Allegro.cc - Online Community

Allegro.cc Forums » Allegro Development » SourceForge

This thread is locked; no one can reply to it. rss feed Print
 1   2   3 
SourceForge
Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

Uhhh... Mark. What happened to the image? It was there a few hours ago.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Mark Oates
Member #1,146
March 2001
avatar

Eewps. I must have messed up the link on the edit. It's fixed now.

I put the image in a link because I didn't want it filling up the whole thread real estate - this thread is about Sourceforge after all. ;)

--
Visit CLUBCATT.com for cat shirts, cat mugs, puzzles, art and more <-- coupon code ALLEGRO4LIFE at checkout and get $3 off any order of 3 or more items!

AllegroFlareAllegroFlare DocsAllegroFlare GitHub

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

SJW thought police can eat a d*ck for all I care. I'm sure they'd see that statement through gay-bashing or sexist colored glasses, depending on their mental baggage.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

I'm just sad that it feels like freedom of debate has stopped increasing and has actually begun to retract the last 5 years. I really thought... stupidly... That my peers would bring in a new age of freedom and not repeat the stupidity of our parents.

I mean ffs when I grew up parents were actually afraid of teenagers roaming the streets, video games caused violence, and that the end of times where near as the crime kept increasing in the 90s. And here we are, the world is sill ticking, and my peers haven't learned anything.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Peter Hull
Member #1,136
March 2001

Apparently it's all up for sale now - I wonder what will become of SF.net?
http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/07/dhi-group-plans-to-sell-off-slashdot-and-sourceforge/
Pete

Mark Oates
Member #1,146
March 2001
avatar

Brilliant move, if you ask me. :)

--
Visit CLUBCATT.com for cat shirts, cat mugs, puzzles, art and more <-- coupon code ALLEGRO4LIFE at checkout and get $3 off any order of 3 or more items!

AllegroFlareAllegroFlare DocsAllegroFlare GitHub

Bruce Pascoe
Member #15,931
April 2015
avatar

Ugh. Social justice warriors are a big part of the reason I hate millennials. Being a millennial myself, that's not a nice thing to have to say, but it is what it is. The SJWs claim to be fighting for equality and everything else, all the while talking down to or outright attacking anyone who doesn't agree with their warped worldview. Hypocrites of the worst kind, and to put it bluntly, it pisses me off.

I think the biggest problem though comes down to the fact that the Internet gave everyone a voice. As we're seeing now, that wasn't the great win for freedom of expression that we all thought it would be... :(

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

If github actually ends up being a problem, there are plenty of other git systems.

https://about.gitlab.com/
http://gogs.io/

But I'm not saying I've vetted them. It's not likely we'd have a problem with Github, but their heavy-handedness should be noted.

Oh, and I just realized BitBucket supports Git.

[edit]

HOLY. GOD.

Github has adopted the Open Code of Conduct (as written by feminists):

https://github.com/blog/2039-adopting-the-open-code-of-conduct

http://todogroup.org/opencodeofconduct/

I'm.... I'm speechless.

Harassment now includes:

Quote:

Physical contact and simulated physical contact (eg, textual descriptions like “hug” or “backrub”) without consent or after a request to stop

[...]

Unwelcome comments regarding a person’s lifestyle choices and practices, including those related to food, health, parenting, drugs, and employment

Stalking or following

[edit 2]

I just realized their Open Code of Conduct site? It... doesn't have any information about the group at all. It's like a fake website. There's no people listed behind it, no parent organization. It's literally nothing but the contract, blog where people brag about joining it, and a member list... there's no "who wrote it" "who manages it" nothing.

http://todogroup.org/

That's super sketchy. :o

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

Those SJW bed wetters better stay off Facebook, or they'll risk getting followed by people on the Internet. The horror!

Bruce Perry
Member #270
April 2000

It'll work out in the end. *hugs Chris*

--
Bruce "entheh" Perry [ Web site | DUMB | Set Up Us The Bomb !!! | Balls ]
Programming should be fun. That's why I hate C and C++.
The brxybrytl has you.

Mark Oates
Member #1,146
March 2001
avatar

It'll work out in the end. *hugs Chris*

My thoughts, too. :)

--
Visit CLUBCATT.com for cat shirts, cat mugs, puzzles, art and more <-- coupon code ALLEGRO4LIFE at checkout and get $3 off any order of 3 or more items!

AllegroFlareAllegroFlare DocsAllegroFlare GitHub

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

It'll work out in the end. hugs Chris

What+the+did+you+just+post+you+privileged+white+_13fa06213ad9f40d5246118f2c1f674b.gif

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

Bruce Perry
Member #270
April 2000

I can tell what that girl's using, and I can see why she would need to ;) (Is she anyone in particular?)

Anyway, this'll probably cheer you up, Chris :)

video

--
Bruce "entheh" Perry [ Web site | DUMB | Set Up Us The Bomb !!! | Balls ]
Programming should be fun. That's why I hate C and C++.
The brxybrytl has you.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

It's fantastic for a woman to get what's coming to her, but that doesn't necessarily mean that the police officer had any right to detain her anyway. She might well have had the right to go, but evidently she had no idea what her actual rights were, and the police officer surely knew that. I don't consider that a cheery video.

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

I don't see how he couldn't have a justifiable reason to detain her for at least questioning. Refusing to follow an officer's instructions to such a belligerent extent is completely stupid. Hopefully she got to experience being an "imprisoned inhabitant" long enough to learn a little about the contemporary United States.

Bruce Perry
Member #270
April 2000

It's a cheery video because it made me laugh. Screaming rape because you're being arrested? Good luck with that ;)

--
Bruce "entheh" Perry [ Web site | DUMB | Set Up Us The Bomb !!! | Balls ]
Programming should be fun. That's why I hate C and C++.
The brxybrytl has you.

LennyLen
Member #5,313
December 2004
avatar

bamccaig said:

but that doesn't necessarily mean that the police officer had any right to detain her anyway

Of course he does. The ability to detain people at the scene of a crime is an essential requirement for police to be able to do their job.

He had definite reason for believing that she had no fixed address and could probably not be found at a later point if needed so he definitely couldn't just let her go, which meant he had to take her with him. If she had simply done as instructed, she wouldn't have been restrained, and she would have been free to go once she'd been questioned.

One of the costs of living in a lawful society is that we must sometimes experience some inconvenience to ensure that laws can actually be enforced. Complying with instructions from law enforcement is one of those inconveniences. Police don't have the luxury of knowing in advance who is the guilty party so they sometimes have to detain the innocent to ensure that the guilty party doesn't go free.

Quote:

but evidently she had no idea what her actual rights were, and the police officer surely knew that

What's that got to do with anything? He didn't abuse her in any way, and he can't be expected to just let her go on her way simply because she has no idea of how the country she lives in works.

There are a lot of bad cops out there, and they need to be weeded out. This guy isn't one of them though. He was remarkably respectful (though 'miss' would have been a more appropriate term than 'young lady') and patient with her, never raising his voice or swearing at her, even when she was being abusive. It doesn't seem like he used excessive force to restrain her either, as it sounds like she's yelling in anger ans not screaming in pain (and she's definitely not being choked).

The saddest thing about this video is how stupid and naive people can be. She's accusing him of not knowing the laws of his country while citing an article of government that was replaced over 200 years ago. And all that the article actually says is that you're free to cross state borders and that whichever state you're in, you have all the rights granted by that state. It says nothing about not having to obey the laws of any state. The article even states that if you commit a crime in one state and then move to another state, you can be extradited back to the state in which the crime was committed, which means that you obviously can't be free from the laws.

So yeah, I laughed, because she got exactly what she deserved.

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

LennyLen said:

Of course he does. The ability to detain people at the scene of a crime is an essential requirement for police to be able to do their job.

What crime? Driving without a license or insurance isn't a crime that involves the arrest of everyone present. It appears to be a misdemeanor offense in most states, resulting in a few hundred dollar fine and potentially a short period in jail. It does not involve the passengers of the vehicle in any way.

As far as I know, those were the only charges against the driver (I'm not sure the video really went into detail). The police officer can say he's "investigating" all he wants to, but that doesn't give him the right to hold you without cause. If it did then the police could literally stop anybody without cause and hold them just to entertain themselves. He had no reason to believe she had committed a crime (he even said so in the video). He confirmed that she was not under arrest. In reality, she probably did have the right to leave, but failed to assert her rights probably because she didn't know them. The police regularly take advantage of this and coerce cooperation where none is required. Often to the detriment of the subjects involved. Anything you say or do can be twisted as the police, prosecutor, and judge see fit. If they can convince a judge or jury that you've committed a crime then you can be punished, even if you're completely innocent.

I could of course be wrong, I'm not a lawyer, but neither are you. I've often seen this situation go differently in videos. Paraphrasing:

"Why did you stop me?"
"Please step out of the vehicle."
"No."
"Why won't you step out of the vehicle? I just want to talk to you."
"You can talk to me right here."
"I don't know if you have any weapons on you. I just want to make sure you're not going to shoot me."
"Am I under arrest?"
"No."
"Then I must be free to leave."
"No, you're not free to leave. I'm not done with you yet. Please step out of the vehicle so that I know you're not carrying any weapons."
"I do not wish to step out of my vehicle. Why do you want me to step out of my vehicle? Am I under arrest?"
"Not yet."
"So then can I leave?"
etc etc etc etc

Usually after about 15 minutes of the cop intimidating the occupant and failing to coerce the surrender of rights they will give up, make a very unprofessional threat ("DON'T EVER LET ME CATCH YOU AGAIN MOTHERFUCKER OR ELSE!"), and leave. I've seen videos where the cop blatantly peels out because he's so pissed off that a law-abiding citizen upheld his own rights. Those rights exist to protect us. Very intelligent people formulated these laws based on lessons learned throughout history. For us to just throw all of that away out of ignorance is reprehensible.

LennyLen said:

He had definite reason for believing that she had no fixed address and could probably not be found at a later point if needed so he definitely couldn't just let her go, which meant he had to take her with him.

He had no reason to find her later because as far as he knew she had not committed a crime.

LennyLen said:

If she had simply done as instructed, she wouldn't have been restrained, and she would have been free to go once she'd been questioned.

That's a very reckless attitude towards law enforcement. It is typical of law abiding citizens. Just do as you're told and this won't happen to you! That's not true. Legal experts advise you to not cooperate with law enforcement when possible. Which is to say, refuse to talk to them, refuse to consent to searches, etc. It's in your best interest. We like to think that the police are out there protecting innocent civilians from hardened criminals, but really they're just a government run gang with an objective of collecting funds (i.e., fines, bail, etc.) and patting their egos.

LennyLen said:

One of the costs of living in a lawful society is that we must sometimes experience some inconvenience to ensure that laws can actually be enforced. Complying with instructions from law enforcement is one of those inconveniences. Police don't have the luxury of knowing in advance who is the guilty party so they sometimes have to detain the innocent to ensure that the guilty party doesn't go free.

You only have to comply when the law says so. If a police officer asks you to do something you can probably refuse. If they communicate that you must do something then it probably depends on context whether you have to comply or not (often they lie, or don't actually understand the law themselves). Often they try to intimidate people into surrendering rights that they don't know they have. That is the usual story. Google or search YouTube for videos of people asserting their rights. You'd be surprised. The police get very irate, screaming, yelling, cussing, making violent gestures, etc. Ultimately they can't do shit and have to let the person go. Those rights exist to protect you from the police. There's nothing else built into the system to do that. If you surrender your rights then you're defenseless.

It is not the job of police to decide guilt or innocence. That is the job of a judge or justice of the peace (or jury). The police only exist to enforce the law when justified. If somebody is threatening the public it is the job of the police to stop them. Their guilt is determined at a later date during a fair trial. Until then it is assumed that they are innocent. They still must be stopped if there's reason to believe that they have broken the law or are a threat to the public, but that's where the police role ends.

LennyLen said:

What's that got to do with anything? He didn't abuse her in any way, and he can't be expected to just let her go on her way simply because she has no idea of how the country she lives in works.

It's easy to say that when you're sitting behind a computer screen. It's a whole other matter when you're the one being slammed to the ground. I think you'd quickly jump the fence if that happened to you. Consider this: you're completely innocent, you haven't done anything wrong, but some hot headed cop is convinced that you have and is harassing you. Getting in your face, yelling at you, making threats and coercing you to admit wrongdoing. At the first opportunity he physically grabs you and slams you hard to the ground asserting that you were resisting. Who knows, maybe it's even a dirty cop, and if you comply he'll plant drugs on you and arrest you just to meet his quota for the month. Is that the kind of risk you'd like to take? You'd certainly like to think that it's a rare occurrence, but I think that you'd be surprised just how often the police will bend or break the rules to harm people that they believe, in their darkened perception of human-kind, have done wrong. Granted a dirty cop has a lot of opportunity to exploit an uncooperative subject as well, but every right you surrender makes it that much easier for them to hurt you, good or bad. They might even be a well intentioned person, but the road to Hell is paved with good intentions. That doesn't guarantee that they don't hurt innocent people.

LennyLen said:

There are a lot of bad cops out there, and they need to be weeded out. This guy isn't one of them though. He was remarkably respectful (though 'miss' would have been a more appropriate term than 'young lady') and patient with her, never raising his voice or swearing at her, even when she was being abusive.

What you describe (intimidation and abuse) are not where the bar sits between "good" cops and "bad" cops. Good cops understand the purpose of the legal system, understand that people are innocent until proven guilty, and don't go out of their way to harm people. If you assume that everybody is guilty and treat them as such then you'll be doing a lot more harm to innocent people than to guilty ones.

LennyLen said:

The saddest thing about this video is how stupid and naive people can be. She's accusing him of not knowing the laws of his country while citing an article of government that was replaced over 200 years ago.

The really sad thing is that the police actually don't know the law as well as you'd think. They aren't really required to. For the most part, it's just a day job for them. The requirements for becoming a cop are not very high. Obviously there are some physical requirements depending on the department, albeit I'm sure every one of us has seen a severely overweight cop so they're not that high... They aren't lawyers. They don't go to school for 7 years to learn the laws. They learn the very basics, and are more or less trained to target specific things and/or operate on instinct. If they arrest you wrongly they aren't going to really be harmed in any way. The court will release you and that will be the end of it. Police regularly misrepresent rights and lack thereof when attempting to coerce a subject into admitting or casting suspicion of wrongdoing. For the most part they don't actually care about people or society: they care about their job, their ego, and their pay cheque.

Just because this girl was ignorant and quite likely stupid doesn't mean that she deserves to be harassed nor abused by law enforcement. If she had committed an actual crime (and maybe I'm forgetting something here) then at least you could argue that she got what was coming to her. Merely being ignorant is not guilty. If it were we'd all be guilty because I doubt too many of us have studied the letter of the law in intricate detail.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

Some people need to be reminded that the police have the right and ability to detain without arresting you for whatever reason they deem necessary. This includes being put in a cell for like 24+ hours without being charged. Acting suspicious and being very uncooperative (ie: interfering with an officer or worse obstruction) is explicitly a reason to be detained longer.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

Yeah... I don't see the big deal. Just because you aren't committing a huge crime, doesn't mean you're not acting suspicious and may be in the middle of committing one.

Imagine pulling someone over with an expired license, and letting them go, only to find out an hour later they killed 5 people.

I'm all for holding cops accountable, but let's not assume every civilian is some special snowflake.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

Some people need to be reminded that the police have the right and ability to detain without arresting you for whatever reason they deem necessary. This includes being put in a cell for like 24+ hours without being charged. Acting suspicious and being very uncooperative (ie: interfering with an officer or worse obstruction) is explicitly a reason to be detained longer.

I'm not sure exactly on the rules for detaining you, but regardless they cannot force your cooperation. They may be able to detain you, but if they are not detaining you and they are not actually investigating a crime then they have to let you go.

Sitting in a car, even ranting about rights that you don't have, isn't actually interfering with an officer if he doesn't have cause to remove you from the vehicle. Certainly he can argue that it was, and arrest you regardless, but you're going to be let free unless he can convince a judge or justice of it. In this case I suspect that the judge would inform the girl that she does in fact have to abide by state laws before releasing her.

I don't think any of us can really say we know the letter of the law here. I'm not even trying to assert what she could or could not do. I'm simply defending our rights to refuse to cooperate, and refuting the position that you must do whatever police say and deserve whatever you get if you don't. That's a very dangerous line of thinking.

Append:

Yeah... I don't see the big deal. Just because you aren't committing a huge crime, doesn't mean you're not acting suspicious and may be in the middle of committing one.

It doesn't mean they are either, and in a free country the government should not be holding you just in case.

Quote:

Imagine pulling someone over with an expired license, and letting them go, only to find out an hour later they killed 5 people.

That's unfortunately a risk that you have to take if you want to have a free country. Regardless you can't actually prevent somebody from killing 5 people, nor can you guarantee that you'll catch them after the fact. It's impossible. To defend a breach of a person's rights on the grounds that they might be guilty is ignorant.

Let's instead imagine that said person has a suicidal son at home. They were on their way home and would have gotten there in time, but unfortunately the police pulled them over for a malfunctioning tail light and decided to detain them just in case they were planning a serial murder spree later that day. The poor soul would have been home in time to stop their son from killing themselves, but instead it happens.

You can come up with any number of hypothetical situations. None of them matters. If there's no reason to believe that a subject has murdered 5 people then there's no reason to treat them like they had. There's no reason to believe that treating like they had will necessarily reveal the crime anyway. And in the much more likely scenario that the person is innocent their rights will have been violated for nothing, and they will have been subjected to harassment and frightened for nothing. Essentially an innocent person would be harmed (which I think you'd agree should be criminal).

Quote:

I'm all for holding cops accountable, but let's not assume every civilian is some special snowflake.

Let's do [assume every civilian is [innocent] until we have good reason to doubt it] because the alternative is far worse. Unless you actually believe that most people deserve to be punished, in which case why even pretend to have a functioning society? We might as well just nuke the planet and kill off the entire human race (and all of the other life because we're horrible people anyway and/or because we all share the same lineage and naturally they're evil too).

raynebc
Member #11,908
May 2010

At first, she refused to get out of the car. The cop mentioned he needed her to do so in order to tow the car. Her refusal to comply with his demands in a reasonably timely manner does constitute delaying him. And it is suspicious as hell to be so verbally aggressive, warranting a slight delay in order to question her. His application of pain compliance is obviously due to her extreme uncooperativeness.

Chris Katko
Member #1,881
January 2002
avatar

Seriously. I'm not 18 anymore. I don't think every authority figure is out to get me.

1) It's very suspicious when someone snaps. It can be nothing--maybe they're having a bad day--but it can also mean they're raging on pills, drunk, or high off drowning babies.

2) Cops are legally allowed to detain people without reason for up to 48-hours in the USA.

Some times it's abused. I have no statistics on how much, and I'm reluctant to think everyone stopped or frisked is some magical innocent peter pan abused by the cold evil police force.

I care about cops blowing people's brains out, and covering up evidence. I do not care about cops stopping people for five minutes of their time in order to keep us safe.

-----sig:
“Programs should be written for people to read, and only incidentally for machines to execute.” - Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
"Political Correctness is fascism disguised as manners" --George Carlin

bamccaig
Member #7,536
July 2006
avatar

@raynebc:

Fair enough. I don't think it was obvious to me at first why he wanted to tow the car... Now that I've looked a bit more into it I'm not surprised she was arrested. That admitted, I still disagree with blindly cooperating with police.

In this case though, I'm assuming if she had cooperated she would have been let go. I'm not entirely convinced that it's true, but then again Google suggests that there is an extremist group identifying as the woman in the OP did. The couple apparently claim it to be a religious movement in their defense. Which may suggest it's some kind of cult... Oh joy. I digress. That doesn't seem relevant to the charges.

I'm not sure though. It appears in court like they're both defending themselves against the same crimes. The resisting I can understand, but the driving an unlicensed and uninsured vehicle seems should only apply to the driver caught. :-/

Append:

This appears credible:

video

That's all I'm trying to argue in favor of.

Thomas Fjellstrom
Member #476
June 2000
avatar

I read recently that you don't actually require a drivers license in the US. The Police think you do, and so does the government, but the courts have ruled on a few occasions that its personal property and some law from way back when makes it so you don't need a license to operate your own personal equipment (ie: not for commercial uses). Not sure of the details though.

--
Thomas Fjellstrom - [website] - [email] - [Allegro Wiki] - [Allegro TODO]
"If you can't think of a better solution, don't try to make a better solution." -- weapon_S
"The less evidence we have for what we believe is certain, the more violently we defend beliefs against those who don't agree" -- https://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/592870205409353730

 1   2   3 


Go to: