I have successfully recovered SIGNIFICANT funds (so significant that I am retired now at the age of 37) from three different police departments under 42 USC 1983 for violation of my civil rights
So let me see if I understand this. You got "SIGNIFICANT funds" from your fellow taxpayers, while the miscreants that violated your civil rights didn't have to pay a cent of their own money, and most likely got an extra paid vacation (a.k.a "suspended with pat") as a bonus?
The biggest problem in todays concrete production is cost effectiveness. We can produce hundreds of concretes with widely varying properties. We can mix concretes with negligible carbon footprint or extreme durability or very steep viscoelasticity, but pumping tons of these into a foundation would cost more than simply using pure steel for all of it.
I would like to expand on it a little. As the AC said, the problem lies in economics, not engineering.
1) The project goes to the lowest bidder. Price tag (short-term costs) trumps quality (long-term costs) every time.
2) Planned obsolesce. There is less profit in just selling the product than in selling the product, plus a maintenance contract, plus another product when the first one breaks down. Lather, rinse, repeat.
I, too, have zero faith in Steven Harper generally and would prefer him and his party out of office, but on this particular issue I'm worried the consensus is quite cross-party, at least between the Conservatives and Liberals.
Then support the NDP (for a party with traction) or Green (for a party that desperately needs to gain some). You can also try your luck with Pirate, or even go with an independent (or run as one).
Personally, I would vote Rhino before I would either LIB or CON.
People have this disingenuous idea that politicians behave substantially worse than anybody else.
Politicians aren't any worse than many of the people I've had to work with. People will exploit a situation to their advantage as much as they can get away with. Sometimes the limits are legal. Sometimes they are cultural. Sometimes they are family. Sometimes they are corporate.
And there are exceptions, more than a few in select organizations. But by and large, that's the scenario. Politicians just happen to be a small identifiable group with varying degrees of much greater power and influence, and therefore their behavior have further reaching effects.
In order to be a successful politician, and attain and retain said "degrees of much greater power and influence", a person has to be worse than anybody else.
But that aside, power corrupts. When was the last time you saw a politician actively working to increase personal accountability for his ilk after getting in power?
The guns are only useful for revolution if most of us are on the same page. But the political problem with our nation is very much our artificial polarization.
good, then lets have a trial. at least a really good examination of the policies. I dont care if a "tool" is compromised at this point. The enemy this tool works against is a bogeyman. As the govt likes to say, if they have done nothing wrong, then they should have no fear in letting us see the truth.
He will have a secret trial, by a secret court with secret judges. All evidence will be classified and neither he, nor his defense counsel will be allowed to see it. Anything else will compromise national security.
Come to think of it, he could also suffer a tragic drone accident. That would solve the problem nicely.
If you are already using your smartphone as a dash-mounted GPS navigator, why not get a cheap wide-angle lens kit and use its rear-facing camera as a dashcam? There must be apps for that.
Just one question to consider: If one of children is abducted, manages to hit the "panic" button on their phone while in the kidnapper's car, but the call (either to 911 or to another designated number) is blocked by this feature, who will be legally liable?
If it's the people who passed that law, then I'm all for it. If it's the car manufacturer, I'd like to see the fallout.
So vote on someone that represents you in the next election. That's how a democracy works.
Democracy, like capitalism, only "works" in settings that satisfy certain conditions, and is easily "broken" if those conditions are not met.
An important requirement for a functioning democracy is an educated, informed and involved electorate, which itself requires free and independent press (FOX needs not apply) and a right to free political expression (free speech zones need not apply). You also need an election system that allows newcomers to get traction (FPTP needs not apply), strict control of funding (super PACs need not apply) and effective deterrents against corruption and conflicts of interests (most, if not all, countries on this planet need not apply).
The "vote on someone that represents you in the next election" statement is only valid if the system actually allows a "someone" to represent you.
I asserted nothing different. He "hid" them in that he invested millions and admitted to destroying all proof of the expense.
Can you please point me to his admission?
So, you stated the current reality. Why comment on that?
Because I happen to believe that such current reality is wrong, unjust and has to be changed, and was trying to raise awareness to the fact. You are aware that more people than just you and me read/., right?
That's why I selected the more interesting tangent you went off on showing how bad it is when someone "lost" more than he was worth
I never went on any tangent, you did. My point was, and remained, that pissing off a judge carries punishment disproportional to the "crime" and I used Chadwick as an example of the absolute power judges wield. Whatever else you read into it was your own doing.
He was presumed innocent, but judged guilty by a judge because there was no reasonable doubt that he hid the money and lied about it.
Contempt of court is extrajudicial. There is no legal "reasonable doubt" standard. Whatever the judge says, goes.
I always understood. You assume anyone who disagrees with any of your points only does so because they don't understand.
You did not disagree with me and, by your own admission, you still don't. I was addressing bogaboga's suggestion and used Chadwick as an example. You kept bringing the fact that he was lying, which is completely irrelevant since the point is that he did not get the due process he should be entitled to. I believe that in the US, even if I kill you in front of the chief of police, I still get my day in court, and the prosecutor still has to convince 12 of my peers to convict. If I get convicted of 2nd degree murder, I may still serve less time than Chadwick has. I don't give a rat's ass about Chadwick as a person, I do care about Chadwick as an example of a flawed system.
I just didn't care to comment on it, and instead commented on a tangent you brought up
bogaboga suggested fucking with the judge (figuratively speaking). I said it was a bad idea and gave an example of a person that tried. You then shifted the topic to what Chadwick did and claimed. I tried getting back on topic of judges absolute poser in their courtrooms. You persisted. Who exactly was going on a tangent?
The proof was he admitted to hiding millions. He just then couldn't document its current location. He also couldn't document his destruction of the documents, which was another issue, because if he destroyed it after a certain date, it was a separate crime.
That is an interesting assertion. All the references that I could find point to him claiming that he lost the money in bad investments. Since you assert differently, I have no choice but resort to [citation needed].
Or, your implication that judges shouldn't have any power in divorce or custody battles.
My implication is that judges shouldn't have unlimited power in any situation. If a judge "charges" you with contempt of court, there is no due process, no trial, no jury, no review, no right of appeal, and no limits on the sanctions. Does it make any sense to you that he could potentially serve less time had he killed his wife?
I was just waiting for the rant about how men are screwed on custody.
Sorry to disappoint you, but had you taken the time to read the original post that prompted my response (you know, that "parent" link), you would get enough context to avoid such expectations.
Now, please excuse me for bringing this discussion back on topic.
Say you have a folder containing all your financial, medical and otherwise private information, including document scans, account numbers and passwords to them. Nothing illegal, immoral or unethical but everything an identity thief would want to get their hands on. You encrypt the folder with a one-time pad that you intent to put in a safe deposit box with instructions to release it to your spouse in the event of your death. Unfortunately, the media with the "key" somehow gets lost/stolen/destroyed before it gets to its destination. An inconvenience, as the data is no longer accessible, but it is still safe and you can duplicate it from other sources.
But what if you are suspected by the authorities to have child porn on your machine, and a judge orders you to decrypt that folder? He is not very technical so he does not believe (or even understand) your explanation. In fact, he does not have to listen to it at all. In his view, you were ordered to decrypt the files and refused to do so, therefore you're in contempt of court and can be, say, imprisoned until you comply. He can legally keep you locked up forever for not doing the impossible and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
Do you understand my point now, or would you rather talk about custody?
Slashdot Mirror
I have successfully recovered SIGNIFICANT funds (so significant that I am retired now at the age of 37) from three different police departments under 42 USC 1983 for violation of my civil rights
So let me see if I understand this.
You got "SIGNIFICANT funds" from your fellow taxpayers, while the miscreants that violated your civil rights didn't have to pay a cent of their own money, and most likely got an extra paid vacation (a.k.a "suspended with pat") as a bonus?
The days of cops being there to "protect and serve" are long gone
On the contrary. You just didn't realize who exactly they are serving and protecting.
You've been programming for at least 20 years. That means you've started when things weren't buried behind seven layers of abstraction
How many levels of abstraction again?
The biggest problem in todays concrete production is cost effectiveness. We can produce hundreds of concretes with widely varying properties. We can mix concretes with negligible carbon footprint or extreme durability or very steep viscoelasticity, but pumping tons of these into a foundation would cost more than simply using pure steel for all of it.
I would like to expand on it a little. As the AC said, the problem lies in economics, not engineering.
1) The project goes to the lowest bidder. Price tag (short-term costs) trumps quality (long-term costs) every time.
2) Planned obsolesce. There is less profit in just selling the product than in selling the product, plus a maintenance contract, plus another product when the first one breaks down. Lather, rinse, repeat.
It was stupid, ill-thought out, and poorly executed.
No, it was criminal.
If it was a private person distributing CDs with rootkits on them, he would be in jail.
How quickly we forget.
These guys are really trying hard to make sure 1984 and Brave New World actually come true.
1984 is already here.
Once they have it, they'll misuse it, and tell you it's for your own good.
They already have it, they already misuse it, and they already tell you it's for your own good.
Freedom has gone out of fashion, and now we're stuck with the surveillance society.
Freedom was never in fashion, it was just a good marketing slogan, like "don't be evil".
As someone who uses a TENS to manage chronic pain, I would like to know these fun things.
Probably this.
Whenever you see a phrase mentioning "in the cloud" mentally replace it with "on some stranger's computer", then re-evaluate.
I, too, have zero faith in Steven Harper generally and would prefer him and his party out of office, but on this particular issue I'm worried the consensus is quite cross-party, at least between the Conservatives and Liberals.
Then support the NDP (for a party with traction) or Green (for a party that desperately needs to gain some).
You can also try your luck with Pirate, or even go with an independent (or run as one).
Personally, I would vote Rhino before I would either LIB or CON.
People have this disingenuous idea that politicians behave substantially worse than anybody else.
Politicians aren't any worse than many of the people I've had to work with. People will exploit a situation to their advantage as much as they can get away with. Sometimes the limits are legal. Sometimes they are cultural. Sometimes they are family. Sometimes they are corporate.
And there are exceptions, more than a few in select organizations. But by and large, that's the scenario. Politicians just happen to be a small identifiable group with varying degrees of much greater power and influence, and therefore their behavior have further reaching effects.
In order to be a successful politician, and attain and retain said "degrees of much greater power and influence", a person has to be worse than anybody else.
But that aside, power corrupts. When was the last time you saw a politician actively working to increase personal accountability for his ilk after getting in power?
The guns are only useful for revolution if most of us are on the same page. But the political problem with our nation is very much our artificial polarization.
That "problem" is by design.
good, then lets have a trial. at least a really good examination of the policies. I dont care if a "tool" is compromised at this point. The enemy this tool works against is a bogeyman. As the govt likes to say, if they have done nothing wrong, then they should have no fear in letting us see the truth.
He will have a secret trial, by a secret court with secret judges. All evidence will be classified and neither he, nor his defense counsel will be allowed to see it.
Anything else will compromise national security.
Come to think of it, he could also suffer a tragic drone accident. That would solve the problem nicely.
If you are already using your smartphone as a dash-mounted GPS navigator, why not get a cheap wide-angle lens kit and use its rear-facing camera as a dashcam?
There must be apps for that.
Or am I missing something here?
Just one question to consider:
If one of children is abducted, manages to hit the "panic" button on their phone while in the kidnapper's car, but the call (either to 911 or to another designated number) is blocked by this feature, who will be legally liable?
If it's the people who passed that law, then I'm all for it.
If it's the car manufacturer, I'd like to see the fallout.
My first question would be WHY do these have to be SECRET?
I was about to reply:
Because terrorism.
And child porn.
but pixelpusher220 beat me to it.
Nothing. Laws are applied selectively for a reason.
In one word: feudalism
So vote on someone that represents you in the next election. That's how a democracy works.
Democracy, like capitalism, only "works" in settings that satisfy certain conditions, and is easily "broken" if those conditions are not met.
An important requirement for a functioning democracy is an educated, informed and involved electorate, which itself requires free and independent press (FOX needs not apply) and a right to free political expression (free speech zones need not apply). You also need an election system that allows newcomers to get traction (FPTP needs not apply), strict control of funding (super PACs need not apply) and effective deterrents against corruption and conflicts of interests (most, if not all, countries on this planet need not apply).
The "vote on someone that represents you in the next election" statement is only valid if the system actually allows a "someone" to represent you.
what exactly is a serious crime?
Anything that goes against the agenda of monied interests.
> It is the job of any national government to protect itself from its citizens
FTFY.
If you're doing Official Government Business, you have to comply with the law.
Only if there are personal consequences for failing to do so.
Otherwise, compliance is optional.
And you find these definitions and process acceptable?
I asserted nothing different. He "hid" them in that he invested millions and admitted to destroying all proof of the expense.
Can you please point me to his admission?
So, you stated the current reality. Why comment on that?
Because I happen to believe that such current reality is wrong, unjust and has to be changed, and was trying to raise awareness to the fact. /., right?
You are aware that more people than just you and me read
That's why I selected the more interesting tangent you went off on showing how bad it is when someone "lost" more than he was worth
I never went on any tangent, you did.
My point was, and remained, that pissing off a judge carries punishment disproportional to the "crime" and I used Chadwick as an example of the absolute power judges wield. Whatever else you read into it was your own doing.
He was presumed innocent, but judged guilty by a judge because there was no reasonable doubt that he hid the money and lied about it.
Contempt of court is extrajudicial. There is no legal "reasonable doubt" standard. Whatever the judge says, goes.
I always understood. You assume anyone who disagrees with any of your points only does so because they don't understand.
You did not disagree with me and, by your own admission, you still don't. I was addressing bogaboga's suggestion and used Chadwick as an example. You kept bringing the fact that he was lying, which is completely irrelevant since the point is that he did not get the due process he should be entitled to. I believe that in the US, even if I kill you in front of the chief of police, I still get my day in court, and the prosecutor still has to convince 12 of my peers to convict. If I get convicted of 2nd degree murder, I may still serve less time than Chadwick has. I don't give a rat's ass about Chadwick as a person, I do care about Chadwick as an example of a flawed system.
I just didn't care to comment on it, and instead commented on a tangent you brought up
bogaboga suggested fucking with the judge (figuratively speaking).
I said it was a bad idea and gave an example of a person that tried.
You then shifted the topic to what Chadwick did and claimed.
I tried getting back on topic of judges absolute poser in their courtrooms.
You persisted.
Who exactly was going on a tangent?
The proof was he admitted to hiding millions. He just then couldn't document its current location. He also couldn't document his destruction of the documents, which was another issue, because if he destroyed it after a certain date, it was a separate crime.
That is an interesting assertion. All the references that I could find point to him claiming that he lost the money in bad investments. Since you assert differently, I have no choice but resort to [citation needed].
Or, your implication that judges shouldn't have any power in divorce or custody battles.
My implication is that judges shouldn't have unlimited power in any situation.
If a judge "charges" you with contempt of court, there is no due process, no trial, no jury, no review, no right of appeal, and no limits on the sanctions. Does it make any sense to you that he could potentially serve less time had he killed his wife?
I was just waiting for the rant about how men are screwed on custody.
Sorry to disappoint you, but had you taken the time to read the original post that prompted my response (you know, that "parent" link), you would get enough context to avoid such expectations.
Now, please excuse me for bringing this discussion back on topic.
Say you have a folder containing all your financial, medical and otherwise private information, including document scans, account numbers and passwords to them. Nothing illegal, immoral or unethical but everything an identity thief would want to get their hands on.
You encrypt the folder with a one-time pad that you intent to put in a safe deposit box with instructions to release it to your spouse in the event of your death. Unfortunately, the media with the "key" somehow gets lost/stolen/destroyed before it gets to its destination. An inconvenience, as the data is no longer accessible, but it is still safe and you can duplicate it from other sources.
But what if you are suspected by the authorities to have child porn on your machine, and a judge orders you to decrypt that folder? He is not very technical so he does not believe (or even understand) your explanation. In fact, he does not have to listen to it at all. In his view, you were ordered to decrypt the files and refused to do so, therefore you're in contempt of court and can be, say, imprisoned until you comply. He can legally keep you locked up forever for not doing the impossible and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it.
Do you understand my point now, or would you rather talk about custody?