It makes no sense at all to you because you haven't been on the receiving end of an illegal search.
The body of case law that requires the prosecutor's office to ignore evidence that has been illegally obtained is designed to stop illegal police searches, period. If the police constantly get cases tossed out because they are illegally searching people, at some point, police management is going to start training the cop on the beat in how to properly and legally conduct a search, and the illegal searches will at least, get less common.
However, if your idea of being able to use the evidence anyway got a legal foothold, any idea of a search being illegal would quickly go out the door, and the police would be able, in practice, to search anyone, anywhere they wished.
Not the way to protect privacy, in my opinion.
As to your idea of punishing the cop that conducts the illegal search, well, that's another story. Rightly or wrongly, our justice system tends to protect the cop on the beat. Sometimes, I think it goes too far, but on balance, they ARE the ones putting their lives on the line for us, and some leeway should acrue for that sacrifice.
As to the punishment, that DOES happen, internally, and out of public view. Do you think that a cop that constantly wastes police time and resources AND prosecutorial time and resources by constantly conducting illegal searches that get cases tossed out DOESN'T get brought up short by his boss? I'll bet they do. Police agencies all over the world are constantly short of budget, personnel, and other resources. Prosecutors' offices are much the same. They can't just let these things go, because they waste time and money. Cops that search illegally on a regular basis get pulled off the street and get re-educated and retrained. Those that keep it up will eventually get canned.
I can understand your reasons for your rant - we all have gripes with the justice system; it's not even close to perfect. But I'd rather the system encourage the cops to obey the constitutional guarantees of freedom the Bill of Rights gives us than allow them to ignore them. Yes, criminals will get released. But most criminals aren't very smart - if the cops don't get them this time, they will the next.
Of course, there are no guarantees, especially on the world stage.
Fortunately, for anybody to get ready for such an attack as we faced in the cold war, it would take quite a long time, in strategic terms, for the tension to build to where it would be possible. - there are no 30 minute surprise attacks waiting nowadays, at least on the nuclear level! and thank god for that!
Why would such a container need to withstand falling into the sun? Don't you mean falling into the atmosphere?
If it fell into the sun, it would be falling into what is effectively, a thurmonuclear reactor anyway - and we don't have the technology to withstand that!
In Texas, where I grew up, you don't have to register for any particular party. You take your registration card to the primary poll of the party of your choice, they stamp it with their stamp, which prevents you from voting in the other party's primary.
Independant candidates go onto the final election ballot based upon signature petitions of a certain percentage of registered voters of either party.
Makes more sense to me.
The main problem I see with our system is that it is biased towards the two main parties, with an impossible barrier to any third parties' entry into the system with any real chance of success.
Bush may not be doing a good job of LEADING the country, like a President is supposed to do; but he's doing bang up job of running the *government* the way the far right wing wants him to, which is why they voted for him. Leading the country isn't his priority; pleasing his party base is.
The problem with the Democrats is just what was wrong with the Republicans in the 90's. You are so blinded by hatred for Bush that you get so extreme with the rhetoric that it turns off the regular Americans that you need to vote him outta office and your guy in. I say that as a guy that was in the middle of that, and still carries that visceral hatred for Clinton in my bones - but that doesn't stop me from seeing how it's expression hurt us at the polls.
Both parties really, really need to get away from that extreme wing thing, and back to realizing that it is the Centralists in American politics that hold the real power.
Instead of getting the moderates of one party together with the extremists in that same party to vote together to win, someone got all the moderates from BOTH parties together, they'd walk away with the next election.
And we couild leave all the extremists in the dust.
Sorry, that "impending doom" I mentioned is NOT here anymore. Most of those weapons have been dismantled; those that are still in the inventory aren't actively aimed at anything; they'd have to be reprogrammed to be shot off. All of the Minuteman missles have been deactivated; the silos are just wrecks now.
The only place the US military has ready to launch missles is in the submarines, and the numbers of those have been drastically reduced, if they even still have one on patrol anymore.
You may feel a sense of doom, but it is NOT the same - back in the day, we knew that if the button was pushed, we could die in 30 minutes or less, most people wouldn't even hear an air raid siren before they died.
But yes, it IS nice to know that there are (and were) people that had some sense. That's why I'll be grateful to this guy forever.
My daughter just sold our old summer 2000 iMac DV (400 mHz) with 512 mb ram to one of her friends. It's running 10.3.9 and he's using it as a file server for his whole network. (games, music, photos, etc.) The last time I used it, sure it was slow, but it didn't give me hives like some of the year 2000 stuff does at work that runs XP. And they're 1 Ghz P4's running 512 mb. I agree with the parent; I'd hate to see any of the stuff we got rid of to buy the P4's as replacements for running even XP, much less Vista.
His later reprimand was officially for a failure to properly file paperwork. Whereupon he was removed from his prestigious position and sent elsewhere. So even the Soviet bureacracy recognized that his actions were the right thing to do, but since they also made his superiors look bad, he was cashiered. Typical bureaucratic reaction!
You are forgetting the atmosphere of the war itself. The Japanese themselves had made a practice of attacking, killing and interning civilians, oftentimes in job lots. See the post above with links about Nanking, China.
We were near the end of a long bloody conflict with an enemy that neither gave nor asked any quarter. By this time, American and Allied prisoners of war from various POW camps in the Pacific had been rescued and their stories publicized. The Allied High Command was in no mood for the nicities of peacetime morality. In their eyes, they were fighting a war of survival, and they were determined to win.
At no time in this war was the issue of avoiding civilian casualties even really publically discussed. The Japanese and German bombardments of Allied civilians in the beginning days of the war put an end to that.
And as for the birth defect issues, well, we knew a LOT less about nuclear radiation then than we know now, although I really doubt that it would have made mcuh difference, given the attitudes about the Axis powers at the time. We were too worried about defending our own children of that time to worry about the unborn generations of our enemies in years to come. There would have been plenty of folks that would have answered that one with a resounding "Kill the bastards anyway!"
I won't bother to reply to all your post; I don't have the time. However, one thing struck me about your post, and a few others here.
It is the misunderstanding of the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction. (MAD for short, and yes, the acronym was intentional)
The US developed the MAD doctrine as a way to deter the USSR from launching a feared nuclear first strike on the US. The idea is that if your opponent KNOWS that your policy, if attacked, is to launch an all-out retaliatory second or even third strike, thus destroying his entire country, then he will be a lot less inclined to start what he knows you'll finish.
It's kinda like the two cowboys standing in the street in the old western. As they taunt each other, one steps up so close to the other that they are just three or four feet from one another, obviously close enough that to draw and fire is to be killed oneself. the second cowboy is so frightened by this sudden aggressive turn of events, that he is frozen in fear. In the scene I remember, the first one then uses his fists unexpectedly to end the confrontation.
The MAD doctrine, quite simply, was designed to do just that, and it worked. It really did scare the Soviets silly. Don't forget, this was an era in which we had very little information on how the Soviet leaders thought - there was very little communication between us. We were afraid of them since their thoughts and plans were unknown. Little did we know - they were just as scared as we were!
What finally broke the logjam was Reagan and Gorbachov at Iceland. It was the personal link the two forged that allowed Gorbachov to take the actions that he finally did that ended the cold war. He knew from that contact that, as hard as Reagan was at the negotiating table, Gorbachov realized that he was an honorable man, and really didn't mean to attack the USSR. It was that personal insight that the Soviet leaders had never had, and it was the tie breaker.
The large numbers of weapons that both sides accumulated were the result of the end of nuclear testing protocols, at least in part. When you have an arsenal of weapons you can't test, you build more as the old ones get too old for full reliability. The old ones had to be stored, since there was no way to take them apart, politically, lest one's opponent mistake the action for weakness.
Because that was the world, and how different it was, when everybdoy lived under the threat of nuclear death in 15 minutes or less with no warning.
I remember the drills where we filed out of the classroom and into the hall, and curled up on the floor with our heads covered by our hands and arms. We had them once a week for a time.
One of the most powerful political ads was one that Lyndon Johnson used against his Republican opponent (I can't remember his name right now - brain fart) where it showed a little blonde haired girl, about 5, sitting in a field of flowers humming a little song, (and the announcer was making remarks about his opponent) till the screen was blasted into whiteness, followed by the image of a mushroom cloud. The implication, of course, was that his opponent was a hot headed maniac that would bring us to nuclear destruction.
It worked.
You folks that were born after the fall of the Soviet empire have no idea of how liberating that was. It ended a decades old "Sword of Damocles" that literally held the world hostage. Hearing that the nuclear weapons had been stood down and aiming points deleted from aiming software was VERY much a soul relieving experience!
I hope that none of you ever know that feeling of constant impending doom. It was always there; you mostly tried not to think about it, and were too busy to think about it all the time, but it was always there.
I, for one, will always remember this guy with gratitude around the time of my birthday (I was born the 22nd of September), he is a hero in my opinion, in a time and place where common sense wasn't very common.
I guess if it had the same case, then Ives must have designed that too? Just a slip up in the ID of the item in the photo then. True, it's not smart to do that in a major national publication!
Basically, this Federal law allows US citizens to sue foreigners that have harmed them in some way in order to gain compensation from the defendant's US assets. It allows the plaintiff to then hold that judgement for award if or until the losing party does gain sufficient US assets to pay the judgement. Since it a US court, it can order US assets of a foreign entity anywhere in the US to be seized for payment. This was the result of a law passed many years ago. It is NOT intended to give US courts jurisdiction over foreign soil. It is to allow US citizens to gain compensation for damage or harm done to them by persons outside of normal US jurisdiction.
Remember the hostages from the US Iranian embassy? They sued under this law, then ended up fighting the Justice Department over getting the Iranian assets turned over to them to cover the judgement.
Actually, this case, and others like it, filed against foreign entities residing in foreign countries, is allowed under a federal law (which is why it was filed in fed court) allowing US citizens to sue foreigners that have harmed them under US law. this came about as a result of a case or cases some thirty years ago where some US citizens were either held hostage or otherwise harmed in some way. I cannot remember the exact situation, but the stories of American citizens being unable to hold the guilty parties accountable resulted in Congressional action because of public outrage.
The idea is that if you are harmed by someone outside of the US, and they have broken US law (tort in this case), then you can sue, and if you win, get a judgement against them that can be upheld in any US Federal court. At that time, you can then have whatever US assets the losing party may have either held until the he pays, or have bank accounts, etc, seized for payment.
Since in this case, the losing entity not only resides outside of the US, but apparantly has no US assets, then all the winner can do is watch them to be sure they never gain such assets. Since there is no expiration date on such a judgement, the winner can hold that judgement over the losing party's head basically forever.
Slashdot Mirror
...almost?
It makes no sense at all to you because you haven't been on the receiving end of an illegal search.
The body of case law that requires the prosecutor's office to ignore evidence that has been illegally obtained is designed to stop illegal police searches, period. If the police constantly get cases tossed out because they are illegally searching people, at some point, police management is going to start training the cop on the beat in how to properly and legally conduct a search, and the illegal searches will at least, get less common.
However, if your idea of being able to use the evidence anyway got a legal foothold, any idea of a search being illegal would quickly go out the door, and the police would be able, in practice, to search anyone, anywhere they wished.
Not the way to protect privacy, in my opinion.
As to your idea of punishing the cop that conducts the illegal search, well, that's another story. Rightly or wrongly, our justice system tends to protect the cop on the beat. Sometimes, I think it goes too far, but on balance, they ARE the ones putting their lives on the line for us, and some leeway should acrue for that sacrifice.
As to the punishment, that DOES happen, internally, and out of public view. Do you think that a cop that constantly wastes police time and resources AND prosecutorial time and resources by constantly conducting illegal searches that get cases tossed out DOESN'T get brought up short by his boss? I'll bet they do. Police agencies all over the world are constantly short of budget, personnel, and other resources. Prosecutors' offices are much the same. They can't just let these things go, because they waste time and money. Cops that search illegally on a regular basis get pulled off the street and get re-educated and retrained. Those that keep it up will eventually get canned.
I can understand your reasons for your rant - we all have gripes with the justice system; it's not even close to perfect. But I'd rather the system encourage the cops to obey the constitutional guarantees of freedom the Bill of Rights gives us than allow them to ignore them. Yes, criminals will get released. But most criminals aren't very smart - if the cops don't get them this time, they will the next.
And your answer pertained to my post exactly - - - how?
I said nothing about a bigger power source, duh! I simply corrected an obvious word error.
Stupid, stupid, stupid!
Or maybe you simply replied to the wrong post!
duh...
Of course, there are no guarantees, especially on the world stage.
Fortunately, for anybody to get ready for such an attack as we faced in the cold war, it would take quite a long time, in strategic terms, for the tension to build to where it would be possible. - there are no 30 minute surprise attacks waiting nowadays, at least on the nuclear level! and thank god for that!
Why would such a container need to withstand falling into the sun? Don't you mean falling into the atmosphere?
If it fell into the sun, it would be falling into what is effectively, a thurmonuclear reactor anyway - and we don't have the technology to withstand that!
Sorry, you fixed nothing.
They only hold the power as long as the extremists on the right allow them to.
There. Fixed it for you.
Why should we register as anything?
In Texas, where I grew up, you don't have to register for any particular party. You take your registration card to the primary poll of the party of your choice, they stamp it with their stamp, which prevents you from voting in the other party's primary.
Independant candidates go onto the final election ballot based upon signature petitions of a certain percentage of registered voters of either party.
Makes more sense to me.
The main problem I see with our system is that it is biased towards the two main parties, with an impossible barrier to any third parties' entry into the system with any real chance of success.
I think you're both wrong.
Bush may not be doing a good job of LEADING the country, like a President is supposed to do; but he's doing bang up job of running the *government* the way the far right wing wants him to, which is why they voted for him. Leading the country isn't his priority; pleasing his party base is.
The problem with the Democrats is just what was wrong with the Republicans in the 90's. You are so blinded by hatred for Bush that you get so extreme with the rhetoric that it turns off the regular Americans that you need to vote him outta office and your guy in. I say that as a guy that was in the middle of that, and still carries that visceral hatred for Clinton in my bones - but that doesn't stop me from seeing how it's expression hurt us at the polls.
Both parties really, really need to get away from that extreme wing thing, and back to realizing that it is the Centralists in American politics that hold the real power.
Instead of getting the moderates of one party together with the extremists in that same party to vote together to win, someone got all the moderates from BOTH parties together, they'd walk away with the next election.
And we couild leave all the extremists in the dust.
Sorry, that "impending doom" I mentioned is NOT here anymore. Most of those weapons have been dismantled; those that are still in the inventory aren't actively aimed at anything; they'd have to be reprogrammed to be shot off. All of the Minuteman missles have been deactivated; the silos are just wrecks now.
The only place the US military has ready to launch missles is in the submarines, and the numbers of those have been drastically reduced, if they even still have one on patrol anymore.
You may feel a sense of doom, but it is NOT the same - back in the day, we knew that if the button was pushed, we could die in 30 minutes or less, most people wouldn't even hear an air raid siren before they died.
But yes, it IS nice to know that there are (and were) people that had some sense. That's why I'll be grateful to this guy forever.
My daughter just sold our old summer 2000 iMac DV (400 mHz) with 512 mb ram to one of her friends. It's running 10.3.9 and he's using it as a file server for his whole network. (games, music, photos, etc.) The last time I used it, sure it was slow, but it didn't give me hives like some of the year 2000 stuff does at work that runs XP. And they're 1 Ghz P4's running 512 mb.
I agree with the parent; I'd hate to see any of the stuff we got rid of to buy the P4's as replacements for running even XP, much less Vista.
RTFA.
His later reprimand was officially for a failure to properly file paperwork. Whereupon he was removed from his prestigious position and sent elsewhere. So even the Soviet bureacracy recognized that his actions were the right thing to do, but since they also made his superiors look bad, he was cashiered. Typical bureaucratic reaction!
Bullshit.
You are forgetting the atmosphere of the war itself. The Japanese themselves had made a practice of attacking, killing and interning civilians, oftentimes in job lots. See the post above with links about Nanking, China.
We were near the end of a long bloody conflict with an enemy that neither gave nor asked any quarter. By this time, American and Allied prisoners of war from various POW camps in the Pacific had been rescued and their stories publicized. The Allied High Command was in no mood for the nicities of peacetime morality. In their eyes, they were fighting a war of survival, and they were determined to win.
At no time in this war was the issue of avoiding civilian casualties even really publically discussed. The Japanese and German bombardments of Allied civilians in the beginning days of the war put an end to that.
And as for the birth defect issues, well, we knew a LOT less about nuclear radiation then than we know now, although I really doubt that it would have made mcuh difference, given the attitudes about the Axis powers at the time. We were too worried about defending our own children of that time to worry about the unborn generations of our enemies in years to come. There would have been plenty of folks that would have answered that one with a resounding "Kill the bastards anyway!"
I won't bother to reply to all your post; I don't have the time. However, one thing struck me about your post, and a few others here.
It is the misunderstanding of the doctrine of Mutual Assured Destruction. (MAD for short, and yes, the acronym was intentional)
The US developed the MAD doctrine as a way to deter the USSR from launching a feared nuclear first strike on the US. The idea is that if your opponent KNOWS that your policy, if attacked, is to launch an all-out retaliatory second or even third strike, thus destroying his entire country, then he will be a lot less inclined to start what he knows you'll finish.
It's kinda like the two cowboys standing in the street in the old western. As they taunt each other, one steps up so close to the other that they are just three or four feet from one another, obviously close enough that to draw and fire is to be killed oneself. the second cowboy is so frightened by this sudden aggressive turn of events, that he is frozen in fear. In the scene I remember, the first one then uses his fists unexpectedly to end the confrontation.
The MAD doctrine, quite simply, was designed to do just that, and it worked. It really did scare the Soviets silly. Don't forget, this was an era in which we had very little information on how the Soviet leaders thought - there was very little communication between us. We were afraid of them since their thoughts and plans were unknown. Little did we know - they were just as scared as we were!
What finally broke the logjam was Reagan and Gorbachov at Iceland. It was the personal link the two forged that allowed Gorbachov to take the actions that he finally did that ended the cold war. He knew from that contact that, as hard as Reagan was at the negotiating table, Gorbachov realized that he was an honorable man, and really didn't mean to attack the USSR. It was that personal insight that the Soviet leaders had never had, and it was the tie breaker.
The large numbers of weapons that both sides accumulated were the result of the end of nuclear testing protocols, at least in part. When you have an arsenal of weapons you can't test, you build more as the old ones get too old for full reliability. The old ones had to be stored, since there was no way to take them apart, politically, lest one's opponent mistake the action for weakness.
Because that was the world, and how different it was, when everybdoy lived under the threat of nuclear death in 15 minutes or less with no warning.
I remember the drills where we filed out of the classroom and into the hall, and curled up on the floor with our heads covered by our hands and arms. We had them once a week for a time.
One of the most powerful political ads was one that Lyndon Johnson used against his Republican opponent (I can't remember his name right now - brain fart) where it showed a little blonde haired girl, about 5, sitting in a field of flowers humming a little song, (and the announcer was making remarks about his opponent) till the screen was blasted into whiteness, followed by the image of a mushroom cloud. The implication, of course, was that his opponent was a hot headed maniac that would bring us to nuclear destruction.
It worked.
You folks that were born after the fall of the Soviet empire have no idea of how liberating that was. It ended a decades old "Sword of Damocles" that literally held the world hostage. Hearing that the nuclear weapons had been stood down and aiming points deleted from aiming software was VERY much a soul relieving experience!
I hope that none of you ever know that feeling of constant impending doom. It was always there; you mostly tried not to think about it, and were too busy to think about it all the time, but it was always there.
I, for one, will always remember this guy with gratitude around the time of my birthday (I was born the 22nd of September), he is a hero in my opinion, in a time and place where common sense wasn't very common.
"rubbery bouncy paint"
Is that a technical term?
...government agency to get involved in another product! I can see it now as a new advertising come on:
Now! New MacBook Pro - EPA approved! Improved catalytic converter design! Larger, more efficient muffler! Meets EPA SPMML standards! (Seconds per micro-milliliter)
Uh, (carefully asking) what's a "pirg"?
And Steve SAID they were using 640x480 downloads for the demo.. At least twice, cause that's what they're selling.
Yep, bad mojo...
Ah! That makes it clearer...so what you're saying is that is NOT the case that he designed...
Hmmm..."(which had the same case)"
I guess if it had the same case, then Ives must have designed that too? Just a slip up in the ID of the item in the photo then. True, it's not smart to do that in a major national publication!
Didn't you read TFA? Ive WAS responsible for those designs. They were NOT outsourced. Cites, please? Put up or shut up.
If nobody reads then what are we doing here, and how do you know what my post says?
See my post above about this same thing.
Basically, this Federal law allows US citizens to sue foreigners that have harmed them in some way in order to gain compensation from the defendant's US assets. It allows the plaintiff to then hold that judgement for award if or until the losing party does gain sufficient US assets to pay the judgement. Since it a US court, it can order US assets of a foreign entity anywhere in the US to be seized for payment. This was the result of a law passed many years ago. It is NOT intended to give US courts jurisdiction over foreign soil. It is to allow US citizens to gain compensation for damage or harm done to them by persons outside of normal US jurisdiction.
Remember the hostages from the US Iranian embassy? They sued under this law, then ended up fighting the Justice Department over getting the Iranian assets turned over to them to cover the judgement.
Actually, this case, and others like it, filed against foreign entities residing in foreign countries, is allowed under a federal law (which is why it was filed in fed court) allowing US citizens to sue foreigners that have harmed them under US law. this came about as a result of a case or cases some thirty years ago where some US citizens were either held hostage or otherwise harmed in some way. I cannot remember the exact situation, but the stories of American citizens being unable to hold the guilty parties accountable resulted in Congressional action because of public outrage.
The idea is that if you are harmed by someone outside of the US, and they have broken US law (tort in this case), then you can sue, and if you win, get a judgement against them that can be upheld in any US Federal court. At that time, you can then have whatever US assets the losing party may have either held until the he pays, or have bank accounts, etc, seized for payment.
Since in this case, the losing entity not only resides outside of the US, but apparantly has no US assets, then all the winner can do is watch them to be sure they never gain such assets. Since there is no expiration date on such a judgement, the winner can hold that judgement over the losing party's head basically forever.