- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
-
Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Admin
I'm not even going to start on the whole "correct" British/American English thing but...
Some people say cigarettes, some say fags, but I don't think anyone would say they "suck fags" unless they were being particularly crude in announcing their homosexuality.
As for "bailing our asses out"... you may not like Hollywood dialects but you sure seem fond of their version of history.
Admin
real wtf is nobody started selling these... WHERE'S THE AMERICAN DREAM IN THAT?
Admin
It sounds like a great idea, but in practice, everybody who went for the option of the "extra paper on my special subject" ended up with a worse degree than they would otherwise have.
The reason? They were so fanatical about their "special subject" that they turned into werewolf-like creatures, prowling the libraries at night and grunting menacingly at anybody who dared to distract them with normal conversation.
By the time they got to the actual exams, they were beyond hope: shambling, unkempt figures with dull red eyes and shaky hands, brought on no doubt by the quart of vodka per day they had to neck just to keep within drooling distance of this side of sane.
Needless to say, their actual exam results went to shit. I had one friend who lost twenty pounds in a week on this lifestyle -- no mean feat, since he was the skinniest bloke in the year in the first place.
Of course, the fact that I have since adopted this modus operandi in my subsequent "career" is neither here nor there.
Admin
Because it makes you a socially-inept loser?
Admin
(1) Being the meat in the sandwich, as it were, of the three "Reconstruction" amendments, it refers specifically to "no State shall..." Note the absence of restriction on Federal powers.
(2) For exactly the same reason, it prescribes the rights it defines as for "All persons born or naturalized in the United States." Fuck you if you're a wet-back, then.
(3) Interestingly enough, it quotes the holy rights trinity as "life, liberty, or property." You will note if you examine Jefferson's original draft and corrections of the Declaration that somebody (presumably Tom-boy) thought that "property" was insufficient and substituted "the pursuit of happiness."
This raises all sort of interesting questions. Are ex-slaves constitutionally incapable of happiness? Did the egregious Jefferson shy away from the word "property" because only Virginian gentlemen and the like are entitled to property and ordinary common muckers have to be content with "the pursuit of happiness?" (A very tricky pursuit in any case, in my experience.) Did the drafters of this amendment just have a brain-fart?
I don't, myself, hold with the constitutional doctrine of originalism owing, in large part, to precisely this sort of muddled expression.
Now, as to whether "rights" can be expressed in (the American remnants of) common law, or in some miraculous emergent expression of the Declaration of Independence, well, no, I don't think they can. That, I submit, is what the bulk of the Constitution (and certainly the vast plurality of the amendments thereto) constitutes. If it ain't in there, it ain't a right.
Of course, you could be referring to the Fourteenth Amendment to the Irish Constitution -- which isn't exactly pro-life, is it?
Addendum (2008-06-24 10:02): Postscript to (1): no restriction on individual powers, either. Which is where the police (conceptually -- I've got no truck with this 'police state' bullshit) come in. The Fourteenth Amendment doesn't apply where the State has "plausible deniability." Which, unless it trains State Troopers to shoot any nigger driving a cadillac, it will have.
This isn't just nit-picking, btw. Just look at the last ten years or so of the Feds arbitrarily confiscating the property of suspected drug-smugglers, et al, with no judicial process whatsoever.
The downside of States Rights (is there an upside?) is that, if you fight a fucking silly Civil War centered on the principle, you can expect the constitutional amendments subsequent to when you lose to be made in precisely those same idiotic terms.
Admin
Just playing devil's advocate here: doesn't that contradict the ninth amendment, which states that the enumeration of rights in the Constitution can't be held as a denial of other rights?
Admin
You're right, fuck you to all the wet-backs. Anyone who didn't come here through legal means has no rights because they are by definition already criminals. Anyone who wants to defend them can join them in jail and deportation, too.
Admin
Admin
There are at least two arguments here (I thought of two more, but then I got drunk and tired):
(1)Ad hominem: James Madison was an utter prick. A wannabe Jefferson, who even managed to choose an utter prick as his hero. Probably the most disastrous US President in the first half of the nineteenth century. In this case, I quote: "It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution."
Emphasis mine. Madison, like the other authors of the Federalist Papers, was a bleating moron. You do not "assign" rights into the hands of the General Government (read: Feds).
I contend that Madison's problem was that he didn't understand the force of "separation of powers," (not unreasonable, since nobody had tried it, and, as I say, he was a mental midget), and that he really wasn't sure that the Constitution would provide a comprehensive and acceptable definition of "rights."
I can't blame him for that, either. But he was mostly deluded. (1a) The ninth amendment has nothing to do with either the construction of, or the interpretation of, the fourteenth amendment; despite Griswold v. Connecticut. (2) Judgement: Douglas wrote that, "The Ninth Amendment obviously does not create federally enforceable rights." Of course, he then went on to make the senile assertion that the Fourteenth Amendment protects a woman's right to have an abortion, which is absurd on so many levels that I'd be running out of pixels before I'd finished enumerating them. His important point was that "as the District Court determined, in the Ninth Amendment's reservation of rights to the people, is broad enough to encompass a woman's decision whether or not to terminate her pregnancy"
The question then arises: what are the consequences of the reservation of rights to the people?
That's been the big issue for the last fo rty years or so. All we've seen above is arguments about "the rights" of the people. You can whine all you like, but unless they're in the Constitution and enshrined in the Full Majesty Of The Law (and also backed up by the ability to pay for laywers), they ain't worth dick-shit.
To return your devil's advocacy -- under the Ninth Amendment (and given subsequent Supreme Court rulings thereon), what exactly does "reservations of rights" mean?
Addendum (2008-06-24 11:40): On point (2), where Douglas accepts the concept of "reservations of rights" from the Ninth Amendment as an argument for alowing abortion (under various limits), the old sod got it right. It was referred upward from the District Court. If the Supreme Court isn't there to take those judgements and anaylyse them under the "rights" microscope of the Constitution, then what the fuck is it there for?
Admin
You make several interesting points, real_aardvark, but I find that Real Life™ has intervened and I don't have time to get into them just now. I'll be back later.
Admin
(It's easy to miss.)
I'm not used to actual discussion on this site (except intermittently), but please go ahead.
Failing that, insult me and my pet pigs like everyone else would.
Admin
Boy, I'm glad you're not a cop. I got pulled over once and my driver side window had been replaced with duct tape and plastic so I could not roll it down; plus my starter was busted so I couldn't shut my car off. I was dead tired and was just trying to make it up the next hill so that I could stop and rest (needed the hill to pop the clutch) He thought I was drunk and pulled me over.
To avoid confusion I opened my door, swung my legs out and placed my arms palm up on my legs with my head hanging down. I was trying to be as un-threatening as possible. I guess it worked. I told the cop that I was going to park as soon as I was up the hill and he let me go.
Admin
You wouldn't last long.
As a police officer, I can agree that we shouldn't "be forced" to risk our lives. That being said, no one forced me or anyone I work with to be a police officer.
Your mentality is what gets certain officers on the evening news. We are public servants that have a responsibility not only to our families and ourselves but to the public.
You can not pull your gun on everybody as you so eloquently illustrated. There is a thing called the 4th amendment that protects people from illegal search and seizure. There is also a thing called "probable cause" that is required to make an arrest.
Pulling your gun on someone, placing them in handcuffs, and "securing" them constitutes an arrest. There is such a thing as "investigative detention"; however, it usually does not involve force. Using a firearm (even if it is not fired), is a use of force. On top of everything else, doing all that to "discuss their broken taillight" could land you in federal court.
I make sure that I come home to my family every night. However, I also make sure that I don't trample on the civil rights of the general public to get there. Just imagine if your grandmother was the one getting pulled over. Insert her into your equation and then tell me if you think it is a good idea.
Admin
The real WTF is someone cut off the last part of the story:
So I get up to leave and the Exemption Lady says, "By the way, what is the name of the class you got an Exemption for?"
I turn around slowly and say "The Aristocrats."
Admin
This thread proves that education is no substitution for intelligence.
Admin
I think this points out how in "The Land of the Free", we are (encouraged to be) slaves to fear.
I've lived in rural areas, where everyone is suspicious of city-folk, suburbs where everyone is suspicious of people who dress differently, and cities where everyone is suspicious of everyone.
There are signs all over the city saying "if you see anything strange, or anyone acting strange, call the cops". Security theater is rampant, all it does is make people feel like someone is in control, because they sure as hell know it's not them.
"I believe that the truth of the matter is far more terrifying, that the real truth that dare not speak itself is that no one is in control, absolutely no one. This stuff is ruled by the equations of dynamics and chaos. There may be entities seeking control, but to seek control is to take enormous aggravation upon yourself. It's like trying to control a dream." - Terence McKenna
Admin
No, wait a minute. The State Department tried that in 2003, and it didn't work, did it?
Admin
[quote user="NutherCanuck"][quote user="FredSaw"][quote user="Johnny Canuck"]As an honour roll student, I wound up writing one (mandatory) English final in my last year. A good friend of mine, who was not a good student, didn't get any recommends. He was the one who pointed out the unfairness inherent.[/quote]I fail to see inherent unfairness. At the beginning of the class, did you two stand the same chance of succeeding?[/quote]
Let me try to explain it as simply as I can. Let us suppose my friend and I are of equal ability in English. (The mandatory exam.) As the English final approaches, classes end as exams start. As I am a good student in math, science and so on, English is the only final I have to write. As he is not as good, he will be writing many exams.
I now have 2 weeks to devote to studying for the final English exam. However, my friend has to devote his study time to many different subjects. As a result, he has only two days to study for English.
Given that we were equal in English ability throughout the year (getting near identical marks on all assignments and papers) it should surprise no one that I ace the final exam, while he does not since he didn't have the same amount of time to prepare. And since the final exam is a majority of the mark, we now have vastly different English marks.
The unfairness is that when one looks at transcripts, one will assume I am far superior in English. While in reality, my English mark is actually due to the fact that I am superior in math & science and it's very likely my friend is at least my equal if not better.
That's why it's "unfair".
Admin
No soup for you. Though you still have to take the mandatory exam.
Admin
"She was bald and overweight, with curly graying hair." Was she wearing a wig? Because she can't be bald and have curly graying hair on her head -- unless it was worn as a fringe around her head, like a monk .
Admin
Bald means lacking hair on the scalp. The keyword here is scalp.
Also, "Pro-american" is a big curly-haired troll.
Admin
What the hell are you referring to? You expect everyone to think "gee, what a funny guy" when you just make something stupid like this up? You really are the biggest POS I've ever seen!
Admin
Admin
I'm not from the US, but my first thought when somebody mentioned getting out of the car was "Don't, moron - you'll get shot!". I haven't watched 'The Shield', but I've watched a lot of 'World's Wildest Police Videos'.
Interesting and thought-provoking arguments from both sides of the debate.
Admin
Thank you Abe.
Admin
That and when they are fighting in the war. God forbid that real adults be required to fight them, rather than sending the nation's young 'uns out.
Admin
Well, I believe it's taken from Latin:
"in our presence" or "to us"
Admin
Admin
The real WTF is that not only does this kid not know how to spell "aggression," he also doesn't know how to use quotation marks or a spell checker.
Admin
Sounds a bit like my high school when they decided to print off the timetables for the whole year again.
However... we needed either ID, or a teachers signature on a slip of paper. I opted for the ID.
Went in, showed them my St John Ambulance ID (First Aid charity), and got lectured on how forging ID's was not on, and that I was lucky they were not calling the Police... (This was a really old receptionist)
Lets just say they got a roasting from the head teacher, I got my timetable, and no other establishment has rejected that piece of ID ;)
Admin
My mom, AKA BQFH, Satans Handmaiden, et al, one day early in my freshman year of HS decided she didn't want to get up or be bothered. She told me to just sign her name at school for being late. I was unusually honest even then, but when I got to school late (mom too drunk to drive wasn't an uncommon excuse) the elderly desk-matron just blinked as I signed my own name on the late slip. I continued to do so for the rest of HS without ever talking to my mom again, or ever getting a phone call.
I discovered at that moment that HS was operated by people who were too stupid, too old, or too underpaid to care much about anything. Staffers were quite different from teachers and various 'enforcers', most of whom had vehemently adhered to agendas, like the English department's Nazi tactics and iconic paranoia. Someone may think for themselves.
I completed 220 out of the 210 credits required to graduate HS, and then dropped out of senior year and took the GED. The GED people require you to pass the test, or they won't give you a diploma. Not so of high school, where just showing up counts, and there isn't even a test. I wanted a degree that mattered.
As a HS Freshman I also started hanging out at college, which is where I picked up most of the attitude evident today. I've been in college ever since, only skipping 1987.
There isn't much difference in college, we just get to play with more dangerous toys and talk about sex. Administration is typically blind stupid, over-paid degrees who couldn't cut it in the real world. They spend an entire year deciding what color the flowers should be.
Admin
"Panda"
Never heard that - good one. I'll start using it on this side of the pond.
Admin
That's TRWTF, we're discussing about how to react on American police when they pull you over. Hell, I've never been to the US and I don't even consider going there ever in my life. The stories we hear about US cops are quite frightening compared to European cop stories. Here, we ususally are nice to the cops and they are nice (well, within the limits, coz they still isuue a ticket for you) with us.
So, if there are more cop stories from other parts of the world, I'd actually appreciate it quite a lot. US cops, go away. You are the new Nazis. I just remember the young black guy whos head was banged against the boardwalk by cops, just for fun.
Admin
Don't forget every dick can carry an arm in the US. And you (the Americans) just defended that "right". Now, even in states where it was not allowed to walk around with an armed gun, it is permitted. So, what do you want? In the UK, the bobbies don't wear guns, and they are not shot either. In Germany, they wear guns but they don't use them unless it's really going to be critical. So, to me at least, it looks like this is due to a power-against-power situation. The more arms you have the more arms are pointed against you. Basta. Come down to a reasonable use of arms and your cops will not fear death every day they go on duty.
Quite simple, no?
Admin
Yuo definAtely are a hero...
Admin
You definAtely are a hero...
Admin
Exactly, FACAAAAAAAAAADE!
Admin
So, it's more than usual?
Admin
So what do you want. You shoot at them, they shoot at you. Pretty fair. A good way to get rid of all those immensly stupid Americans.
Admin
Whoa, the American heroes. They arrived at the end of the war when everything was over. And now they behave like they fought the entire war. Fuck off, you just did the clean-up, not more.
Admin
[quote user="Johnny Canuck"][quote user="NutherCanuck"][quote user="FredSaw"][quote user="Johnny Canuck"]As an honour roll student, I wound up writing one (mandatory) English final in my last year. A good friend of mine, who was not a good student, didn't get any recommends. He was the one who pointed out the unfairness inherent.[/quote]I fail to see inherent unfairness. At the beginning of the class, did you two stand the same chance of succeeding?[/quote]
Let me try to explain it as simply as I can. Let us suppose my friend and I are of equal ability in English. (The mandatory exam.) As the English final approaches, classes end as exams start. As I am a good student in math, science and so on, English is the only final I have to write. As he is not as good, he will be writing many exams.
I now have 2 weeks to devote to studying for the final English exam. However, my friend has to devote his study time to many different subjects. As a result, he has only two days to study for English.
Given that we were equal in English ability throughout the year (getting near identical marks on all assignments and papers) it should surprise no one that I ace the final exam, while he does not since he didn't have the same amount of time to prepare. And since the final exam is a majority of the mark, we now have vastly different English marks.
The unfairness is that when one looks at transcripts, one will assume I am far superior in English. While in reality, my English mark is actually due to the fact that I am superior in math & science and it's very likely my friend is at least my equal if not better.
That's why it's "unfair". [/quote]
TRWTF is that you're learning English.
Admin
Sigh. Misandric anti-aggression strikes again.
Admin
mwahahahahaha!
Admin
The first part of this reminds me of an XKCD comic.
[image]http://xkcd.com/327/
Admin
Perhaps the hair was on her chin? ;P
Admin
Yes - there was that episode where police trapped a speeding car by stopping suddenly in front of it, then when the car tapped it while coming to a stop interpreted this as "deliberate ramming", opened fire into the car windscreen from all angles knowing full well there were passengers in the car, then stated afterwards that the driver had put his passengers "at risk" by forcing police to shoot at them.
Not quite as dumb as the cops who killed an innocent guy experiencing a seizure using a taser, though.
Admin
Some people on here seem to want it both ways. I'm hearing assertions that bizarrely submissive behaviour in front of a cop is somehow his due, and also assertions that, despite any theoretical right to do as you wish, you ought to be submissive for practical reasons of survival.
Those aren't compatible. The first way of looking at it is simply false: I am not under arrest, so there is no legal obligation even to be civil, nor a moral one, if he is inconveniencing me unduly. His concerns for his safety are irrelevant, because he is obviously armed, whereas I am not armed (to my knowledge definitely, and to his knowledge probably). The risk to me is therefore greater. Should I therefore disarm him pre-emptively? No, that would be discourteous and inconveniencing for him.
The second way of looking at it ignores rights and wrongs, and considers that the cop is simply an existential threat to me, much as a bear would be, and that I therefore should stay in the car. The problem with that is that I would be fully justified in putting down either a wild bear or a rabid cop roaming the city. It would moreover be a public duty. If you dislike the consequences of people viewing police officers like that, then you should therefore refrain from arguing that they ought to be so viewed.
Admin
And yet, that was the same school district that managed to get itself all hyped up trying to protect students from "the evils of evolution" in 2002, rather than trying to make sure that they didn't have any more stupidity scandals.
(I love the comment on Penn & Teller's Bullshit about that whole mess: "How screwed up do things have to be for a NEW YORKER to be the voice of reason!")
Admin
You Americans are sooo behind the curtains ... I lol'd heavily.
In my senior years we had the luck of getting computer science courses with really abled teacher(s) - who worked together to improve themselves. As I recall we had 2 exceptionally good lessons, in both we build a database driven application. On app was used to map the schedule - not "your" schedule, but rather the whole school-schedule for every class from 5th to 12th school-year, 4 to 5 classes per year and a set of about 80 teachers and taking into account optional courses set AFTER regular school hours. The other one was especially useful for the last schoolyear. We had a special course-system in the last 2 school years, so it was quite tedious to rule out the end - grade , taking final exams into account. On top of that the 2nd app should approve if the student had selected a valid course-plan and rule out the BEST choice of grades you would use for the final grade
I believe the vice principal - and head computer science teacher - went with the best of our solutions and improved his own creations which lacked in some special cases ( to be honest we were the first students allowed into this course-system as it was introduced in-mid my second last school year)
Very educational because it was my first 'contact' with SQL and served me later