The purpose of advertising isn't to inform you of the existence
You entirely missed a very important series of words, "...in general terms...". Good advertising does both. Classic examples are all those medication commercials where they not only tell you of medication you very likely didn't know existed, they tell you its medication for problems you likely didn't even know was a problem. Then they convince you, of all possible treatments for your problem, their medication is the one you want - so go tell your doctor.
Somehow this simply subject seems to go completely over your head.
How about, "black jeans". If you never knew they existed and no one ever told you they existed, its likely it would never occur to you to even search for, "black jeans". Obviously jeans in an all around bad example, but the point is, you insist you know you don't know and therefore since you don't know you know. The fact remains, its impossible to know everything you don't know; especially when you don't know what you don't know.
We all agree advertising can very much suck. But reality is, unless you live in the woods and off the land, advertising also serves an important social function. Well, at least to any consumer/commercial society.
When I find myself in need of a product or service
That's the point. Many times, without advertising, you wouldn't know of a product of service and therefore wouldn't know you could seek said product or service.
If I'm interested in a product, I don't need to be told about it. If I want to find it, I'll find it
My head just exploded.
In general terms, the point of most advertising is to either introduce an unknown or new product to the public or to inform the public of benefits of using said product. As such, if you don't know about a product, how would you know you don't need to be told about it? Which means, you know you don't know so you don't need to know, therefore not knowing means you know enough about it to not need to know. WTF?!
Thanks for the history lesson but almost none of that is closely relevant.
The problem is actually fairly simple. Far too many judges hope to legislate from the bench. Far too many judges "confuse" their opinion with obvious reading and interpretation of the law. Which almost always means additional, protracted legal procedures in the future. And perhaps worst yet, most judges are lawyers which means why have absolutely no problem providing large jobs to their fellow lawyer. Oddly enough, many judges find themselves "employed" in retirement as a consultant by various legal firms. Even stranger, those same legal firms seemingly had many clients before the judge while he was on the bench. Hmmm. So on and so on.
The simple fact is, being extremely generous, the entire case could have been folded and shoved up SCO's ass in less than six months. The US legal system is completely fucked up and broken. When you have completely fucked up and broken legal systems, you get this exact kind of protected legal cases which somehow magically sustain while have exactly zero legal basis to do so. The reality is, courts have become "drama theater" to suit the whims of the judge.
Now the next person will likely say this is all required to ensure its not thrown out on appeal or to prevent any basis for appeal but that's frankly, complete bullshit. In such cases, if judges were actually interest in doing their job rather than "court drama", appeals would simply not be granted. Why? Well, when you are in court and you've spent six months with stall tactics and legal dancing avoiding the actual merit and strength of your case, you clearly don't have a legal case. In which case, any reasonable judge would shove it up their ass. And the appeals judge would do so on the basis of no legal case. And if after six months you can not present the facts of your case when according to your lawyer the "evidence" is in abundance and easy to follow, you have exactly a "big pile of shit" for a case.
The fact that a "big pile of shit" is able to generate millions and million and millions of dollars of income and an extremely protracted legal battle one proves exactly one thing; the US legal system is completely fucked up and far too many judges are completely unfit to sit on the bench.
Well rest assured, pirates have assured us all that your business model makes complete sense. Furthermore, the more they steal from you, in turn the more you'll make because of their theft!
The sad thing is, many not only believe that, but openly use it as justification for their theft. Even worse, if your business failed its not because of piracy, but cause you either charged too much or there was never any demand for it in the first place. Or any number of other facts. Regardless of what they'll blame it on, they'll never admit your failure is because they stole; which is the only truth.
If you use your computer on a wired LAN, anyone in the same collision domain can intercept everything you're sending and use a packet analyzer to reconstruct your traffic. Is it a privacy violation for them to do so -- yes! They need your express approval to do so.
That, in part, is why everyone moved from hubs to switches ages ago. That's also why everyone has nice full duplex ethernet connections these days - switches.
Regardless, none of this has anything to do with anything - including your semi-invalid WIFI example. Next you'll be yelling that everyone is violating TV and radio station's right to privacy when they turn on their radio or TV.
So long as you are transmitting an RF signal in the clear (unencrypted) for all to receive, a reasonable right to privacy should absolutely not be expected. Any other expectation is nieve at best. That's the nature of our laws. That's the nature of physics.
Next thing you'll be angry at your neighbors when they hear you yell down the block at your kids. How dare them listen to your private conversation - yet that's EXACTLY what people with open WIFI's are doing. That's exactly what you're asserting. Silly stuff.
And that's the problem. Far, far, too many patents are OBVIOUS technology combinations. Since SMTP is in fact one of the oldest Internet age protocols, its pretty easy to argue any wireless layer capable of transporting SMTP is an obvious implementation. In fact, its easy to argue any generic network layer intended to transport IP, SMTP is an obvious implementation. After all, that's entirely the fucking point of using IP and SMTP!
Every time these patent trolls pop up with incredibly obvious patents, I can't help but wonder what the fuck is wrong with the idiots working at the USPO. You don't even have to be a wireless expert to look at this patent and realize in less than five minutes its complete bullshit. Whoever granted this patent should be fired and their pension revoked. Furthermore, their children should be brought to public ire and marked by paint balled on a daily basis to ensure their genes are never permitted into the pool. How the fuck anyone this stupid can qualify for the USPO brings into question every patent granted in the last fifty years or so.
"Oh, welcome back to Citibank, Mr. Smith. Your portfolio indicates that all of your investments are 4% down, but we think the difference is so infinitesimal small that it might defy belief that you cared."
There, fixed it for you: "Oh, welcome back to Citibank, Mr. Smith. Your portfolio of one penny indicates that all of your investments are 4% down, but we think the difference is so infinitesimal small that it might defy belief that you cared."
"You're right, I don't care if I lost 4% of a penny. Of course, you'll have to remind me why I bothered only to invest a penny in the first place."
Also, food for thought. Why is it you commonly see diesel-electric but not turbine-electric for applications used near sea level? Exactly - because turbines are a horrible ideas.
Also series hybrids means we can finally use turbines: gas turbines are the most efficient engine. While a gasoline engine is only 20-30% efficient, a gas turbine is over 80% efficient. In 1999 GM made a EV1 Series hybrid using a turbine generator. The vehicle achieved up to 100mpg while charging the battery using 90s technology and a 220 lbs turbine (modern turbines are much smaller)
Proof you have no idea what you're talking about.
Turbines are mechanically efficiency but pragmatically incredibly inefficient, extremely costly, noisy, and consume vast quantities of fuel. Unless you commonly drive around at 30,000 - 40,000 feet above sea level, turbines are an absolutely dumb idea. That's the reason they completely failed in the 1950s when they were placed into cars. That's also the primary reason jets tend to cruise at those altitudes.
Turbines are very slow to spool up and produce vast quantities of heat while requiring vast quantities of air and fuel. The denser the air (closer to sea level), the more fuel is required to maintain efficient consumption of fuel. Not to mention, a simple screw up in the air/fuel mixture during start results in what is called a "hot start". Which basically means you just destroyed the internals of your turbines by drastically exceeding component temperature limits, and it must be largely, if not completely, replaced.
This, of course, all ignores that in order to maintain efficient combustion turbines must not only be manufactured using "space age" materials to extremely expensive tolerances, but they must be maintained at such tolerances. So every couple of years (probably every 2,000-2,500 hours, less if you live near dirty/sandy environments), assuming a fairly small turbine, something like $10,000 - $20,000 for an overhaul; excluding worn parts replacements. Not to mention, constant maintenance on air filters and oil changes. For you see, for every tiny particulate which makes its way past the filter brings that looming overhaul ever closer to now. Don't forget, one turbine blade can literally cost thousands of dollars. Oh, and you likely added $20,000 - $40,000 dollars to the vehicle's sticker price; assuming mass production.
Bluntly, the odds of seeing nuclear cars are only slightly worse than seeing turbine powered road vehicles any time soon.
Basically if you can't figure out everything I said, minus the minor mistake in timeline, from the provided material, you have zero reading/learning comprehension. This isn't about reading between the lines. Its about simply reading and comprehension - or perhaps watching a video. Either way, if you don't have the same conclusion as to what I asserted, you dumb and lazy. Period.
The only thing those sources point out is that Eisenhower
No, those prove you need to learn to read. I fucking quoted a portion which is reporting on entire documentary which proves everything I said. And the quote about the show says every fucking thing I said. Holy shit! Learn to fucking read AND COMPREHEND!
There are even videos on some of the links but I'm now sure on what they actually report.
Holy shit! If I type slower will you be able to comprehend it?
I must admit, of all places, I expected this FACT to be much more widely known. Especially since it wasn't modded up. The only thing I messed up was the time line. They were ready to go roughly a year before sputnik - not two or more as I originally asserted.
Super sekret plan to trick the Russians? Bullshit. Show some evidence outside your redneck survivalist conspiracy websites. The R7 derivatives kicked the arse of the Redstone and Vanguard rockets - and that is a historical fact I dare you to disprove.
Tomorrow night PBS's NOVA will air Sputnik Declassified, which tells the story of how the U. S. could have beaten the Soviets into space, had it not been for military spy priorities that wanted the Soviets to, indeed, be first, thus establishing a precedent for our planned spy satellites that were very soon to map every Soviet ICBM launch site without fanfare or public pronouncement.
Why are stupid people so fucking stupid they can't even bother to use something magical like a search engine - which is there EXACTLY for this fucking reason - to allow you to stop being so fucking stupid and lazy! What a fucking loser!
Now then, take your smug head out from your ass and think for but one second of your life. After the Russian's telling the US to piss off and that overflights would absolutely NOT be allowed, what would the world look like now had the US been the first to orbit? Absolutely NOTHING like the open sky policy the world currently enjoys today.
Basically, history, facts, people of high renown, and common sense all say you're a fucking idiot.
even though they pioneered almost every space "first" from 1957-1969).
Except they didn't. America literally had rockets and satellites placed in storage waiting for Russia to catch up. America understood the potential for intelligence gathering and desperately hoped the Russians would play into their hands. They did with the launch of Sputnik which created a precedence of allowing a foreign satellite from a foreign power to overfly another sovereign nation. Had America been first to actually execute, they feared the Russians would make a huge international incident about any overflights and would therefore establish an international precedent of it being illegal.
American was literally two or more years AHEAD of Russia in almost everything that mattered, right out of the gate. And their plan worked like a champ. The only thing they failed to account for in their plan was the American backlash against the incorrect perception of the Russians being years, if not decades, ahead of the US in space technology, after the launch of Sputnik went public.
The simple fact is, the Russians have almost always been far, far behind of the US in almost anything space related.
Responsibilities are just as important as rights. One of those responsibilities is to treat public servants with respect. If you don't you shouldn't be surprised when they are awkward right back at you.
You just proved my point. Being rude is not carte blanche to break the law. And yet that's exactly what you justified. The fact you believe this is about being rude or polite, only further proves I'm right.
Are you really so simple you don't see what's obvious to police and everyone abused by such laws?
"Sit down."
"I have a bad back."
You can now be arrested. When asked, all he needs to do is to say I feared he may attack me, jump into a traffic, hurt himself, flee, so on and so on. As such, failing to comply with such an order is the legal definition of failure to comply.
Are you really so simple that you believe an officer who is willing to break the law to arrest you is beyond lying to justify his actions? Regardless of what you want to believe, my original post on the subject is accurate - even if you want to close your eyes and mislead everyone else; including yourself.
Completely untrue! Smiling while you rape someone doesn't make it okay. Being polite while you abuse your authority to lie and harass someone does not make it okay.
You are right that politeness is free. He did make a mistake. But being a prat is not one of them. His mistake was being human and having a natural reaction to an illegal confrontation by someone in authority. He's sixteen. He didn't know any better.
You can not be arrested. Period. It is a lawful arrest. Period. Now a judge may disagree and throw out the case but it doesn't change the fact you were lawfully arrested for failure to comply with a lawful order. Do some checking and you'll find no shortage of such arrests.
How long do you think it takes to get a search warrant? Two hours doesn't seem unreasonable if that's what you asked them to do.
That's not what he did. He asserted his rights and educated them on the law. Asshat. Illegal detainment is - illegal! Asserting your rights does not make your a criminal. No matter how much police want you to believe otherwise.
Or were you just being a pain in the ass for the sake of it?
What an asshat. YOU and people like YOU are the reason the world is turning into a shit hole. Obviously you LOVE fascism! And if you don't, stop acting you do and persecuting those who don't.
Basically this is an admission they don't want people capable of following the law, understanding the law, or intelligently managing available resources.
Slashdot Mirror
The purpose of advertising isn't to inform you of the existence
You entirely missed a very important series of words, "...in general terms...". Good advertising does both. Classic examples are all those medication commercials where they not only tell you of medication you very likely didn't know existed, they tell you its medication for problems you likely didn't even know was a problem. Then they convince you, of all possible treatments for your problem, their medication is the one you want - so go tell your doctor.
Somehow this simply subject seems to go completely over your head.
How about, "black jeans". If you never knew they existed and no one ever told you they existed, its likely it would never occur to you to even search for, "black jeans". Obviously jeans in an all around bad example, but the point is, you insist you know you don't know and therefore since you don't know you know. The fact remains, its impossible to know everything you don't know; especially when you don't know what you don't know.
We all agree advertising can very much suck. But reality is, unless you live in the woods and off the land, advertising also serves an important social function. Well, at least to any consumer/commercial society.
*BANG*
When I find myself in need of a product or service
That's the point. Many times, without advertising, you wouldn't know of a product of service and therefore wouldn't know you could seek said product or service.
*BLAM* There, it happened again!
If I'm interested in a product, I don't need to be told about it. If I want to find it, I'll find it
My head just exploded.
In general terms, the point of most advertising is to either introduce an unknown or new product to the public or to inform the public of benefits of using said product. As such, if you don't know about a product, how would you know you don't need to be told about it? Which means, you know you don't know so you don't need to know, therefore not knowing means you know enough about it to not need to know. WTF?!
*Boom* There it went again.
Thanks for the history lesson but almost none of that is closely relevant.
The problem is actually fairly simple. Far too many judges hope to legislate from the bench. Far too many judges "confuse" their opinion with obvious reading and interpretation of the law. Which almost always means additional, protracted legal procedures in the future. And perhaps worst yet, most judges are lawyers which means why have absolutely no problem providing large jobs to their fellow lawyer. Oddly enough, many judges find themselves "employed" in retirement as a consultant by various legal firms. Even stranger, those same legal firms seemingly had many clients before the judge while he was on the bench. Hmmm. So on and so on.
The simple fact is, being extremely generous, the entire case could have been folded and shoved up SCO's ass in less than six months. The US legal system is completely fucked up and broken. When you have completely fucked up and broken legal systems, you get this exact kind of protected legal cases which somehow magically sustain while have exactly zero legal basis to do so. The reality is, courts have become "drama theater" to suit the whims of the judge.
Now the next person will likely say this is all required to ensure its not thrown out on appeal or to prevent any basis for appeal but that's frankly, complete bullshit. In such cases, if judges were actually interest in doing their job rather than "court drama", appeals would simply not be granted. Why? Well, when you are in court and you've spent six months with stall tactics and legal dancing avoiding the actual merit and strength of your case, you clearly don't have a legal case. In which case, any reasonable judge would shove it up their ass. And the appeals judge would do so on the basis of no legal case. And if after six months you can not present the facts of your case when according to your lawyer the "evidence" is in abundance and easy to follow, you have exactly a "big pile of shit" for a case.
The fact that a "big pile of shit" is able to generate millions and million and millions of dollars of income and an extremely protracted legal battle one proves exactly one thing; the US legal system is completely fucked up and far too many judges are completely unfit to sit on the bench.
Well rest assured, pirates have assured us all that your business model makes complete sense. Furthermore, the more they steal from you, in turn the more you'll make because of their theft!
The sad thing is, many not only believe that, but openly use it as justification for their theft. Even worse, if your business failed its not because of piracy, but cause you either charged too much or there was never any demand for it in the first place. Or any number of other facts. Regardless of what they'll blame it on, they'll never admit your failure is because they stole; which is the only truth.
The mods banned the guy who has all their user data because he hit Enter too much. Not sure how that supports your premise?
Exactly. That makes them sounds like even bigger jerks. Somehow closer to indifferent idiots.
If you use your computer on a wired LAN, anyone in the same collision domain can intercept everything you're sending and use a packet analyzer to reconstruct your traffic. Is it a privacy violation for them to do so -- yes! They need your express approval to do so.
That, in part, is why everyone moved from hubs to switches ages ago. That's also why everyone has nice full duplex ethernet connections these days - switches.
Regardless, none of this has anything to do with anything - including your semi-invalid WIFI example. Next you'll be yelling that everyone is violating TV and radio station's right to privacy when they turn on their radio or TV.
So long as you are transmitting an RF signal in the clear (unencrypted) for all to receive, a reasonable right to privacy should absolutely not be expected. Any other expectation is nieve at best. That's the nature of our laws. That's the nature of physics.
Next thing you'll be angry at your neighbors when they hear you yell down the block at your kids. How dare them listen to your private conversation - yet that's EXACTLY what people with open WIFI's are doing. That's exactly what you're asserting. Silly stuff.
Excellent point!
Can't believe I forgot about UUCP and bang paths...
if the combination is new, useful, nonobvious
And that's the problem. Far, far, too many patents are OBVIOUS technology combinations. Since SMTP is in fact one of the oldest Internet age protocols, its pretty easy to argue any wireless layer capable of transporting SMTP is an obvious implementation. In fact, its easy to argue any generic network layer intended to transport IP, SMTP is an obvious implementation. After all, that's entirely the fucking point of using IP and SMTP!
Every time these patent trolls pop up with incredibly obvious patents, I can't help but wonder what the fuck is wrong with the idiots working at the USPO. You don't even have to be a wireless expert to look at this patent and realize in less than five minutes its complete bullshit. Whoever granted this patent should be fired and their pension revoked. Furthermore, their children should be brought to public ire and marked by paint balled on a daily basis to ensure their genes are never permitted into the pool. How the fuck anyone this stupid can qualify for the USPO brings into question every patent granted in the last fifty years or so.
Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with them?
"Oh, welcome back to Citibank, Mr. Smith. Your portfolio indicates that all of your investments are 4% down, but we think the difference is so infinitesimal small that it might defy belief that you cared."
There, fixed it for you: "Oh, welcome back to Citibank, Mr. Smith. Your portfolio of one penny indicates that all of your investments are 4% down, but we think the difference is so infinitesimal small that it might defy belief that you cared."
"You're right, I don't care if I lost 4% of a penny. Of course, you'll have to remind me why I bothered only to invest a penny in the first place."
Also, food for thought. Why is it you commonly see diesel-electric but not turbine-electric for applications used near sea level? Exactly - because turbines are a horrible ideas.
Also series hybrids means we can finally use turbines: gas turbines are the most efficient engine. While a gasoline engine is only 20-30% efficient, a gas turbine is over 80% efficient. In 1999 GM made a EV1 Series hybrid using a turbine generator. The vehicle achieved up to 100mpg while charging the battery using 90s technology and a 220 lbs turbine (modern turbines are much smaller)
Proof you have no idea what you're talking about.
Turbines are mechanically efficiency but pragmatically incredibly inefficient, extremely costly, noisy, and consume vast quantities of fuel. Unless you commonly drive around at 30,000 - 40,000 feet above sea level, turbines are an absolutely dumb idea. That's the reason they completely failed in the 1950s when they were placed into cars. That's also the primary reason jets tend to cruise at those altitudes.
Turbines are very slow to spool up and produce vast quantities of heat while requiring vast quantities of air and fuel. The denser the air (closer to sea level), the more fuel is required to maintain efficient consumption of fuel. Not to mention, a simple screw up in the air/fuel mixture during start results in what is called a "hot start". Which basically means you just destroyed the internals of your turbines by drastically exceeding component temperature limits, and it must be largely, if not completely, replaced.
This, of course, all ignores that in order to maintain efficient combustion turbines must not only be manufactured using "space age" materials to extremely expensive tolerances, but they must be maintained at such tolerances. So every couple of years (probably every 2,000-2,500 hours, less if you live near dirty/sandy environments), assuming a fairly small turbine, something like $10,000 - $20,000 for an overhaul; excluding worn parts replacements. Not to mention, constant maintenance on air filters and oil changes. For you see, for every tiny particulate which makes its way past the filter brings that looming overhaul ever closer to now. Don't forget, one turbine blade can literally cost thousands of dollars. Oh, and you likely added $20,000 - $40,000 dollars to the vehicle's sticker price; assuming mass production.
Bluntly, the odds of seeing nuclear cars are only slightly worse than seeing turbine powered road vehicles any time soon.
I seems /. didn't like an edit I made and it decided to eat one of the links.
Basically if you can't figure out everything I said, minus the minor mistake in timeline, from the provided material, you have zero reading/learning comprehension. This isn't about reading between the lines. Its about simply reading and comprehension - or perhaps watching a video. Either way, if you don't have the same conclusion as to what I asserted, you dumb and lazy. Period.
And since you clearly do have reading comprehension problems, here are the videos on You Tube. So there's no excuses for not learning the truth; despite your learning problems and laziness.
The only thing those sources point out is that Eisenhower
No, those prove you need to learn to read. I fucking quoted a portion which is reporting on entire documentary which proves everything I said. And the quote about the show says every fucking thing I said. Holy shit! Learn to fucking read AND COMPREHEND!
There are even videos on some of the links but I'm now sure on what they actually report.
Holy shit! If I type slower will you be able to comprehend it?
The US government. Reams of paperwork. Von Braun. All the people working on the project. The US Air Force.
I must admit, of all places, I expected this FACT to be much more widely known. Especially since it wasn't modded up. The only thing I messed up was the time line. They were ready to go roughly a year before sputnik - not two or more as I originally asserted.
LMFAO
Super sekret plan to trick the Russians? Bullshit. Show some evidence outside your redneck survivalist conspiracy websites. The R7 derivatives kicked the arse of the Redstone and Vanguard rockets - and that is a historical fact I dare you to disprove.
LMFAO!
If only you understood how much of a fucking idiot you look like now!
The launch of Sputnik effectively ended those concerns by establishing a precedent that national boundaries did not extend into space.
In July 1955, President Dwight Eisenhower proposed an "Open Skies" policy whereby either nation would be allowed to fly reconnaissance aircraft over the other. He did that because they were nearing completion of their rocket which would be capable for orbital range and velocities.
Von Braun: I actually had the satellite in the trunk of my car; in 1957 Von Braun so was pissed by the order directly from Eisenhower to stop and mothball development, he continued development in secret but ALSO built the satellite despite presidential order to the contrary.
Tomorrow night PBS's NOVA will air Sputnik Declassified, which tells the story of how the U. S. could have beaten the Soviets into space, had it not been for military spy priorities that wanted the Soviets to, indeed, be first, thus establishing a precedent for our planned spy satellites that were very soon to map every Soviet ICBM launch site without fanfare or public pronouncement.
Vanguard was given the green light while Von Braun's project was mothballed by the president. Immediately after Vanguard's failure, Von Braun's project was removed from storage, prepped for launch, and launched. Their design worked right out of storage; having been placed there over a year before Sputnik's launch.
LMFAO! What a fucking idiot!!!! LOL!!!
Why are stupid people so fucking stupid they can't even bother to use something magical like a search engine - which is there EXACTLY for this fucking reason - to allow you to stop being so fucking stupid and lazy! What a fucking loser!
Now then, take your smug head out from your ass and think for but one second of your life. After the Russian's telling the US to piss off and that overflights would absolutely NOT be allowed, what would the world look like now had the US been the first to orbit? Absolutely NOTHING like the open sky policy the world currently enjoys today.
Basically, history, facts, people of high renown, and common sense all say you're a fucking idiot.
even though they pioneered almost every space "first" from 1957-1969).
Except they didn't. America literally had rockets and satellites placed in storage waiting for Russia to catch up. America understood the potential for intelligence gathering and desperately hoped the Russians would play into their hands. They did with the launch of Sputnik which created a precedence of allowing a foreign satellite from a foreign power to overfly another sovereign nation. Had America been first to actually execute, they feared the Russians would make a huge international incident about any overflights and would therefore establish an international precedent of it being illegal.
American was literally two or more years AHEAD of Russia in almost everything that mattered, right out of the gate. And their plan worked like a champ. The only thing they failed to account for in their plan was the American backlash against the incorrect perception of the Russians being years, if not decades, ahead of the US in space technology, after the launch of Sputnik went public.
The simple fact is, the Russians have almost always been far, far behind of the US in almost anything space related.
Responsibilities are just as important as rights. One of those responsibilities is to treat public servants with respect. If you don't you shouldn't be surprised when they are awkward right back at you.
You just proved my point. Being rude is not carte blanche to break the law. And yet that's exactly what you justified. The fact you believe this is about being rude or polite, only further proves I'm right.
Wrong wrong wrong wrong and wrong.
So its agreed, you ARE WRONG!
Holy shit people are either dumb or nieve.
execution of his duties
Are you really so simple you don't see what's obvious to police and everyone abused by such laws?
"Sit down."
"I have a bad back."
You can now be arrested. When asked, all he needs to do is to say I feared he may attack me, jump into a traffic, hurt himself, flee, so on and so on. As such, failing to comply with such an order is the legal definition of failure to comply.
Are you really so simple that you believe an officer who is willing to break the law to arrest you is beyond lying to justify his actions? Regardless of what you want to believe, my original post on the subject is accurate - even if you want to close your eyes and mislead everyone else; including yourself.
That should have read, "now", not, "not".
The police exhibited it, the kid didn't.
Completely untrue! Smiling while you rape someone doesn't make it okay. Being polite while you abuse your authority to lie and harass someone does not make it okay.
You are right that politeness is free. He did make a mistake. But being a prat is not one of them. His mistake was being human and having a natural reaction to an illegal confrontation by someone in authority. He's sixteen. He didn't know any better.
Uh, no.
Ah yes.
They can demand people identify themselves.
Actually in most states they can't.
"Sit down."
"I have a bad back."
You can not be arrested. Period. It is a lawful arrest. Period. Now a judge may disagree and throw out the case but it doesn't change the fact you were lawfully arrested for failure to comply with a lawful order. Do some checking and you'll find no shortage of such arrests.
How long do you think it takes to get a search warrant? Two hours doesn't seem unreasonable if that's what you asked them to do.
That's not what he did. He asserted his rights and educated them on the law. Asshat. Illegal detainment is - illegal! Asserting your rights does not make your a criminal. No matter how much police want you to believe otherwise.
Or were you just being a pain in the ass for the sake of it?
What an asshat. YOU and people like YOU are the reason the world is turning into a shit hole. Obviously you LOVE fascism! And if you don't, stop acting you do and persecuting those who don't.
Police have managers too.
Basically this is an admission they don't want people capable of following the law, understanding the law, or intelligently managing available resources.