Ah, I see. Because I used the phrase "Godwin's law" as shorthand for "making unwarranted comparisons to Hitler," I must revere Godwin as a god? And my mind is defective?
<sarcasm>Ad hominem attacks sure are great! You can make them without having any idea what the hell you're talking about!</sarcasm>
Also, I'm pretty sure they don't murder mentally defective infants in my country (or, given your reasoning abilities, yours).
Eh. "I don't trust a single one of them" seems pretty much in line with "Everything and everyone," and you didn't actually make any mention of better review in a fundamental way, just claimed that any review that is internal to the police force is worthless.
"Not all of them are corrupt" isn't utopian by a longshot; it's right down the middle. "They're all corrupt" is dystopian.
Have your parents been involved in every police department in every city in the world? This is part of the problem: people who have experience with some members of a group making sweeping generalizations.
To be blunt, I said that they aren't competent, not that they aren't capable. Maybe you're the one ten year old capable of entering into a mature, adult sexual relation with another ten year old, in between arguing over pokemon cards and trying to keep good grades in elementary school. I don't believe you, but it's theoretically possible that you're the Ubermensch.
And really? A ten year old is going to manage a relationship and behave responsibly, never mess up the birth control, not get weird, possessive, possibly abusive? And is going to do this under conditions where the relationship must, at all costs, remain secret?
Still doesn't matter, because if the birth control fucks up and the female half gets pregnant, whoops, someone's body is fucked for life.
Just because you did it and survived doesn't make it an ok thing to do. It is just not ever going to be ok to let ten year olds have sex. Period.
Rodney King (Random example, not perfect, police scandals exist and have been documented throughout history), and your cover-up argument is moronic to begin with, given that what I was actually saying is that "Police do their job" isn't news. No one needs to hide or not hide it, it's just normal (or, at the least, expected/required behavior) and thus below the radar for non-malicious reasons.
My point is that the "Thin Blue Line" mentality you are talking about is not universal or inherent to police or police work. It is a problem WHERE IT EXISTS.
Acknowledging the possibility and existence of corruption is good. Saying "Oh, everything and everyone is corrupt and it's unfixable oh noes!" is worse than useless.
Males and females hit PUBERTY at that age. They are by no means sexually mature; they're not even finished growing their secondary characteristics. Up until about 17 - 18, they have an INSANE level of danger from pregnancy, they fail to recover from it well (almost certain anemia, for example), and frankly, they're really not mentally or emotionally competant to deal with the realities of sex.
By definition, the good cops WILL NOT. They cease being the good cops, there.
And this ignores the existence of internal affairs, whose whole purpose is to maintain accountability and reduce corruption.
The view of the police as solely an evil or oppressive force is massively reductionist, and at least as naive as the view of them as being solely capable of good actions.
And, given that the hard drive business is about finding evidence to prove in court, not about catching them in the first place, I'd guess that it's not really going to be a deal. For one thing, the court can order you to unencrypt that volume, and while you can refuse, that refusal then becomes evidence against you.
While correct (I believe, in the case of both the laptop and the apartment) on the practical matter, the apartment thing is more a case of residence statutes, rather than ownership. After all, the landlord DOES own the apartment he rents to you.
Yeeeeah.... because threats to our constitution and human rights have been coming out of the left lately.
See George W. Bush. See where the Patriot act and its successors have come out of. See which Supreme Court justices have been upholding Guantanamo, and which ones dissenting.
In summary, try and think for a change, instead of responding to the emotional weight that the term socialism has.
Also, to think Obama is a socialist, you have to be either uninformed, misinformed, or stupid. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say number two.
If the law is as important as you say it is, then should we not follow it.
Such as the laws governing unlawful search and seizure?
Also, if you'd actually read his post, he stated a cracked game that was legally paid for (i.e. using a NoCD hack on a game he owns so that he wouldn't have to use the CD, or perhaps getting past copy protection that was misfiring and preventing him from playing the game he purchased).
But even ignoring that, is there relative importance of laws? Yes, sentencing being variable proves that handily. And is it possible to disagree with certain laws, or even believe them invalid based on conflict with higher laws (i.e. DMCA falling before fair use [note: Not claiming this position, just claiming it exists])?
I would say yes.
"It's for the children" stuff is not some abstract thing that you can so handily dismiss.
Well, actually, "It's for the children" is a statement that tends to have no factual basis, be unconnected with real children, and be used solely for political force and shock value. Even if you ignore that, it's still a vague, highly abstracted statement.
With this decision, the courts have just given license to all of those who kidnap or exploit children to make this pornography, by giving them a cash cow.
This statement is also based on third-rate logic and abstraction. As best I can parse it, your theory is that, by preventing convictions under unwarranted searches, this will ensure a thriving pedophile economy to boom, driving profits up for child pornographers. If you're going to say something makes something more profitable, say that, instead of "gives license to." Also, I suspect that you're just wrong there, honestly.
I have my own questions on whether discarding the evidence regardless of severity of crime is a good thing, but the tradition itself is important; it's the only real way to control the government's use of search and seizure. A fine won't do it; at the very least, the station could just have an unofficial kitty, and put five bucks a paycheck in to cover the fine if someone wants to bust down a door illegally.
Preferring one inept slam based on a false image of Obama's political stance over another is just as well, I guess.
Also, I find it funny that you CHOOSE to Godwin yourself every time you post by default, with a sig that could be easily mistaken for a declaration of white supremacy.
Your non-Obama point stands and is fine, of course.
And the hell of it is, the 22 year old that accidentally slept with a 17 year old; well, he's still going to be forbidden to see his 12 year old sister until she grows up. He's still going to have to find some place to live that's not within ten miles of schools.
These sorts of liminal states are just going to come up more and more, and to be bigger and bigger problems, partly due to the utterly awful sexualization of girls' clothing. At this point, the difference between a 15 year old's clothing and an 18 year old's is likely that the 15 year old's clothing is skimpier and sluttier.
We need to do two things; we need to make some judgments that are currently just binary, i.e. either you're sex offender registry or you're not, into more gradated judgments. And we need to work to reverse the societal trends that are driving people to consider banging people at the edge of consent (and beyond) optimal.
Hey: amazingly enough, there aren't actually a bunch of democrats screaming for "Up with pedophiles, down with children!"
There are a lot of us trying to increase funding for schools, see that our kids learn science in science class instead of religion, and do other things to concretely benefit everyone's children.
The above poster's point, and it is a good one, is that demonizing any class of criminals is actually not very helpful to actually CATCHING and STOPPING them. Pedophiles are people too... people doing horrible things, who we need to catch as soon as possible. Hysteria about it doesn't help. Look up the "Satanic Panic" sometime, for an example of the dangers that completely innocent people can suffer from societal panic.
Also, it's just making you look stupid to take a single person's statement and try and spread it into a "THIS IS PROOF ABOUT LIBERAL EVIL." A person who, by the way, may not actually even hold 'liberal' beliefs, given that his question on Obama doesn't actually show whether he's pro or anti, just that he thinks a Hitler allegory is inept.
Seriously, get the fuck out of my gender, you waste of sperm.
Anyone who's not a fucked-up case of arrested development eventually realizes that women ARE PEOPLE. It's not cool or a sign of your manliness to reduce them to just sexual objects; what it is is a sign that you are going to have one-sided, unfulfilling relationships, that you're going to be a bad lover (probably physically, but certainly over any span of more than a couple sexual encounters), and that you're going to hurt people who don't deserve it. Making you an asshole.
Seriously, grow the fuck up. You are pathetic, and there's no excuse for this kind of bullshit, anywhere.
Monolithic, not all monolithic kernels are older than all microkernels, and, well, the boundaries of what OS means are fuzzy, but most people put them well outside of the kernel. Personally, I'd probably consider at least everything above the "resident in motherboard" level that's needed to boot the kernel into a state where you can run userspace programs on it. Again, this may not be your definition, but I think it's closer to the consensus definition than "The Kernel is the OS."
Not all game consoles use DRM, not all phone-platforms are DRM-tabulous, and both are narrow, niche corners of the software industry that are BY NATURE very closely tied to specialized hardware.
Still nowhere close to a generalized "Let's make all software DRM" movement.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, I see. Because I used the phrase "Godwin's law" as shorthand for "making unwarranted comparisons to Hitler," I must revere Godwin as a god? And my mind is defective?
<sarcasm>Ad hominem attacks sure are great! You can make them without having any idea what the hell you're talking about!</sarcasm>
Also, I'm pretty sure they don't murder mentally defective infants in my country (or, given your reasoning abilities, yours).
Eh. "I don't trust a single one of them" seems pretty much in line with "Everything and everyone," and you didn't actually make any mention of better review in a fundamental way, just claimed that any review that is internal to the police force is worthless.
"Not all of them are corrupt" isn't utopian by a longshot; it's right down the middle. "They're all corrupt" is dystopian.
Have your parents been involved in every police department in every city in the world? This is part of the problem: people who have experience with some members of a group making sweeping generalizations.
To be blunt, I said that they aren't competent, not that they aren't capable. Maybe you're the one ten year old capable of entering into a mature, adult sexual relation with another ten year old, in between arguing over pokemon cards and trying to keep good grades in elementary school. I don't believe you, but it's theoretically possible that you're the Ubermensch.
And really? A ten year old is going to manage a relationship and behave responsibly, never mess up the birth control, not get weird, possessive, possibly abusive? And is going to do this under conditions where the relationship must, at all costs, remain secret?
Still doesn't matter, because if the birth control fucks up and the female half gets pregnant, whoops, someone's body is fucked for life.
Just because you did it and survived doesn't make it an ok thing to do. It is just not ever going to be ok to let ten year olds have sex. Period.
It's not obvious that it's about Obama, was part of my statement. It just looks like the kind of crap skinheads spout.
Also, that if is ridiculously false, and makes you look at minimum crazy and hyperbolic, at maximum like a stupid racist.
Rodney King (Random example, not perfect, police scandals exist and have been documented throughout history), and your cover-up argument is moronic to begin with, given that what I was actually saying is that "Police do their job" isn't news. No one needs to hide or not hide it, it's just normal (or, at the least, expected/required behavior) and thus below the radar for non-malicious reasons.
My point is that the "Thin Blue Line" mentality you are talking about is not universal or inherent to police or police work. It is a problem WHERE IT EXISTS.
Acknowledging the possibility and existence of corruption is good. Saying "Oh, everything and everyone is corrupt and it's unfixable oh noes!" is worse than useless.
Males and females hit PUBERTY at that age. They are by no means sexually mature; they're not even finished growing their secondary characteristics. Up until about 17 - 18, they have an INSANE level of danger from pregnancy, they fail to recover from it well (almost certain anemia, for example), and frankly, they're really not mentally or emotionally competant to deal with the realities of sex.
By definition, the good cops WILL NOT. They cease being the good cops, there.
And this ignores the existence of internal affairs, whose whole purpose is to maintain accountability and reduce corruption.
The view of the police as solely an evil or oppressive force is massively reductionist, and at least as naive as the view of them as being solely capable of good actions.
Plenty of smart people get caught, dude.
And, given that the hard drive business is about finding evidence to prove in court, not about catching them in the first place, I'd guess that it's not really going to be a deal. For one thing, the court can order you to unencrypt that volume, and while you can refuse, that refusal then becomes evidence against you.
While correct (I believe, in the case of both the laptop and the apartment) on the practical matter, the apartment thing is more a case of residence statutes, rather than ownership. After all, the landlord DOES own the apartment he rents to you.
No guarantee that the technicians had the legal know-how, or the desire to do anything other than finish the job and go home.
It's not their responsibility, in the end. They might not even be privy to whether there's a warrant or not.
Yeeeeah.... because threats to our constitution and human rights have been coming out of the left lately.
See George W. Bush. See where the Patriot act and its successors have come out of. See which Supreme Court justices have been upholding Guantanamo, and which ones dissenting.
In summary, try and think for a change, instead of responding to the emotional weight that the term socialism has.
Also, to think Obama is a socialist, you have to be either uninformed, misinformed, or stupid. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and say number two.
Ummmm.... I'm going to quote you here, alright?
Such as the laws governing unlawful search and seizure?
Also, if you'd actually read his post, he stated a cracked game that was legally paid for (i.e. using a NoCD hack on a game he owns so that he wouldn't have to use the CD, or perhaps getting past copy protection that was misfiring and preventing him from playing the game he purchased).
But even ignoring that, is there relative importance of laws? Yes, sentencing being variable proves that handily. And is it possible to disagree with certain laws, or even believe them invalid based on conflict with higher laws (i.e. DMCA falling before fair use [note: Not claiming this position, just claiming it exists])? I would say yes.
Sigh.
There are good cops, there are bad cops. There are stations where police are the problem, and there are stations that do their job by the rule of law.
This is a reductionist argument that comes out of the fact that abuses of police power are news, and "Policeman does his job" isn't.
Well, actually, "It's for the children" is a statement that tends to have no factual basis, be unconnected with real children, and be used solely for political force and shock value. Even if you ignore that, it's still a vague, highly abstracted statement.
This statement is also based on third-rate logic and abstraction. As best I can parse it, your theory is that, by preventing convictions under unwarranted searches, this will ensure a thriving pedophile economy to boom, driving profits up for child pornographers. If you're going to say something makes something more profitable, say that, instead of "gives license to." Also, I suspect that you're just wrong there, honestly.
I have my own questions on whether discarding the evidence regardless of severity of crime is a good thing, but the tradition itself is important; it's the only real way to control the government's use of search and seizure. A fine won't do it; at the very least, the station could just have an unofficial kitty, and put five bucks a paycheck in to cover the fine if someone wants to bust down a door illegally.
Preferring one inept slam based on a false image of Obama's political stance over another is just as well, I guess.
Also, I find it funny that you CHOOSE to Godwin yourself every time you post by default, with a sig that could be easily mistaken for a declaration of white supremacy.
Your non-Obama point stands and is fine, of course.
I hate, hate, hate replying to a sig, but whose daddy's job is stealing from the neighbors?
I think the metaphor is a little mixed here, all I'm sayin'
And the hell of it is, the 22 year old that accidentally slept with a 17 year old; well, he's still going to be forbidden to see his 12 year old sister until she grows up. He's still going to have to find some place to live that's not within ten miles of schools.
These sorts of liminal states are just going to come up more and more, and to be bigger and bigger problems, partly due to the utterly awful sexualization of girls' clothing. At this point, the difference between a 15 year old's clothing and an 18 year old's is likely that the 15 year old's clothing is skimpier and sluttier.
We need to do two things; we need to make some judgments that are currently just binary, i.e. either you're sex offender registry or you're not, into more gradated judgments. And we need to work to reverse the societal trends that are driving people to consider banging people at the edge of consent (and beyond) optimal.
Hey: amazingly enough, there aren't actually a bunch of democrats screaming for "Up with pedophiles, down with children!"
There are a lot of us trying to increase funding for schools, see that our kids learn science in science class instead of religion, and do other things to concretely benefit everyone's children.
The above poster's point, and it is a good one, is that demonizing any class of criminals is actually not very helpful to actually CATCHING and STOPPING them. Pedophiles are people too... people doing horrible things, who we need to catch as soon as possible. Hysteria about it doesn't help. Look up the "Satanic Panic" sometime, for an example of the dangers that completely innocent people can suffer from societal panic.
Also, it's just making you look stupid to take a single person's statement and try and spread it into a "THIS IS PROOF ABOUT LIBERAL EVIL." A person who, by the way, may not actually even hold 'liberal' beliefs, given that his question on Obama doesn't actually show whether he's pro or anti, just that he thinks a Hitler allegory is inept.
Mod parent +1 ironic, I believe.
Yeah, cause women aren't people, awesome.
Seriously, get the fuck out of my gender, you waste of sperm.
Anyone who's not a fucked-up case of arrested development eventually realizes that women ARE PEOPLE. It's not cool or a sign of your manliness to reduce them to just sexual objects; what it is is a sign that you are going to have one-sided, unfulfilling relationships, that you're going to be a bad lover (probably physically, but certainly over any span of more than a couple sexual encounters), and that you're going to hurt people who don't deserve it. Making you an asshole.
Seriously, grow the fuck up. You are pathetic, and there's no excuse for this kind of bullshit, anywhere.
Wow. +20 jerk-off points for using other people (women, in this case) as props for your own ego.
I mean, misogyny may be the rule at old Slash U more days than not, but you, sir, are a grade-a special asshole.
Yeah. I was doing the same with Xine for a while.
If the command line thing doesn't do it for you, Beep media player is pretty solid Winamp-esque win.
Monolithic, not all monolithic kernels are older than all microkernels, and, well, the boundaries of what OS means are fuzzy, but most people put them well outside of the kernel. Personally, I'd probably consider at least everything above the "resident in motherboard" level that's needed to boot the kernel into a state where you can run userspace programs on it. Again, this may not be your definition, but I think it's closer to the consensus definition than "The Kernel is the OS."
Not all game consoles use DRM, not all phone-platforms are DRM-tabulous, and both are narrow, niche corners of the software industry that are BY NATURE very closely tied to specialized hardware.
Still nowhere close to a generalized "Let's make all software DRM" movement.
Assuming you have a full-duplex soundcard.
Hey! Don't look at me like that! I didn't know when I bought the *&#^er!