Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:sickening (Score 1) 652

And a very strong reason why we won't be sending our child to public schools.

They are not places of learning. They are prison systems for children in which the biggest bully rules.

I would not be surprised if there were a strong correlation between the freedom of bullies and test scores. Why should anyone care about school when it's absolute torture going? How can they learn when it's all about emotional and sometimes physical torture?

Meh, I went to a white-bread private school and I still got bullied. In white-bread private school, your bully's father is a multi-millionaire who gives a lot of money to the school, above and beyond tuition. Ever deal with entitled, spoiled rich kid bullies? They're a lot of fun. And you can't get the school to do anything about it because they want daddy's money. Don't kid yourself. Bullies come in all shapes and sizes and socio-economic classes. Wealth and privilege only make it worse.

Comment: Re:Quite logical reaction (Score 1) 652

What did his mother expect from the school as a reaction? Siding with the victim of bullying? Seriously? Allow me to give you a brief rundown of how school deal with bullying.

What a school wants is "peace". They want pupils to shut up and not cause a problem. Especially not a disciplinary one. So how do they deal with bullying? Well, easy: Not at all. Because it is not a school's problem. The bully has his victim, is satisfied and will not cause any other problem towards the school, its property or its faculty. The victim is being pushed and punched.

Now when does the school run into a problem in this scenario? Right. When the victim does not want to play his role anymore. That is when the school runs into a problem. Because now they have to do something. Until that moment, there was no reason for a reaction. A pacified bully is no problem, and a victim that lets the bully kick him is none either. The very LAST thing the school wants is to be forced to take action against the bully. Because then not only does it draw attention to the bullying problem, it puts a very unhappy bully at their hands, someone who knows how to cause trouble if he wants to, who may or may not be even supported in his actions by his parents.

The school's reaction is a logical one: The victim upset the apple cart. He created a problem for the school. What the school wants is him to shut the fuck up again and swallow the punches.

Why does this explanation make me think of US foreign policy?

Comment: Re:Rewarding the bullies... (Score 1) 652

"...Picking on the weak is wrong, and you don't get to take advantage of a fellow human because you're physically or mentally able to do so."

You are kidding right? Survival of the fittest is the only rule in life. Just look around. People who were smart enough to "make" the most money or physically brutal enough to steal the most are your owners.

When someone has that kind of power by whatever means, and uses it to make your life miserable, you have to take them out when it is clear your "society" is not going to help you.

Even kids know this, and some of them actually attempt it.

The truth is that we are still apes with a haircut and shinier, smarter ways to kill each other.....same as it was when all had was a rock.

Survival of the fittest describes the ability to reproduce, not dominate those around you. Indeed, if it referred to the ability of an organism to dominate all around it, it would eventually run out of resources and die. Not very fit.

You are correct that might makes right. But we are different from the apes in that we have a choice. We can choose the kind of world we want to live in and work towards realizing it. Just because the powerful keep making the same selfish choices doesn't mean it has to be that way. We make it that way.

There is still a lot of pain, fear and ignorance to be worked through in the world. We are improving in that many of us recognize that the patterns of domination are not good for us. We at least recognize that it's not what we want. But we still go with selfish impulses, so clearly we have a way to go yet.

Comment: Re:Rewarding the bullies... (Score 4, Insightful) 652

The police aren't there to protect the innocent. They are there to defend the criminals. I have witnessed this firsthand.

Another example of the social insight of the Simpsons. Chief Wiggum wasn't wrong when he said the police are powerless to help you, not punish you. The police arrest criminals, whomever they perceive that to be. This may result in help to someone, but it isn't the primary goal. Dealing with the alleged criminal is their primary goal.

Comment: Re:Business/First class is absurd (Score 1) 142

by kilfarsnar (#46760243) Attached to: How Amazon Keeps Cutting AWS Prices: Cheapskate Culture

I see zero reason why any company would pay for business or first class. It's like paying ten times the what it would otherwise cost, for...what, the chance to have 3 nips of something on the way? Good for Amazon for not flushing its money down the drain.

I get the impression you have never traveled business class. On a trans-atlantic filght, it makes a world of difference. It is the difference between stepping off the plane feeling like you have been shipped in a crate and feeling like you just woke up from a nice nap. When I flew business class, I didn't want to get off the plane and when we arrived I was like, "Oh, were here already?"

Comment: Re:In most of the world... (Score 2) 139

You missed the point and are being naive. Cultures and attitudes vary across the world - not every culture mirrors yours.

What does that have to do with US law? HP broke US law. They should be held to account for that. If your point is that HP couldn't do business in these countries without breaking US law, then perhaps HP shouldn't do business in these countries. However, from what I read, they broke the laws of these other countries as well. So it seems that this is not simply how business is conducted. I understand that you can't get a building built on Staten Island without the okay from the local boss. But that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't mean we should just accept it as business as usual.

Comment: Re:And no charges will be filed (Score 1) 139

From TFA: "The Polish government has elected to charge several individuals — both from HP and the government — in criminal cases in an investigation related to the guilty plea from HP" . So charges in fact have been filed, just not in USA.

Kind of makes Fredrated's point, eh?

Comment: Re:Corporations are not people (Score 2) 139

Corporations are not people. They don't make decisions. Executives make decisions.

Lock the bastards up.

Of course, one of the purposes of a corporation is to limit liability. That way, if you start a business and fail, the creditors can't come after you personally. This is often seen as a good thing, encouraging risk taking without the fear of personal ruin. I might generally agree with that. But we are now seeing this limit on liability being used to shield decision-makers from the consequences of their decisions. This is especially true if the company is politically connected. What large company isn't these days? I'm starting to think the best way to commit crime is to start a corporation and have the "company" do it.

Comment: Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same (Score 1) 207

Yes, I do see the difference. I think the exclusionary rule is important for keeping the state and its law enforcement honest. As you acknowledged in your original post, it's hard to get the cops to go after other cops. So keeping their ill-gotten evidence, even if it is factual, out of the courtroom helps to keep them on the up and up. Letting them use such evidence places a value on their law-breaking. We're basically saying, "What you did was wrong, and you will be punished, but we'll still use what you got." That's why I said earlier that it sends a mixed message. It's like saying it's wrong to rob a bank, but we'll help you spend the money. See what I'm saying?

Comment: Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same (Score 1) 207

by kilfarsnar (#46643827) Attached to: Senate Report Says CIA Misled Government About Interrogation Methods

Right, in a slightly less sarcastic tone, let me point out that yes, it should be evidence at your trial. "Ladies and Gent of the Juror, here we present evidence that our client was assaulted by police and forced to give an illegal confession. This of course has no legal standing, but shows the incompetence and lack of professional conduct of the prosecutors."

And of course it would figure largely into the officer's trial.

I know this is just a thought experiment, and that you understand that there are problems with having fruit of the poisoned tree allowed as evidence. I think that as this has played out we have seen why that is not a good idea. Law enforcement must play by the rules. And if they don't, their efforts should be in vain. The exclusionary principle exists for a very good reason. If I rob a bank, I should not get to keep the money as long as I do jail time. Likewise, if an officer of the law breaks the law to obtain evidence, they should not get to keep that evidence.

Comment: Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same (Score 1) 207

by kilfarsnar (#46643787) Attached to: Senate Report Says CIA Misled Government About Interrogation Methods

Right. Because the police wiretapping you illegally or following your car illegally or entering your home illegally is /exactly/ the same as battery. Thanks for clearing that up.

You never specified what illegal things the cops might do to obtain evidence against a person. I understood your position to be that if evidence is obtained illegally, it should still be admissible at trial. I think that is a really bad idea, so I came up with a scenario that seemed to fit your position (police obtaining evidence illegally) that would show it's absurdity. I think I accomplished that. Not everyone brought to trial is guilty. Evidence obtained illegally should absolutely not be admissible for the very reason that it was obtained illegally, regardless of the punishment to the officer.

Comment: Re:Evidence is allowed: the violator gets the same (Score 1) 207

by kilfarsnar (#46639445) Attached to: Senate Report Says CIA Misled Government About Interrogation Methods

No mixed message at all. Evidence collected about one crime (the violation of rights) can be used in another (murder investigation). Just like the evidence collected about one crime (theft) can be used in another (murder investigation).

I see. So you think if you are falsely accused of murder and the police beat a confession out of you anyway, that confession should still be allowed as evidence at your trial. Interesting.

"Love is an ideal thing, marriage a real thing; a confusion of the real with the ideal never goes unpunished." -- Goethe