I counter that with why not both? If I can have my data and my application available to me anywhere, why not?
Now, you're 100% correct in suggesting that there will always be interfaces and applications more complex than what can reasonably be sent over a wire. I think this will always exist. for instance, videogames. The data is more and more on the net, but the shell is almost always a rich client that exploits the machines capabilities. Downloading this shell and running it isn't very practical, obviously. So that's a limitation.
The hybrid you suggest is probably right on. That's how it usually goes with things, anyways.
As for limiting myself to a browser, I've used that term here in reference to something like an application factory and protocol factory. A browser wouldn't be anything monolithic like we use today.
The key difference, and this is critical: Today's Web adapts itself to the Web browser. A future net would have web browsers that adapt themselves to the application and data.
But what good are my documents if I don't have the tool to use them? I have my source code available to me anywhere, but not every machine is going to have the IDE I like. So I can't work on it anywhere. And I don't have global source control. And my database is out of reach too.
If the application is available to me anywhere, and it's as good as a modern rich application, that's all the better. If I had a SQL server that was hosted somewhere, pointed to by the UI I like somewhere else and accessed by software I'm writing somewhere else, I see benefit in that. I can go to another city and show people my entire platform. I can work wherever I want and not have a change in limits.
I'm not talking a single, global protocol to solve them all. But a protocol that's a factor for other protocols. Why not develop a protocol compiler that takes a protocol definition language and makes it available to networked machines? The "browser" now has this specialized protocol, built with a universal UI protocol, etc. I'm just making this crap up obviously, but you'd have to imagine it's obtainable.
I agree, we need to get past HTTP. It simply doesn't work as well as other protocols for certain tasks. Can we go a step further and develop a protocol factory? Can we make available programs, preferences and data anywhere all interconnected by another protocol?
Think outside the world of Web browsers you're in right now. Think about Client Factories and such. Why does a future Web protocol manager or whatever have to be tied to similar limitations we have now? Especially since it would be designed with these limitations in mind. A benefit the original HTTP authors didn't have.
Can a web language be developed that's recursive? How about a protocol definition language? Can we create rich UI's on the fly outside the browser? When are we going to have enough bandwidth to reasonably transfer users preferences, programs and data over a wire?
I'm just trying to think outside the box here a little. HTTP was designed to deliver HTML. Simple solution to a simple idea. But things are different now. We have stronger machines, faster wires, more devices and a desire to be more and more connected. HTTP was designed to fulfill a need and has since been manipulated 1000 fold. Why can't we learn form this, build something new that's more in tune with what people want? That is to have access to everything all the time from anywhere. Preserve a persons preferences among all applications. Share data across different programs, etc.
"Every text field in every application gets spellchecked by the same dictionary, making it worth my while to actually add context-specific words to it. Copy/paste and drag/drop work smoothly between essentially all entities in all contexts in all applications. When I change my interface theme, all applications change along with it. And on, and on, and on."
Why would this cease to exist? I'm not sure why this wouldn't be possible still. Protocols, standards and distribution couldn't be designed to keep these very important features intact? So, you not only have these same features, but now your preferences, programs, settings, etc, etc are ubiquitous and available to any supporting platform. Recall you're not limited by HTTP any longer in this imaginary world of mine.
"Web applications nearly always force the bundling of software and service. What if I like gmail's interface but prefer someone else's storage backend? Or if I like Yahoo's map database but want to use my own front end for it? Too bad, they're bundled together"
Another fine point. I agree. You'd hope with an open protocol the power of consumer choice would make this available?
I don't know. I don't know the answers to a lot of questions. I'm only proposing that it entirely makes sense that applications could be moved to the web and maintain the features you enjoy about them today. A reconstruction of Web protocols, "browsers", etc could very well make this possible. I don't think it's neatly possible right now.
But the benefits of having your documents, you programs, your preferences and settings available to you everywhere, on any device running any platform, is at least a little interesting.
Use it to compile more and more JavaScript and render more and more complicated Web pages. People don't like rich clients because the Web is ubiquitous. The age of the desktop application is coming to an end. I don't expect most things to be replaced on the current Web using current HTTP, but it's clear there is a movement to move everything to the Web that can be. Expect a new platform and set of protocols to become a new standard in the next 10 years that make web clients more and more rich and more and more practical.
You're completely wrong. It's a trick question they're asking you. If you say yes they will ask how many. It doesn't even matter what you say because as soon as you say yes, you're a suspected DUI.
They ask everyone this question and whoever says yes will be asked to step out of their car.
When they ask this and you say no, you're saying no to something that isn't defined. They ask "Have you been drinking?". What does this mean? Define drinking? Is it a drink, 5 drinks? To me, drinking means to go out and really drink. If I have a couple, that's not drinking.
Cops use subjective terms to gather information to help them make choices. Telling a cop no when asked if you've been drinking will help you. Admitting guilt will never help you. IF they figure out you've been drinking and ask you why you "lied", tell them you didn't lie. You didn't feel as if you had been drinking and answered no because you felt it was the truth. Your interpretation of it is the cop was asking you if you are drunk. You didn't think you were and said no.
I think it's more likely that HTTP is overhauled to make Web Apps more practical and rich.
This will probably be as a result of someone not happy with the current protocols inability to naturally support this type of communication without workarounds.
I like the idea of Web Apps and what companies like Google are trying to do, through practicality and experimentation. I'd agree HTTP isn't ideal and that Javascript is involved too much in the work around. It's reasonable to believe that HTTP won't be the protocol of the future.
It would appear what we see now, the movements towards richer interfaces and Javascript intensive Websites and Web Apps as the natural precursor to this protocol. We are interconnected and people are comfortable with it. We've become good at delivering data to a static content renderer and can manipulate it some with a client side programming language giving the impression of richness. People are trying to stretch this ability as far as they can and so far it has been practical. Needs will eventually outgrow what's possible however and a new protocol will have to be used.
Expect Web Apps and such to stick around. But keep in mind it's early and experimental right now. The future will likely bring a protocol designed around this paradigm.
I'd probably get the advice of a lawyer to be sure.
A lot of people don't know that in every state I've researched, you never have to take any road side test of any kind. That includes the portable Breathalyzers. No roadside test in any state is admissible as evidence either. They're only tools to aid officers in making arrests.
When you fail these tests they will take you to a station that has a "real" breathalyser and you have to take that or take a blood test. Always better off with the blood test.
Really, you don't have to take a blood test either. They can't force it. But then you lose your license and get a large fine none the less.
"You do realize that if the cop pulled you over, there's usually a traffic-related reason? Like... perhaps you missed the stop sign back there, or you've had your left blinker on since you left the bar, or maybe you're playing chicken with the trees."
That's not necessarily the case. You could be pulled over because you're black in the wrong neighborhood. You could be pulled over because you're a young male in a sports car. You could be pulled over because a taillight is out. You could be pulled over for doing 5 over and the cop just wants to pull you over.
I agree, if you've been drinking enough that you're dodging trees, missing stop signs, etc, you should not be driving a car and going to jail serves you right. But getting pulled over after drinking doesn't mean you were pulled over for suspect drunk driving. Cops can pull just about anyone over for any reason. They profile after bar time for people that fit the mold of drunk drivers (young males).
It sounds terrible, but you're mainly right. I'm not advocating drinking and driving, but it's not like it's an evil thing to have a few and drive somewhere. Compare to most people on their phones, eating things, reading things, doing their makeup, driving with a knee, yelling at the kids in the back seat, day dreaming, asleep at the wheel, changing the radio, senile with a license and it's about the same. But the prosecution is obviously much worse.
Drinking and driving is the bastard of poor driving technique.
Drunk driving is an entirely different thing. When you're sloshed you absolutely should not be driving a car. But going out and having a few with your friends and driving home (on mainly vacant streets) has gotten so blown out of proportion. A.08 is hardly anything to seasoned drinkers but yet the prosecution is there. I know I drive much more attentively and aware with a.08 than the people committing the acts I listed above. The difference is I'll drive home with a.08 past midnight on mainly vacant streets while they're on the road at all times.
Just informing people about their rights and how to protect themselves in case they find themselves in this predicament.
I'm not advocating anyone drink and drive. I'm advocating people know their rights and how to protect themselves. I hope people would make intelligent, informed decisions about driving after drinking.
I can't imagine a DUI ruining someones life. It would suck to get and a series of them can really mess things up, but it won't ruin your life.
Also, you refer to it with the propaganda word "drunk driving". To be over the limit doesn't mean you're drunk. In fact, plenty of people could have a.08 and be perfectly sober all things considered.
You don't have to take a breathalyser or do any road side test. And in fact you shouldn't. Even if you have been never tell the cop you've been drinking when pulled over.
What you do have to do is submit to a blood test at a hospital if the suspect you of drunk driving. If you don't then you'll lose your license.
Here's some advice if pulled over:
When asked if you've been drinking, say no. They always ask this question a night. If you say yes you've had one or whatever, you are a suspected DUI. They usually won't smell things on your breath or whatever. Just say no and they'll probably just ask to run your license and give you a speeding ticket. Unless it's obvious you're drunk
When asked to get out of the car, comply. You have to. If they ask you to do ANY roadside test, decline. You will be pressured here. Simply say your lawyer informed you to never do a roadside test under any circumstance. The cop will evaluate you at this time. One of 2 things will happen now.
If you're borderline and seem to be "normal" or not very drunk, they'll probably let you go with a ticket. They realize that it will be a waste of their time to arrest you take you down to the hospital, file reports, etc only to find out you are at.07. Remember, the time it takes from pulling you over to actually taking a test is often over an hour. You will likely have sobered up some by this point. And potentially moved from a.1 to a.7 fairly easily. Or even from a more serious.12 to a less expensive and serious.9 or something borderline.
If you're obviously drunk, they'll take you down confidently knowing you will fail the test and be charged. But that's the price you pay for driving when sloshed.
The keys: Never admit to drinking anything. This can only hurt you. Let your lawyer do the talking. Refuse any roadside test. They can only hurt you. Cooperate and take a blood test. Potentially an hour or more after you've been pulled over. You will invariably be more sober than when you were pulled over. This works to your advantage.
I said originally the store was wrong, too. As was the cop. They all are in fact. But, he's going to be the one paying for it. That's the reality of it all.
The bigger guy might not be right, but he'll win. Like someone else said here, "you might be right, but you'll be dead". You have to use your head when picking battles. This battle is such unimportant drivel, it isn't worth creating a scene and getting arrested. It's selfish. You might have a right to a crosswalk, but if a car is driving by and hits you because you refused to give up your right, you're dead. You were "right" but you were also an idiot and now you're dead. That's a consequence of being right.
The lesson is don't act like an idiot. He knows he was being an ass and he paid for it. Violated rights and all. Too damn bad.
Obviously I'm a corporate tool. It should be obvious that because I think this guy wasn't practical or pragmatic in going about his business. He was what they call someone "asking for it". And even though he's "right", it doesn't make him correct.
I travel in packs, not herds. But I also concern myself with important things in life. Not challenging authority figures over stupid things like this.
He got arrested because he was giving a cop a hard time. You think the cops going to get in trouble? Yeah right. These guys murder people and get away with it all the time.
So a couple of hippie nerds on Slashdot overreact to a guy who is being an asshole. You really think most people would sympathize with him? Yeah right.
Get real, hippie and try and get involved in something a little more important. There's serious issues out there you can be a part of. Or you can riot in the streets because you got arrested for being a douche bag.
An "arrest record on false accusations". I pee myself laughing at this statement. I bet a judge is going to see it this way. Right! Or maybe the cop will come to the stand, say his piece and the judge will rule "Guilty!".
This is so little and so unimportant I can't see why you people flip out. And why defend a guy whose being a jerk? There's actual people out there NOT being jerks and having their civil liberties violated a lot. But they aren't from the privileged classes in America and they don't have a voice. They only wish they could go to a store on buy luxuries like this ass and blog about how they have been violated by the man.
Welcome to the real world. That's why I find it hilarious all the little hippies around here who actually think this guy is going to win some case here. The judge is going to tell him to quit causing problems like this that waste police resources. And then make him pay his ticket.
Why did you try and fight a traffic ticket? You won't win unless the cop doesn't show up. They usually get paid overtime for showing up, so they show up.
Get a lawyer and have the charge changed. You can usually get any traffic violation changed to a nontraffic violation.
I bet the judge thought you were really cute going up to the stand to waste their time.
Ooook. Actually you are. I didn't create any slippery slope argument here. You're the paranoid hippy who thinks this will lead to rectum searches.
Get a life and stop acting like you have a right to shop somewhere. Get a clue while you're at it and try and figure out how society functions on a practical level. This guy hasn't yet but maybe this will teach him a lesson.
Find something important worth fighting for. This is not.
He got a ticket and his bag was searched and he won't have a leg to stand on in court. The court of general public opinion thinks he's an ass and a judicial court will probably rule he was being an ass.
I hope this twat stain enjoys his fine and humiliation. Hopefully he'll spend his energy fighting for things worth fighting for and quit being a d-bag.
Slashdot Mirror
I counter that with why not both? If I can have my data and my application available to me anywhere, why not?
Now, you're 100% correct in suggesting that there will always be interfaces and applications more complex than what can reasonably be sent over a wire. I think this will always exist. for instance, videogames. The data is more and more on the net, but the shell is almost always a rich client that exploits the machines capabilities. Downloading this shell and running it isn't very practical, obviously. So that's a limitation.
The hybrid you suggest is probably right on. That's how it usually goes with things, anyways.
As for limiting myself to a browser, I've used that term here in reference to something like an application factory and protocol factory. A browser wouldn't be anything monolithic like we use today.
The key difference, and this is critical: Today's Web adapts itself to the Web browser. A future net would have web browsers that adapt themselves to the application and data.
But what good are my documents if I don't have the tool to use them? I have my source code available to me anywhere, but not every machine is going to have the IDE I like. So I can't work on it anywhere. And I don't have global source control. And my database is out of reach too.
If the application is available to me anywhere, and it's as good as a modern rich application, that's all the better. If I had a SQL server that was hosted somewhere, pointed to by the UI I like somewhere else and accessed by software I'm writing somewhere else, I see benefit in that. I can go to another city and show people my entire platform. I can work wherever I want and not have a change in limits.
I'm not talking a single, global protocol to solve them all. But a protocol that's a factor for other protocols. Why not develop a protocol compiler that takes a protocol definition language and makes it available to networked machines? The "browser" now has this specialized protocol, built with a universal UI protocol, etc. I'm just making this crap up obviously, but you'd have to imagine it's obtainable.
I agree, we need to get past HTTP. It simply doesn't work as well as other protocols for certain tasks. Can we go a step further and develop a protocol factory? Can we make available programs, preferences and data anywhere all interconnected by another protocol?
Think outside the world of Web browsers you're in right now. Think about Client Factories and such. Why does a future Web protocol manager or whatever have to be tied to similar limitations we have now? Especially since it would be designed with these limitations in mind. A benefit the original HTTP authors didn't have.
Can a web language be developed that's recursive? How about a protocol definition language? Can we create rich UI's on the fly outside the browser? When are we going to have enough bandwidth to reasonably transfer users preferences, programs and data over a wire?
I'm just trying to think outside the box here a little. HTTP was designed to deliver HTML. Simple solution to a simple idea. But things are different now. We have stronger machines, faster wires, more devices and a desire to be more and more connected. HTTP was designed to fulfill a need and has since been manipulated 1000 fold. Why can't we learn form this, build something new that's more in tune with what people want? That is to have access to everything all the time from anywhere. Preserve a persons preferences among all applications. Share data across different programs, etc.
"Every text field in every application gets spellchecked by the same dictionary, making it worth my while to actually add context-specific words to it. Copy/paste and drag/drop work smoothly between essentially all entities in all contexts in all applications. When I change my interface theme, all applications change along with it. And on, and on, and on."
Why would this cease to exist? I'm not sure why this wouldn't be possible still. Protocols, standards and distribution couldn't be designed to keep these very important features intact? So, you not only have these same features, but now your preferences, programs, settings, etc, etc are ubiquitous and available to any supporting platform. Recall you're not limited by HTTP any longer in this imaginary world of mine.
"Web applications nearly always force the bundling of software and service. What if I like gmail's interface but prefer someone else's storage backend? Or if I like Yahoo's map database but want to use my own front end for it? Too bad, they're bundled together"
Another fine point. I agree. You'd hope with an open protocol the power of consumer choice would make this available?
I don't know. I don't know the answers to a lot of questions. I'm only proposing that it entirely makes sense that applications could be moved to the web and maintain the features you enjoy about them today. A reconstruction of Web protocols, "browsers", etc could very well make this possible. I don't think it's neatly possible right now.
But the benefits of having your documents, you programs, your preferences and settings available to you everywhere, on any device running any platform, is at least a little interesting.
Use it to compile more and more JavaScript and render more and more complicated Web pages. People don't like rich clients because the Web is ubiquitous. The age of the desktop application is coming to an end. I don't expect most things to be replaced on the current Web using current HTTP, but it's clear there is a movement to move everything to the Web that can be. Expect a new platform and set of protocols to become a new standard in the next 10 years that make web clients more and more rich and more and more practical.
You're completely wrong. It's a trick question they're asking you. If you say yes they will ask how many. It doesn't even matter what you say because as soon as you say yes, you're a suspected DUI.
They ask everyone this question and whoever says yes will be asked to step out of their car.
When they ask this and you say no, you're saying no to something that isn't defined. They ask "Have you been drinking?". What does this mean? Define drinking? Is it a drink, 5 drinks? To me, drinking means to go out and really drink. If I have a couple, that's not drinking.
Cops use subjective terms to gather information to help them make choices. Telling a cop no when asked if you've been drinking will help you. Admitting guilt will never help you. IF they figure out you've been drinking and ask you why you "lied", tell them you didn't lie. You didn't feel as if you had been drinking and answered no because you felt it was the truth. Your interpretation of it is the cop was asking you if you are drunk. You didn't think you were and said no.
That's true. If you drink and the leave right away. I'm referring to people who haven't had a drink at least a half hour before they get in their car.
I think it's more likely that HTTP is overhauled to make Web Apps more practical and rich.
This will probably be as a result of someone not happy with the current protocols inability to naturally support this type of communication without workarounds.
I like the idea of Web Apps and what companies like Google are trying to do, through practicality and experimentation. I'd agree HTTP isn't ideal and that Javascript is involved too much in the work around. It's reasonable to believe that HTTP won't be the protocol of the future.
It would appear what we see now, the movements towards richer interfaces and Javascript intensive Websites and Web Apps as the natural precursor to this protocol. We are interconnected and people are comfortable with it. We've become good at delivering data to a static content renderer and can manipulate it some with a client side programming language giving the impression of richness. People are trying to stretch this ability as far as they can and so far it has been practical. Needs will eventually outgrow what's possible however and a new protocol will have to be used.
Expect Web Apps and such to stick around. But keep in mind it's early and experimental right now. The future will likely bring a protocol designed around this paradigm.
I'd probably get the advice of a lawyer to be sure.
A lot of people don't know that in every state I've researched, you never have to take any road side test of any kind. That includes the portable Breathalyzers. No roadside test in any state is admissible as evidence either. They're only tools to aid officers in making arrests.
When you fail these tests they will take you to a station that has a "real" breathalyser and you have to take that or take a blood test. Always better off with the blood test.
Really, you don't have to take a blood test either. They can't force it. But then you lose your license and get a large fine none the less.
"You do realize that if the cop pulled you over, there's usually a traffic-related reason? Like... perhaps you missed the stop sign back there, or you've had your left blinker on since you left the bar, or maybe you're playing chicken with the trees."
That's not necessarily the case. You could be pulled over because you're black in the wrong neighborhood. You could be pulled over because you're a young male in a sports car. You could be pulled over because a taillight is out. You could be pulled over for doing 5 over and the cop just wants to pull you over.
I agree, if you've been drinking enough that you're dodging trees, missing stop signs, etc, you should not be driving a car and going to jail serves you right. But getting pulled over after drinking doesn't mean you were pulled over for suspect drunk driving. Cops can pull just about anyone over for any reason. They profile after bar time for people that fit the mold of drunk drivers (young males).
It sounds terrible, but you're mainly right. I'm not advocating drinking and driving, but it's not like it's an evil thing to have a few and drive somewhere. Compare to most people on their phones, eating things, reading things, doing their makeup, driving with a knee, yelling at the kids in the back seat, day dreaming, asleep at the wheel, changing the radio, senile with a license and it's about the same. But the prosecution is obviously much worse.
.08 is hardly anything to seasoned drinkers but yet the prosecution is there. I know I drive much more attentively and aware with a .08 than the people committing the acts I listed above. The difference is I'll drive home with a .08 past midnight on mainly vacant streets while they're on the road at all times.
Drinking and driving is the bastard of poor driving technique.
Drunk driving is an entirely different thing. When you're sloshed you absolutely should not be driving a car. But going out and having a few with your friends and driving home (on mainly vacant streets) has gotten so blown out of proportion. A
Just informing people about their rights and how to protect themselves in case they find themselves in this predicament.
I'm not advocating anyone drink and drive. I'm advocating people know their rights and how to protect themselves. I hope people would make intelligent, informed decisions about driving after drinking.
I can't imagine a DUI ruining someones life. It would suck to get and a series of them can really mess things up, but it won't ruin your life.
.08 and be perfectly sober all things considered.
Also, you refer to it with the propaganda word "drunk driving". To be over the limit doesn't mean you're drunk. In fact, plenty of people could have a
Interesting. I can't believe Illinois would force people to take roadside tests like that.
Now, when you say breathalyser, are you talking about the roadside one or the station one? There's quite a difference.
"And potentially moved from a .1 to a .7 fairly easily. Or even from a more serious .12 to a less expensive and serious .9 or something borderline."
.1 to a .07 and a .12 to a .09.
Please excuse my terrible decimal writing there. It is meant to say a a
That's not true.
.07. Remember, the time it takes from pulling you over to actually taking a test is often over an hour. You will likely have sobered up some by this point. And potentially moved from a .1 to a .7 fairly easily. Or even from a more serious .12 to a less expensive and serious .9 or something borderline.
You don't have to take a breathalyser or do any road side test. And in fact you shouldn't. Even if you have been never tell the cop you've been drinking when pulled over.
What you do have to do is submit to a blood test at a hospital if the suspect you of drunk driving. If you don't then you'll lose your license.
Here's some advice if pulled over:
When asked if you've been drinking, say no. They always ask this question a night. If you say yes you've had one or whatever, you are a suspected DUI. They usually won't smell things on your breath or whatever. Just say no and they'll probably just ask to run your license and give you a speeding ticket. Unless it's obvious you're drunk
When asked to get out of the car, comply. You have to. If they ask you to do ANY roadside test, decline. You will be pressured here. Simply say your lawyer informed you to never do a roadside test under any circumstance. The cop will evaluate you at this time. One of 2 things will happen now.
If you're borderline and seem to be "normal" or not very drunk, they'll probably let you go with a ticket. They realize that it will be a waste of their time to arrest you take you down to the hospital, file reports, etc only to find out you are at
If you're obviously drunk, they'll take you down confidently knowing you will fail the test and be charged. But that's the price you pay for driving when sloshed.
The keys: Never admit to drinking anything. This can only hurt you. Let your lawyer do the talking. Refuse any roadside test. They can only hurt you. Cooperate and take a blood test. Potentially an hour or more after you've been pulled over. You will invariably be more sober than when you were pulled over. This works to your advantage.
Fair enough, buddy. I'm in it for myself.
Knowing when to hold 'em and when to fold 'em is a something only a wise man knows.
I said originally the store was wrong, too. As was the cop. They all are in fact. But, he's going to be the one paying for it. That's the reality of it all.
The bigger guy might not be right, but he'll win. Like someone else said here, "you might be right, but you'll be dead". You have to use your head when picking battles. This battle is such unimportant drivel, it isn't worth creating a scene and getting arrested. It's selfish. You might have a right to a crosswalk, but if a car is driving by and hits you because you refused to give up your right, you're dead. You were "right" but you were also an idiot and now you're dead. That's a consequence of being right.
The lesson is don't act like an idiot. He knows he was being an ass and he paid for it. Violated rights and all. Too damn bad.
Obviously I'm a corporate tool. It should be obvious that because I think this guy wasn't practical or pragmatic in going about his business. He was what they call someone "asking for it". And even though he's "right", it doesn't make him correct.
I travel in packs, not herds. But I also concern myself with important things in life. Not challenging authority figures over stupid things like this.
He got arrested because he was giving a cop a hard time. You think the cops going to get in trouble? Yeah right. These guys murder people and get away with it all the time.
So a couple of hippie nerds on Slashdot overreact to a guy who is being an asshole. You really think most people would sympathize with him? Yeah right.
Get real, hippie and try and get involved in something a little more important. There's serious issues out there you can be a part of. Or you can riot in the streets because you got arrested for being a douche bag.
An "arrest record on false accusations". I pee myself laughing at this statement. I bet a judge is going to see it this way. Right! Or maybe the cop will come to the stand, say his piece and the judge will rule "Guilty!".
This is so little and so unimportant I can't see why you people flip out. And why defend a guy whose being a jerk? There's actual people out there NOT being jerks and having their civil liberties violated a lot. But they aren't from the privileged classes in America and they don't have a voice. They only wish they could go to a store on buy luxuries like this ass and blog about how they have been violated by the man.
Get some perspective.
Write a simple program that calls off to their favorite sites and prints them out. Then give them paper version of what they like.
Then they can pass it around, etc. Sort of like bookmark sharing.
The guys whole post is obviously all made up.
He's James Bond it would appear. And he apparently tells people what to do and they listen. Yeah right!
This guy won't find a lawyer who will consider his case. It's a joke of a case with no chance to win. Stuff like this happens all the time.
A fellow on Kuro5hin posted a similar story about a week ago and was shocked that he couldn't find a lawyer who wanted to take it on.
It's a trash case with no legs.
Welcome to the real world. That's why I find it hilarious all the little hippies around here who actually think this guy is going to win some case here. The judge is going to tell him to quit causing problems like this that waste police resources. And then make him pay his ticket.
Why did you try and fight a traffic ticket? You won't win unless the cop doesn't show up. They usually get paid overtime for showing up, so they show up.
Get a lawyer and have the charge changed. You can usually get any traffic violation changed to a nontraffic violation.
I bet the judge thought you were really cute going up to the stand to waste their time.
Ooook. Actually you are. I didn't create any slippery slope argument here. You're the paranoid hippy who thinks this will lead to rectum searches.
Get a life and stop acting like you have a right to shop somewhere. Get a clue while you're at it and try and figure out how society functions on a practical level. This guy hasn't yet but maybe this will teach him a lesson.
Find something important worth fighting for. This is not.
He got a ticket and his bag was searched and he won't have a leg to stand on in court. The court of general public opinion thinks he's an ass and a judicial court will probably rule he was being an ass.
I hope this twat stain enjoys his fine and humiliation. Hopefully he'll spend his energy fighting for things worth fighting for and quit being a d-bag.