Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:Videos I've seen (Score 1) 961

by freaq (#37535004) Attached to: Conflict Between Occupy Wall Street Protestors and NYPD Escalating

Why? Becasue what's going on for hours and hours beforehand is really dull, and forcing thousands of people to watch that would be a really dick thing to do. If you dig, you'll find that longer clips are available, but they don't actually add anything to the discussion other than "nothing happened to provoke the police".

If you're going to take a karma hit, it's because you're posting nonsense, and putting quotes around the police's brutal, unprovoked aggression doesn't make it something else or justify it. It does, however, make you look like an apologist, or secretly a member of the NYPD.

As for intending to provoke a police response, that's wrong on so many levels I'm not sure where to begin, other than to say you sound really paranoid. You could just as easily say, "in the thousands that are there, you can't say there aren't any police agent provocateurs."

Comment: Re:Police often violate 4th amendment rights.. (Score 1) 525

by freaq (#35877484) Attached to: Michigan Police Could Search Cell Phones During Traffic Stops
I feel like a broken record. I want my peace officers looking into crimes, not chasing after me.
If you've got nothing to hide, there is no way you should consent to a search, because doing so would validate wasting the time of a peace officer - now they're hooked into chasing something that you know, for a fact, does not exist. Do you want to be known as the asshat who is wasting our tax dollars?
I totally agree with the unambiguous reply. Cops are masters at removing options from people, and they'll be vague or clear, whatever works. Practice saying this again and again: "I don't consent to a search because there is nothing to (find|hide)."

Comment: Re:Hm. (Score 1) 113

by freaq (#35808642) Attached to: US Police Increasingly Peeping At Email, IMs

No, you don't tell them to fuck off. You tell them to come back with the proper paperwork from a judge proving that they are not engaging in a personal vendetta on company time.

Personally, I don't let cops search without a warrant because having nothing to hide means any reason they offer for inspection is false. If it's even remotely plausible, then they should try to gussy it up for a judge first. I've found that judges are, in general, adept at spotting shenanigans.

Please, practice saying this: "I object to your search because there is nothing to hide."

Comment: Re:WHY do you have to prove software testing saves (Score 1) 312

by freaq (#34745930) Attached to: How Do You Prove Software Testing Saves Money?

Nobody puts up with bad products anymore. Software is one of the last kind of products where it's still somewhat accepted

Judging from the evidence (Windows on damn near every PC sold), it's not somewhat expected, it's demanded. Microsoft has made a very successful business by defining 'beta testing' to mean 'ship it and see how many people sue us'.

Comment: Crookes is an Idiot (Score 1) 369

by freaq (#34661826) Attached to: Crookes, RIAA, MPAA, ICE — 'Linking Is Publishing'

There's no other explanation for his behaviour.
In Canada, the Supreme Court ruled last year that a newspaper reporting on slander or libel is not always necessarily guilty of libel itself, even if the defamatory statements themselves are published.
Since his case is about defamation, he's going to lose, and I expect the opinion (reserved since 7 Dec) to be a scathing chastisement indirectly aimed at his counsel.

As far as hyperlinking being publishing... what rot. No librarian would ever say the card index is the stacks, no cartographer would ever say the map is the territory.

Them as has, gets.

Working...