I think you are combining two things. First is whether or not a police officer can "run your plate". "running a plate" was supposed to, and until very recently did require, probable cause. The "why" on this is because running said plate returns much more data than just "is the car stolen". IANAL and won't claim to know each State's position on this. That said, I have heard from Police in my area that even if they get a hit for expired tags you can not be pulled over without some other violation. Yeah, the cop will follow you and and get you for speeding, illegal lane change, etc.. but the "hit" is not enough alone. Could be the 3 cops I was talking to were wrong, or stating how "they do things" which may not be in line with the Law. In other words, check with a Lawyer and don't believe the conversation I had with some local Police officers.
The part where we should expect privacy is in ourselves and our persons. This does not change whether we are in a car, at home, or on the street. A police officer can request your ID, but you do not have to provide them anything unless you have committed a crime. This expectation should result in you calling law enforcement if you are being followed. If you are being followed by a law official (which has happened to me), I would pull over in a highly visible area. If the officer pulls over with you, request information on why you are being followed (helps to have video/audio recordings and inform the officer you are streaming).
In my case, the officer was cordial and courteous. They let me know why I was being followed. I returned the courtesy and waited for the officer to resolve the issue and was on my way feeling much better. (I would guess the Cop felt better also).
Many agencies don't bother with this since there are dozens (at least) of private companies that drive around with scanners. I have not taken any time to follow up on suits and laws that were being proposed to protect people, so can't say for sure where these people can no longer operate. This was easy to resolve in Michigan with no front plate requirement, I simply started backing in everywhere. In CA where front plates are required, the only protection is a cover when parked.
So the Police in Boston stopped, did the private companies stop? I don't know myself, but this is the next logical question to ask.
Before you attempt to berate your intellectual betters, you should at least attempt a basic Google search. There are hundreds of stories about Utopia. Your assertion that there is only one story demonstrates your ignorance very well. It's also interesting that you separate the Republic comment out of your own complaints, perhaps due to extreme ignorance on that subject as well.
I find it extremely boring squashing your incessant, yet pathetic, attempts at trolling my posts. Perhaps you should ask your mom for things to do in the basement so that you find something of value to pursue.
A useful site; that was where I copied the "not relevant" cites from. In fact, I delved quite deeply there, but did not see any references to "limits of impaired vs. drunk driving." Perhaps you could provide a link?
The California DMV guide for the drivers test is an easy source. It provides the definitions for 0.7, 0.8, and 1.0 as impaired vs. drunken driving.
The reason I point out the pedantic issues is that you don't come out and claim "In CA it's called DUI not drunk driving like most other States", or "in CA it's called under the influence and not impaired like most other States". Perhaps that was your point, however you never communicated thatpoint. If you had communicated those thoughts I would have agreed. Numerous States have different names for the same crime.
I hope that we can agree that your assertion is that an approved chemical test is required for a "drunk driving" conviction.
That was the example I gave, so yes we can agree that "Drunk Driving" can not be convicted based on a cop claiming "he smelled like alcohol.
You then pull a sentence out as stand alone so it loses context, which was given to match the above which you seem to agree with. Is English your 2nd language and you don't understand how a paragraph is supposed to work?
Once again, "drunk driving" is not a legal charge in CA.
Are you to claim that you can not be charged for DUI in CA? Once again, you don't seem to be pedantic since you don't mention DUI. You further don't mention "influence" so the same statement applies. Read the text of the laws and they do exist defining the limits of impaired vs. drunk driving. http://www.california-drunkdriving.org/laws.html states very clearly the summaries. No, I don't feel it pertinent to a Slashdot discussion to point out exact verbiage and numbers of Laws, but rather use common names which everyone can associate with.
No, I won't site an easy to Google example of motorists arrested and ticketed for careless or impaired driving where no alcohol was involved.
Wait a minute AC. I realize that Google searches can be difficult, but this did not require any playing with keywords to find. Tell me how much money he is giving away when his wealth has continued to increase by "BILLIONS" of dollars annually!
From Forbes we have Bill Gates' net worth rose $6 billion from last March due to gains in his investment portfolio; his holdings include tech hygiene firm Ecolab, waste collector Republic Services and Mexican Coke bottler FEMSA. In February the first 12 non-Americans joined Bill Gates’ and Warren Buffett’s Giving Pledge, in which the ultra-wealthy pledge to give away at least half their net worth to charity.
If Bill gave away 1/2 his wealth, should he not have today only 33.5billion dollars instead of 67billion? Was it only 1/2 his wealth of.. income on some stock investment? 1/2 of his wealth only in Mexico? There are obviously numerous conditions and stipulations on his definition of both "wealth" and "giving away" which are not disclosed meaning there is no sincere altruistic motives.
Google will be my friend later, since I have read numerous articles over the last few years but didn't see anything immediately on Google. Play with keywords and see what you can find, I'll do the same. Replying now so you don't think your comment is ignored ahead of digging for links when I have time later.
Glad to see that propaganda works so well. If the TV box told you it was true, it must be true. Never check any facts, including literature and political leaders of these groups. Just believe that picture box!
Logical fallacy. The Government having one form of control does not indicate that they don't want more. The concepts of dominance are not new, please stop trying to ignore them.
Yes, you did say "drunk driving" - which, as far as I know, is not an actual offence. According to the vehicle code: *snipped as not relevant*
The only way to prove "Drunk Driving" is with a method of measuring the alcohol level in blood (either breathalyzer or blood test, but you never mentioned a blood test and they are a bit rare in the US [compared to Germany] so you are not being simply pedantic). This charge can not stand with only a cop saying "they smelled like booze", and would not stand even with video of erratic driving.
If I had given a generalization, I could see the confusion. I gave a very specific example to show that "cop smelling alcohol" is not relevant to "legality" in any law.
You keep trying to blur the line between impaired and drunk driving, when there is a very clear legal definition. Yes, a breathalyzer (or blood test as mentioned above) _is_ required for "drunk driving" charges. Video of a weaving driver, witnesses claiming erratic behavior, etc.. could be used as evidence with the cop "smelling alcohol" as impaired or careless driving. There is a difference between Impaired/Careless and Drunk, despite your repeated attempts to claim that they are the same thing.
So the action words are what lose you? Verbs are hard? Honestly, this is not my lesson to learn. "He gives away all of his money to help others" can NOT be true of the person is in fact GAINING WEALTH. It is impossible. Now will you come back and argue that "he" needs to be properly defined?
Now if the fact is that he is gaining in wealth clicks, and you get that there is a perpetrated lie of "him giving away money" you will see that the altruism people associate with Bill Gates is also a lie.
You ignored that I stated specifically "drunk driving" requires a breathalyzer and changed the topic to impaired which I never mentioned. I stated that the AC was wrong that a cop should be able to give you a ticket for smelling like alcohol. You added items as if you were claiming I was wrong and the AC was correct. Are you defending the AC's position or my position? If neither, I'm not sure the point you are trying to make.
How can you function with such severe cognitive dissonance? "He is altruistic so giving away his wealth" directly conflicts with the reality that he has been gaining more wealth.
So you are trying to incorrectly claim that there is no burden of proof? Even in California this is wrong (I live in CA). A cop claiming "he smelled like booze" is not enough to arrest or convict a person. This works as intended.
One of the most blatant examples of foolish political ideas by science fiction authors is Gene Roddenberry's idea that advanced civilizations would have no money.
Then you have not spent any time contemplating or studying nearly every work that describes Utopia or a functional Republic. Your ignorance does not suffice as evidence that the theory is wrong, it simply indicates that you have a lot of learning to do.
Really? Gates demanding that people and governments sign long term contracts with US Agriculture and Medical corporations and not produce or grow locally as a condition of receiving his "Free" medicine is a benefit to society? Who's society are you referring to, the starving people in Ethiopia that can't grow local food any more because they received "Free vaccines"?
Good grief man, use your head just a little. If Mr. Gates was really just "helping everyone with his money" why has his wealth continued to grow while the people he is supposedly helping go further down in poverty? Some of the vaccines being pushed overseas are illegal in numerous Western Countries after being proven harmful to recipients.
Your view of an "awesome model" seems to be very low and abstract.
More on topic, look for Facebook to report some major loss in value causing the stocks to drop. Zuckerberg is not the only one donating lots of stock. These people are not idiots, and didn't get to be as wealthy as they are because they are altruistic.
Just ignore his trolling. If you ask about the 9/11 commission report, this person will tell you that you are blaming the government for the events. They won't actually look at any facts themselves because they believe it dishonors the dead.
So you are claiming that the person speculating "stupidity" is more valid than someone speculating that it's "intentional"? Show me proof of it being stupidity, or that is also baseless rumors.
The point I made is that either view is valid, or did you miss the "consider the possibility" statement?
When the people keep making the same bad decisions, you should consider the possibility that it is not just stupidity. Did we not learn a short time ago that agents were planted in companies like this to make back doors? Sure, no evidence or court cases yet... But see. Y first sentence.
An Anonymous Coward with a big fat turd of a fallacy. A police officer giving testimony of "smelling alcohol" is not evidence of anything, and is already useless in court. Any cop that gives this as the only evidence for drunk driving would be summarily dismissed, after the defendant and the attorney laughed at them.
That said, does alcohol on someone's breath does not mean that they have done or are doing anything illegal. Last I checked, selling and consuming alcohol is legal. I'm sure your straw man that follows will claim "but drunk driving", to which I'll say it takes a breathalyzer to show drunk driving and not simply an odor. A tablespoon of Robitussin contains alcohol, so should a person with a head cold be jailed for driving?
If you fail to understand or care about history and don't mind a good old fashioned fisting from the Constable, head to the local depot and ask them to search you. All of the silent and submissive Jews in Germany will tell you exactly how that worked out for them.
The rest of us should resist the tyranny that is growing in the USA.
I agree with both of your posts except for a statement you just made. Assault weapon bans are something to be scrutinized, and in some cases feared. Legislation has tried to label everything except a pistol and musket (yes black powder) as an "assault weapon" in the last decade, depending on who wrote the legislation it is worth having concerns.
Well, in honesty the other thing I don't agree with are liberal principles but that is a matter of debate outside of this theater.
Slashdot Mirror
I think you are combining two things. First is whether or not a police officer can "run your plate". "running a plate" was supposed to, and until very recently did require, probable cause. The "why" on this is because running said plate returns much more data than just "is the car stolen". IANAL and won't claim to know each State's position on this. That said, I have heard from Police in my area that even if they get a hit for expired tags you can not be pulled over without some other violation. Yeah, the cop will follow you and and get you for speeding, illegal lane change, etc.. but the "hit" is not enough alone. Could be the 3 cops I was talking to were wrong, or stating how "they do things" which may not be in line with the Law. In other words, check with a Lawyer and don't believe the conversation I had with some local Police officers.
The part where we should expect privacy is in ourselves and our persons. This does not change whether we are in a car, at home, or on the street. A police officer can request your ID, but you do not have to provide them anything unless you have committed a crime. This expectation should result in you calling law enforcement if you are being followed. If you are being followed by a law official (which has happened to me), I would pull over in a highly visible area. If the officer pulls over with you, request information on why you are being followed (helps to have video/audio recordings and inform the officer you are streaming).
In my case, the officer was cordial and courteous. They let me know why I was being followed. I returned the courtesy and waited for the officer to resolve the issue and was on my way feeling much better. (I would guess the Cop felt better also).
Many agencies don't bother with this since there are dozens (at least) of private companies that drive around with scanners. I have not taken any time to follow up on suits and laws that were being proposed to protect people, so can't say for sure where these people can no longer operate. This was easy to resolve in Michigan with no front plate requirement, I simply started backing in everywhere. In CA where front plates are required, the only protection is a cover when parked.
So the Police in Boston stopped, did the private companies stop? I don't know myself, but this is the next logical question to ask.
Before you attempt to berate your intellectual betters, you should at least attempt a basic Google search. There are hundreds of stories about Utopia. Your assertion that there is only one story demonstrates your ignorance very well. It's also interesting that you separate the Republic comment out of your own complaints, perhaps due to extreme ignorance on that subject as well.
I find it extremely boring squashing your incessant, yet pathetic, attempts at trolling my posts. Perhaps you should ask your mom for things to do in the basement so that you find something of value to pursue.
A useful site; that was where I copied the "not relevant" cites from. In fact, I delved quite deeply there, but did not see any references to "limits of impaired vs. drunk driving." Perhaps you could provide a link?
The California DMV guide for the drivers test is an easy source. It provides the definitions for 0.7, 0.8, and 1.0 as impaired vs. drunken driving.
The reason I point out the pedantic issues is that you don't come out and claim "In CA it's called DUI not drunk driving like most other States", or "in CA it's called under the influence and not impaired like most other States". Perhaps that was your point, however you never communicated thatpoint. If you had communicated those thoughts I would have agreed. Numerous States have different names for the same crime.
By your logic anyone that questions an investigation is dishonoring the dead. Your logic is broken, not mine.
I hope that we can agree that your assertion is that an approved chemical test is required for a "drunk driving" conviction.
That was the example I gave, so yes we can agree that "Drunk Driving" can not be convicted based on a cop claiming "he smelled like alcohol.
You then pull a sentence out as stand alone so it loses context, which was given to match the above which you seem to agree with. Is English your 2nd language and you don't understand how a paragraph is supposed to work?
Once again, "drunk driving" is not a legal charge in CA.
Are you to claim that you can not be charged for DUI in CA? Once again, you don't seem to be pedantic since you don't mention DUI. You further don't mention "influence" so the same statement applies. Read the text of the laws and they do exist defining the limits of impaired vs. drunk driving. http://www.california-drunkdriving.org/laws.html states very clearly the summaries. No, I don't feel it pertinent to a Slashdot discussion to point out exact verbiage and numbers of Laws, but rather use common names which everyone can associate with.
No, I won't site an easy to Google example of motorists arrested and ticketed for careless or impaired driving where no alcohol was involved.
Wait a minute AC. I realize that Google searches can be difficult, but this did not require any playing with keywords to find. Tell me how much money he is giving away when his wealth has continued to increase by "BILLIONS" of dollars annually!
From Forbes we have Bill Gates' net worth rose $6 billion from last March due to gains in his investment portfolio; his holdings include tech hygiene firm Ecolab, waste collector Republic Services and Mexican Coke bottler FEMSA. In February the first 12 non-Americans joined Bill Gates’ and Warren Buffett’s Giving Pledge, in which the ultra-wealthy pledge to give away at least half their net worth to charity.
If Bill gave away 1/2 his wealth, should he not have today only 33.5billion dollars instead of 67billion? Was it only 1/2 his wealth of.. income on some stock investment? 1/2 of his wealth only in Mexico? There are obviously numerous conditions and stipulations on his definition of both "wealth" and "giving away" which are not disclosed meaning there is no sincere altruistic motives.
Google will be my friend later, since I have read numerous articles over the last few years but didn't see anything immediately on Google. Play with keywords and see what you can find, I'll do the same. Replying now so you don't think your comment is ignored ahead of digging for links when I have time later.
Glad to see that propaganda works so well. If the TV box told you it was true, it must be true. Never check any facts, including literature and political leaders of these groups. Just believe that picture box!
dumbass
Logical fallacy. The Government having one form of control does not indicate that they don't want more. The concepts of dominance are not new, please stop trying to ignore them.
Yes, you did say "drunk driving" - which, as far as I know, is not an actual offence. According to the vehicle code: *snipped as not relevant*
The only way to prove "Drunk Driving" is with a method of measuring the alcohol level in blood (either breathalyzer or blood test, but you never mentioned a blood test and they are a bit rare in the US [compared to Germany] so you are not being simply pedantic). This charge can not stand with only a cop saying "they smelled like booze", and would not stand even with video of erratic driving.
If I had given a generalization, I could see the confusion. I gave a very specific example to show that "cop smelling alcohol" is not relevant to "legality" in any law.
You keep trying to blur the line between impaired and drunk driving, when there is a very clear legal definition. Yes, a breathalyzer (or blood test as mentioned above) _is_ required for "drunk driving" charges. Video of a weaving driver, witnesses claiming erratic behavior, etc.. could be used as evidence with the cop "smelling alcohol" as impaired or careless driving. There is a difference between Impaired/Careless and Drunk, despite your repeated attempts to claim that they are the same thing.
So the action words are what lose you? Verbs are hard? Honestly, this is not my lesson to learn. "He gives away all of his money to help others" can NOT be true of the person is in fact GAINING WEALTH. It is impossible. Now will you come back and argue that "he" needs to be properly defined?
Now if the fact is that he is gaining in wealth clicks, and you get that there is a perpetrated lie of "him giving away money" you will see that the altruism people associate with Bill Gates is also a lie.
You ignored that I stated specifically "drunk driving" requires a breathalyzer and changed the topic to impaired which I never mentioned. I stated that the AC was wrong that a cop should be able to give you a ticket for smelling like alcohol. You added items as if you were claiming I was wrong and the AC was correct. Are you defending the AC's position or my position? If neither, I'm not sure the point you are trying to make.
You are a shill, and shockingly an "anonymous" shill. This is one report out of thousands I have read in the last decade.
I will have to dig pretty far back in archives to find the reports, but they are out there.
How can you function with such severe cognitive dissonance? "He is altruistic so giving away his wealth" directly conflicts with the reality that he has been gaining more wealth.
So you are trying to incorrectly claim that there is no burden of proof? Even in California this is wrong (I live in CA). A cop claiming "he smelled like booze" is not enough to arrest or convict a person. This works as intended.
One of the most blatant examples of foolish political ideas by science fiction authors is Gene Roddenberry's idea that advanced civilizations would have no money.
Then you have not spent any time contemplating or studying nearly every work that describes Utopia or a functional Republic. Your ignorance does not suffice as evidence that the theory is wrong, it simply indicates that you have a lot of learning to do.
Really? Gates demanding that people and governments sign long term contracts with US Agriculture and Medical corporations and not produce or grow locally as a condition of receiving his "Free" medicine is a benefit to society? Who's society are you referring to, the starving people in Ethiopia that can't grow local food any more because they received "Free vaccines"?
Good grief man, use your head just a little. If Mr. Gates was really just "helping everyone with his money" why has his wealth continued to grow while the people he is supposedly helping go further down in poverty? Some of the vaccines being pushed overseas are illegal in numerous Western Countries after being proven harmful to recipients.
Your view of an "awesome model" seems to be very low and abstract.
More on topic, look for Facebook to report some major loss in value causing the stocks to drop. Zuckerberg is not the only one donating lots of stock. These people are not idiots, and didn't get to be as wealthy as they are because they are altruistic.
Just ignore his trolling. If you ask about the 9/11 commission report, this person will tell you that you are blaming the government for the events. They won't actually look at any facts themselves because they believe it dishonors the dead.
So you are claiming that the person speculating "stupidity" is more valid than someone speculating that it's "intentional"? Show me proof of it being stupidity, or that is also baseless rumors.
The point I made is that either view is valid, or did you miss the "consider the possibility" statement?
When the people keep making the same bad decisions, you should consider the possibility that it is not just stupidity. Did we not learn a short time ago that agents were planted in companies like this to make back doors? Sure, no evidence or court cases yet... But see. Y first sentence.
An Anonymous Coward with a big fat turd of a fallacy. A police officer giving testimony of "smelling alcohol" is not evidence of anything, and is already useless in court. Any cop that gives this as the only evidence for drunk driving would be summarily dismissed, after the defendant and the attorney laughed at them.
That said, does alcohol on someone's breath does not mean that they have done or are doing anything illegal. Last I checked, selling and consuming alcohol is legal. I'm sure your straw man that follows will claim "but drunk driving", to which I'll say it takes a breathalyzer to show drunk driving and not simply an odor. A tablespoon of Robitussin contains alcohol, so should a person with a head cold be jailed for driving?
If you fail to understand or care about history and don't mind a good old fashioned fisting from the Constable, head to the local depot and ask them to search you. All of the silent and submissive Jews in Germany will tell you exactly how that worked out for them.
The rest of us should resist the tyranny that is growing in the USA.
I agree with both of your posts except for a statement you just made. Assault weapon bans are something to be scrutinized, and in some cases feared. Legislation has tried to label everything except a pistol and musket (yes black powder) as an "assault weapon" in the last decade, depending on who wrote the legislation it is worth having concerns.
Well, in honesty the other thing I don't agree with are liberal principles but that is a matter of debate outside of this theater.
I just got my vampire tap reseated, please repeat that!