"There is as yet insufficient data for a meaningful answer."

This is completely at odds with everything I've heard about US legal system, where the victims need to prove they didn't provoke the attacker ("stand your ground"), especially if the attacker is a cop, so citation needed.

Not quite sure what you need a cite on - That police in the US don't have the right to beat the shit out of you for no reason?


In theory, when cops give a lawful order, you need to obey it. When cops give an unlawful order, you can ignore it.

In practice, ignoring any order from a cop, lawful or not, will result in you having a very bad day. Resisting at that point will make your day even worse, from "bad" to potentially "dead".

If, however, you complied (note I didn't say "consented") fully, that drastically improves your chances in any subsequent legal proceedings, whether against you using illegally obtained evidence, or against the cop for abuse/assault/etc.

What exactly do you gain by consenting to an illegal request of a power they do not have?

"Comply" does not equal "consent".

Make it absolutely clear that you do not consent to illegal searches or other orders, but remain entirely passive throughout the encounter. If Officer Friendly finds something in an illegal search, it makes it that much easier for your lawyer to get it thrown out. If Officer Friendly breaks your arm throwing you against a car to violently frisk you, it makes it that much easier for your lawyer to end his career and win you a nice chunk of change.

And if Officer Friendly caps yo axe, the grand jury doesn't need to deliberate for six months to decide to charge him with murder (or, if you have the opportunity, to decide not to charge you with the same for acting in self defense).

The ideology in question simply states that women are equal to men. That's it.

Do homeless white males still need to check their privilege?

Kindly explain "eye rape" to me, please.

Can misandry exist?

Does giving preferential treatment to any group, at the expense of another, meet your requirement for "equality"?

You are saying there is no hatred

No. He said "there's no hatred directed at women here" - A categorically true statement, given that I made no mention of women at all. None.

Disagree with my stance on the merits of basing your world-view on mock indignation, if you will. But do make an attempt to stick to the topic at hand, rather than whatever strawmen (sorry, "strawpersons") you'd prefer to attack.

I said nothing about women. Reading comprehension - You can haz it?

Nice rant though, I'd recommend you save it to for next week. Protip: Look for someone actually, y'know, mentioning women, preferably in a negative way, before you recycle that drivel.

The first person to use the term "SJW" has probably just proven the point of the article.

Funny thing about using a group's identity pejoratively...

If retards didn't exist, we wouldn't call them retards. And if we considered retards a good thing, we wouldn't use that word as an insult. Similarly, much as "retarded" replaced "idiot" and "moron", "SJW" itself replaced "PC", once that older term had become too commonplace.

If you manage to make the actual use of "SJW" gauche, you can expect to simply see something else replace it - Of course, I suppose people could just start calling them the more accurate "indignation whores", but that seems a bit too blunt to adopt for common usage.

I'm actually the CIO and they made me part time 3D designer because of that :D

"I make half a mil a year to align the corporate IT strategy with the CEO's vision... But the company would rather use me to fill a 50k chair".

I wish I hadn't already posted so I could mod you up. Beautiful!

Slashdot is not a your blog. Go away.

Nowhere does it mention the Declaration. Go ahead, try citing it as legal authority in a courtroom and see how far it gets you, Mr. Constitutional Scholar.

Don't confuse "legal" for "ethical", Mr. Rules Lawyer.

All people have a right - An obligation - To resist an oppressive government to the greatest extent possible. For some people, that means voting. For some, it means running for office. For some, it means running issues ads. For some, it means stalling paperwork as a low-level clerk in some office deep in a government building. And for some... It means preparing for when, not if, all the lesser options fail to achieve the desired result.

FWIW, I don't think we've reached that point - yet. Getting harder and harder not to notice that the asshats in Washington seem intent on getting us there as rapidly as possible, however.

They know everything that could go wrong in ten years of space travel.

...Except landing in a shadow in the most important 30 seconds of the mission?


Though overall, I agree, and offer the ESA a hearty congratulations - Well done! Just somewhat disappointing that the coolest part of the whole mission, while "technically" successful, won't get to do anything more than drill a few small holes.

Y'know, I realize that all the self-righteous "Papa knows best" crowd recently learned the term "Dunning Kruger", but casually tossing it out as a way to instantly shut down any discussion works about as well as complaining about "privilege".

More importantly - For all you know, koan works for the Mars Rover program, and has a legitimate right to mock the ESA's lack of foresight.

On a purely practical level - Yes, more instruments means more weight. But to have no maneuvering capabilities, not even the ability to flip itself over if it landed on its side, or make short hops around the surface - Keep in mind the gravity here - A tiny piston slightly off-center on each side of the cube would have added a few hundred grams and meant a billion dollar mission wouldn't die later today because of shadows, of all things.

What does "court order" mean? Are they going to require an actual warrant, or will they just cough up your data on any request by a court? Because if a warrant ain't required, I ain't interested.

Even if they do require a warrant, I ain't interested. They can keep their BS extra features that require tracking me. I can call AAA on my own. I can read a map on my own. I can remember to schedule my regular maintenance without automated reminders based on telemetry data.

Free hint, automakers - Any feature that requires data to leave my car, I will actively disable. And even any feature that requires the car to log data locally, I will minimize to the greatest extent possible. I don't trust you, I don't trust the NSA, I don't trust the state government not to retroactively issue speeding tickets in a revenue-tight year (like they've already proven they will do with EZ-Pass type toll transponders - You know, the ones they promised (just like in TFA) they'd never use for anything other than paying your tolls).

Someone want to get rich? Develop an ODBC-II dongle that erases my car's EDR every time I turn the car off... Or for that matter, continually if possible.

Think you're smarter than a Supreme court justice?

Argumentum ad verecundiam. Try again.


Do not assume that you know the law better than a prosecutor that's poring over emails after your dean forwarded them on with a note "Hey frank, I hate this kid... screwer him if you can"

The fact that, given "six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, [you] will find something in them which will hang him" doesn't have any bearing on whether or not plagiarism itself counts as a crime. Which it doesn't.


I never said it would be a copyright law you broke. You have no idea which laws you could break... none what-so-ever...

Put up or shut up - Pick an actual law, or cede the point.