I know this is just a thought experiment, and that you understand that there are problems with having fruit of the poisoned tree allowed as evidence. I think that as this has played out we have seen why that is not a good idea. Law enforcement must play by the rules. And if they don't, their efforts should be in vain. The exclusionary principle exists for a very good reason. If I rob a bank, I should not get to keep the money as long as I do jail time. Likewise, if an officer of the law breaks the law to obtain evidence, they should not get to keep that evidence.
Right. Because the police wiretapping you illegally or following your car illegally or entering your home illegally is/exactly/ the same as battery. Thanks for clearing that up.
You never specified what illegal things the cops might do to obtain evidence against a person. I understood your position to be that if evidence is obtained illegally, it should still be admissible at trial. I think that is a really bad idea, so I came up with a scenario that seemed to fit your position (police obtaining evidence illegally) that would show it's absurdity. I think I accomplished that. Not everyone brought to trial is guilty. Evidence obtained illegally should absolutely not be admissible for the very reason that it was obtained illegally, regardless of the punishment to the officer.
No mixed message at all. Evidence collected about one crime (the violation of rights) can be used in another (murder investigation). Just like the evidence collected about one crime (theft) can be used in another (murder investigation).
I see. So you think if you are falsely accused of murder and the police beat a confession out of you anyway, that confession should still be allowed as evidence at your trial. Interesting.
Maybe not get charged with the same crime, but throwing out evidence is stupid. If we know somebody say, committed murder, letting them go to punish the police for violating the rules is mindbogglingly stupid. No, what you need to do is use the evidence that was gathered to get the murderer off the streets, then you try the officer for violating the rights of the suspect.
So we should use the evidence but punish the person who obtained it. At least we won't be sending a mixed message.
Ammar Al-Baluchi was unquestionably involved with moving money and goods around for Al Qaeda and was clearly involved with helping many of the 9/11 hijackers
... are you referring to the ones still documented as being alive, or other hijackers?
It's pretty clear that we don't know who all of the hijackers were. A number seem to have used false or stolen passports (since those people have turned up alive). The FBI seems happy to stick with the story they've got though.
Funny how I was called a tinfoil hatter for talking about that place in the 1980s.
Isn't that the way it goes though? Those of us interested in the inner and hidden workings of the government will always be considered paranoid, because people still seem to assume that if some spokesperson says it's not true then it's not true.
I don't really understand why anyone trusts the CIA at all with anything anymore. I mean, they have lied so often for their own purposes. Talk about tinfoil hat, I still firmly believe the Company has agents stationed throughout the media to monitor and control the message. That kind of bullshit was supposed to have stopped after the Church committee hearings. But why should I believe that? Wouldn't the CIA just continue the program under a different name and just not tell anyone? How naive are we?
The CIA does what it wants. Stuff only comes out if they fuck up so badly they can't hide it, or when it's useful to someone's agenda. We get called tinfoil hatters, but end up being right a lot of the time.
You children don't know what torture really is. Read about how our soldiers where treated in North Korea or North Vietnam. How the captured Soviets were treated in Afghanistan. How North Korea or the old Soviet Union treated dissidents.... Grow up hipsters and hippies. It's a bad, mean old world out there.
How is this relevant to our actions? Do we judge our actions only against those of others, or do we have standards of our own that we should strive to uphold? It is indeed a mean world out there. I'd like to try to make it less that way, rather than contributing to the problem. It's only a mean world because people and nations, including our own, make it that way.
Agreed arresting them would be the just thing to do. But like all of the actions from that period their orders originated from the highest levels of the executive...
That thing in the Constitution about rising up and revolting... Does that include shooting your politicians? You'd think that would be a good place to start. Is anybody doing anything about that?
If someone did, would the media tell you that they did? If the media didn't, how would you know?
And if the Media did, how would they portray that person? Would they describe them as a legitimate revolutionary, or as a freedom-hating terrorist? Besides, who knows what would happen after we started shooting politicians? I'm not sure it' a good idea.
I've smoked too many S-2000s in my stock (as far as engine and drivetrain are concerned) Corolla, my mods extend to creature comforts and luxury features only. One guy was so pissed off at losing the first time that he burned out his clutch trying to keep his engine speed up for torque off the start on our second run.
Perhaps I've just encountered a series of bad drivers in S-2000s; but, if bad drivers are frequent owners of S-2000s, I'm not sure I want to put that label on myself. That said, my PM, who also happens to be one of the best drivers I know, loves them, so I'm torn, honestly.
S2000's are like most Hondas; they have no torque to speak of. That little car has to get above about 5000 RPM before it actually makes any power. Coming from a turbo car (gobs or torque), they are frustrating to drive for me. But they handle really well. Really well. In anything but a straight line an S2000 would beat your Corolla.
Hey, the ole double nickle was for FUEL EFFICIENCY, not for safety or anything else. It was about getting better MPG with all those thirsty V8's and was extremely frustrating for all involved.
Carter (a.k.a. Obama's first of three terms) was all over that Arab Oil embargo thing and this was his best shot at a fix. Yea, it was stupid, but what else do you expect from a peanut farmer/Community organizer....
No, speed kills, okay? If you drive over the limit you are needlessly endangering all around you so that you can get where you are going 5 seconds sooner. You selfish prick! The speed limits were calculated scientifically and are there for your safety. If you speed you are worse than Hitler and only a little better than Ted Nugent. What makes you think you're so special? Huh? HUH?
So, after receiving this response on a number of posts I have to ask, is there a generally accepted interpretation for such a comment? As best I can tell it originated on a Simpsons episode in a not-completely-ironic context, but I really, *really* hope at least some of the responses I've gotten have been heavily ironic. After all they've mostly been in response to deliberately inflammatory posts. (What can I say, sometimes I feel the need to stir the pot. A good argument is far more enlightening than an echo chamber.)
You are correct as to its origin. The generally accepted interpretation is that you are a crackpot and the responder is ironically playing the role of the gullible dupe who is actually interested in your ridiculous ideas. Homer is kind of an idiot. He bought Lisa's rock to keep the tigers away after all. So it's not as ironic in his situation.
Please note I am not actually calling you a crackpot, just explaining the gag.
I call BS on that, or having passengers talking to you cause accidents.
It's not the same. A passenger is a second set of eyes, helping the driver avoid accidents. The conversation in the car will also naturally pause when the driver must concentrate, and the passenger expects that. Talking on the phone, the driver must do it all by themselves and the other party expect there to be a flow in conversation which the driver must keep up.
I'll make that call right here (since I'm not in a car;-) ). I think it should be much more difficult to get a driver's license in the US. As it stands now, in most states you have to demonstrate only a bare minimum of competency to get a license. Car and skid control? Accident avoidance techniques? Ain't nobody got time for that!
And studies where people are actually driving in real world environments find that talking on the phone does not increase accidents. They did find that operating the phone does, at a similar rate to any other activity that takes one's eyes off the road for a second. The dialing is dangerous, the talking not so much so. In the real world that is, because in the real world people aren't hyper focused on driving, the phone cuts into that other part, not the driving part.
It's the day dreaming, the trying to place a song, drinking of coffee, adjusting the radio, etc. Part of the brain that the phone deprives in real life.
In the study you mention, all that is artificially focused on driving.
I'm not sure about that. From Wikipedia: "Across these three studies, 120 participants performed in both baseline and cell phone conditions. Two of the participants in our studies were involved in an accident in baseline conditions, whereas 10 participants were involved in an accident when they were conversing on a cell phone." However zero (0) drunk drivers had accidents in any of the tests. After controlling for driving difficulty and time on task, the study concluded that cell phone drivers exhibited greater impairment than intoxicated drivers."
Personally, I can feel the lack of focus when I'm talking on the phone while driving. As a result, I hardly ever do it. I pull over or do not participate in the call. I can say that I am definitely distracted while driving and talking on the phone. And from what I see in my fellow drivers, I'm not the only one. It's not about hands-free or looking at the phone. It is a neural resources thing. The human brain can't split its attention between driving and following a conversation and give it's full attention to both.
Laws against cell phone use have not reduced accident rates.
That proves nothing, unless you can show that the law actually succeeded in substantially reducing cell-phone use in cars.
e.g. with data from the carriers showing reduced cell handovers. Were the laws strongly enforced and publicised?
My thoughts exactly. I'd rather see a study on how the number of tickets issued for cell phone use lines up with accident rates. The law can be on the books, but if it isn't enforced it may have no effect.
Slashdot Mirror
I see zero reason why any company would pay for business or first class. It's like paying ten times the what it would otherwise cost, for...what, the chance to have 3 nips of something on the way? Good for Amazon for not flushing its money down the drain.
I get the impression you have never traveled business class. On a trans-atlantic filght, it makes a world of difference. It is the difference between stepping off the plane feeling like you have been shipped in a crate and feeling like you just woke up from a nice nap. When I flew business class, I didn't want to get off the plane and when we arrived I was like, "Oh, were here already?"
So, one has to break the law to participate in modern business? I have suspected that for a while now...
You missed the point and are being naive. Cultures and attitudes vary across the world - not every culture mirrors yours.
What does that have to do with US law? HP broke US law. They should be held to account for that. If your point is that HP couldn't do business in these countries without breaking US law, then perhaps HP shouldn't do business in these countries. However, from what I read, they broke the laws of these other countries as well. So it seems that this is not simply how business is conducted. I understand that you can't get a building built on Staten Island without the okay from the local boss. But that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean we should just accept it as business as usual.
From TFA: "The Polish government has elected to charge several individuals — both from HP and the government — in criminal cases in an investigation related to the guilty plea from HP" . So charges in fact have been filed, just not in USA.
Kind of makes Fredrated's point, eh?
How about killing the lobbyists? Would that solve the problem? If that drives the lobbyists underground, kill the senators... :\
No, it would not. Others would take their place. And if enough were killed it would bring the power of the state down on you.
Corporations are not people. They don't make decisions. Executives make decisions.
Lock the bastards up.
Of course, one of the purposes of a corporation is to limit liability. That way, if you start a business and fail, the creditors can't come after you personally. This is often seen as a good thing, encouraging risk taking without the fear of personal ruin. I might generally agree with that. But we are now seeing this limit on liability being used to shield decision-makers from the consequences of their decisions. This is especially true if the company is politically connected. What large company isn't these days? I'm starting to think the best way to commit crime is to start a corporation and have the "company" do it.
Yes, I do see the difference. I think the exclusionary rule is important for keeping the state and its law enforcement honest. As you acknowledged in your original post, it's hard to get the cops to go after other cops. So keeping their ill-gotten evidence, even if it is factual, out of the courtroom helps to keep them on the up and up. Letting them use such evidence places a value on their law-breaking. We're basically saying, "What you did was wrong, and you will be punished, but we'll still use what you got." That's why I said earlier that it sends a mixed message. It's like saying it's wrong to rob a bank, but we'll help you spend the money. See what I'm saying?
Right, in a slightly less sarcastic tone, let me point out that yes, it should be evidence at your trial. "Ladies and Gent of the Juror, here we present evidence that our client was assaulted by police and forced to give an illegal confession. This of course has no legal standing, but shows the incompetence and lack of professional conduct of the prosecutors."
And of course it would figure largely into the officer's trial.
I know this is just a thought experiment, and that you understand that there are problems with having fruit of the poisoned tree allowed as evidence. I think that as this has played out we have seen why that is not a good idea. Law enforcement must play by the rules. And if they don't, their efforts should be in vain. The exclusionary principle exists for a very good reason. If I rob a bank, I should not get to keep the money as long as I do jail time. Likewise, if an officer of the law breaks the law to obtain evidence, they should not get to keep that evidence.
Right. Because the police wiretapping you illegally or following your car illegally or entering your home illegally is /exactly/ the same as battery. Thanks for clearing that up.
You never specified what illegal things the cops might do to obtain evidence against a person. I understood your position to be that if evidence is obtained illegally, it should still be admissible at trial. I think that is a really bad idea, so I came up with a scenario that seemed to fit your position (police obtaining evidence illegally) that would show it's absurdity. I think I accomplished that. Not everyone brought to trial is guilty. Evidence obtained illegally should absolutely not be admissible for the very reason that it was obtained illegally, regardless of the punishment to the officer.
No mixed message at all. Evidence collected about one crime (the violation of rights) can be used in another (murder investigation). Just like the evidence collected about one crime (theft) can be used in another (murder investigation).
I see. So you think if you are falsely accused of murder and the police beat a confession out of you anyway, that confession should still be allowed as evidence at your trial. Interesting.
Maybe not get charged with the same crime, but throwing out evidence is stupid. If we know somebody say, committed murder, letting them go to punish the police for violating the rules is mindbogglingly stupid. No, what you need to do is use the evidence that was gathered to get the murderer off the streets, then you try the officer for violating the rights of the suspect.
So we should use the evidence but punish the person who obtained it. At least we won't be sending a mixed message.
And you know for sure they're not?
This is 1400+ years of what Islam is about
All of them? Yeah, I know for sure that not all Muslims are terrorists.
It's pretty clear that we don't know who all of the hijackers were. A number seem to have used false or stolen passports (since those people have turned up alive). The FBI seems happy to stick with the story they've got though.
Funny how I was called a tinfoil hatter for talking about that place in the 1980s.
Isn't that the way it goes though? Those of us interested in the inner and hidden workings of the government will always be considered paranoid, because people still seem to assume that if some spokesperson says it's not true then it's not true.
I don't really understand why anyone trusts the CIA at all with anything anymore. I mean, they have lied so often for their own purposes. Talk about tinfoil hat, I still firmly believe the Company has agents stationed throughout the media to monitor and control the message. That kind of bullshit was supposed to have stopped after the Church committee hearings. But why should I believe that? Wouldn't the CIA just continue the program under a different name and just not tell anyone? How naive are we?
The CIA does what it wants. Stuff only comes out if they fuck up so badly they can't hide it, or when it's useful to someone's agenda. We get called tinfoil hatters, but end up being right a lot of the time.
You children don't know what torture really is. Read about how our soldiers where treated in North Korea or North Vietnam. How the captured Soviets were treated in Afghanistan. How North Korea or the old Soviet Union treated dissidents.... Grow up hipsters and hippies. It's a bad, mean old world out there.
How is this relevant to our actions? Do we judge our actions only against those of others, or do we have standards of our own that we should strive to uphold? It is indeed a mean world out there. I'd like to try to make it less that way, rather than contributing to the problem. It's only a mean world because people and nations, including our own, make it that way.
Agreed arresting them would be the just thing to do. But like all of the actions from that period their orders originated from the highest levels of the executive ...
That thing in the Constitution about rising up and revolting ... Does that include shooting your politicians? You'd think that would be a good place to start. Is anybody doing anything about that?
If someone did, would the media tell you that they did? If the media didn't, how would you know?
And if the Media did, how would they portray that person? Would they describe them as a legitimate revolutionary, or as a freedom-hating terrorist? Besides, who knows what would happen after we started shooting politicians? I'm not sure it' a good idea.
Nissan has eliminated all manual transmissions for CVT's instead.
Wow, even in the Z and GT-R? That kinda sucks...
I've smoked too many S-2000s in my stock (as far as engine and drivetrain are concerned) Corolla, my mods extend to creature comforts and luxury features only. One guy was so pissed off at losing the first time that he burned out his clutch trying to keep his engine speed up for torque off the start on our second run. Perhaps I've just encountered a series of bad drivers in S-2000s; but, if bad drivers are frequent owners of S-2000s, I'm not sure I want to put that label on myself. That said, my PM, who also happens to be one of the best drivers I know, loves them, so I'm torn, honestly.
S2000's are like most Hondas; they have no torque to speak of. That little car has to get above about 5000 RPM before it actually makes any power. Coming from a turbo car (gobs or torque), they are frustrating to drive for me. But they handle really well. Really well. In anything but a straight line an S2000 would beat your Corolla.
Hey, the ole double nickle was for FUEL EFFICIENCY, not for safety or anything else. It was about getting better MPG with all those thirsty V8's and was extremely frustrating for all involved.
Carter (a.k.a. Obama's first of three terms) was all over that Arab Oil embargo thing and this was his best shot at a fix. Yea, it was stupid, but what else do you expect from a peanut farmer/Community organizer....
No, speed kills, okay? If you drive over the limit you are needlessly endangering all around you so that you can get where you are going 5 seconds sooner. You selfish prick! The speed limits were calculated scientifically and are there for your safety. If you speed you are worse than Hitler and only a little better than Ted Nugent. What makes you think you're so special? Huh? HUH?
So, after receiving this response on a number of posts I have to ask, is there a generally accepted interpretation for such a comment? As best I can tell it originated on a Simpsons episode in a not-completely-ironic context, but I really, *really* hope at least some of the responses I've gotten have been heavily ironic. After all they've mostly been in response to deliberately inflammatory posts. (What can I say, sometimes I feel the need to stir the pot. A good argument is far more enlightening than an echo chamber.)
You are correct as to its origin. The generally accepted interpretation is that you are a crackpot and the responder is ironically playing the role of the gullible dupe who is actually interested in your ridiculous ideas. Homer is kind of an idiot. He bought Lisa's rock to keep the tigers away after all. So it's not as ironic in his situation.
Please note I am not actually calling you a crackpot, just explaining the gag.
I call BS on that, or having passengers talking to you cause accidents.
It's not the same. A passenger is a second set of eyes, helping the driver avoid accidents. The conversation in the car will also naturally pause when the driver must concentrate, and the passenger expects that. Talking on the phone, the driver must do it all by themselves and the other party expect there to be a flow in conversation which the driver must keep up.
Holding the device always makes it worse, especially when dialing. Especially in a stick-shift.
People still drive stick-shifts? I drive a stick-shift, but most people couldn't drive my car for that very reason.
I'll make that call right here (since I'm not in a car ;-) ). I think it should be much more difficult to get a driver's license in the US. As it stands now, in most states you have to demonstrate only a bare minimum of competency to get a license. Car and skid control? Accident avoidance techniques? Ain't nobody got time for that!
And studies where people are actually driving in real world environments find that talking on the phone does not increase accidents. They did find that operating the phone does, at a similar rate to any other activity that takes one's eyes off the road for a second. The dialing is dangerous, the talking not so much so. In the real world that is, because in the real world people aren't hyper focused on driving, the phone cuts into that other part, not the driving part.
It's the day dreaming, the trying to place a song, drinking of coffee, adjusting the radio, etc. Part of the brain that the phone deprives in real life.
In the study you mention, all that is artificially focused on driving.
I'm not sure about that. From Wikipedia: "Across these three studies, 120 participants performed in both baseline and cell phone conditions. Two of the participants in our studies were involved in an accident in baseline conditions, whereas 10 participants were involved in an accident when they were conversing on a cell phone." However zero (0) drunk drivers had accidents in any of the tests. After controlling for driving difficulty and time on task, the study concluded that cell phone drivers exhibited greater impairment than intoxicated drivers."
Personally, I can feel the lack of focus when I'm talking on the phone while driving. As a result, I hardly ever do it. I pull over or do not participate in the call. I can say that I am definitely distracted while driving and talking on the phone. And from what I see in my fellow drivers, I'm not the only one. It's not about hands-free or looking at the phone. It is a neural resources thing. The human brain can't split its attention between driving and following a conversation and give it's full attention to both.
Laws against cell phone use have not reduced accident rates.
That proves nothing, unless you can show that the law actually succeeded in substantially reducing cell-phone use in cars. e.g. with data from the carriers showing reduced cell handovers. Were the laws strongly enforced and publicised?
My thoughts exactly. I'd rather see a study on how the number of tickets issued for cell phone use lines up with accident rates. The law can be on the books, but if it isn't enforced it may have no effect.