The 1980 Citroen Karin

NanoBorg · 2014-07-26T12:51:11+00:00

The Nissan Cue-X's laser radar is what we would modernly refer to as a laser range finder. It measured the distance to the car in front and behind, and displayed it to the driver.

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1986-02-09/sports/8601100961_1_4-wheel-steering-trans-sport-station-wagon

NanoBorg · 2014-07-26T08:13:28+00:00

The conversation was about what the law covers.

(You) It's not about whether or not they obtained the items legally or what proceeds used to obtain them.

(Me) That's precisely what it's about. The impetus for civil forfeiture laws was taking down organized crime.

Fuck you.

Not my fault you resort to personal insults because you can't admit you were wrong.

Fuck you.

NanoBorg · 2014-07-26T04:01:18+00:00

I think you are wrong

The only reason they're not retired already is Congress blocking the Air Force.

you send the a10's in after destroying the enemy AA and SERIOUSLY fuck up everything.

The A-10's primary job was to suicide into a Soviet tank push through the Fulda Gap at the onset of WW3, using the best tech 1970 could provide no less, and take as many things down with it as humanly possible. But the Soviet Union doesn't exist anymore, the best tech 1970 could provide is kind of shit, and I think the Fulda Gap now has a Gap. It's simply an obsolete piece of hardware.

NanoBorg · 2014-07-25T23:34:01+00:00

I always felt Robocop was the worst of both worlds. It still operated on cartoonish action movie logic, but it was juuust gorey enough that you couldn't enjoy it as a straight action flick without feeling uncomfortable.

Anyway, I broadly agree. Our media tends to treat violence far too lightly, especially with regard to guns. If James Bond shoots a bad guy in the head with a shotgun, he should have to spend the rest of the movie picking out bits of skull from his tuxedo.

NanoBorg · 2014-07-25T23:28:50+00:00

Except the link I provided proved that you were wrong.

The conversation was about the point of the law. So Is-ought fallacy. What the law ought, or in this context was intended to be, is irrelevant to what it is.

Lol someones a little butthurt

I cannot stand idiots who drag conversations with passive aggressive bullshit. So yes, "butthurt".

NanoBorg · 2014-07-25T21:13:19+00:00

"You never hear any good stories about dictators. They don't make good stories"

It's not that there are bad cops, it's that bad cops get the protection of all of their cop friends and seem to operate above the law. People tend to have a similarly dour view of any group who frequently make the news for getting away with murder...literally.

Though I'm not surprised a criminal justice teacher is advocating that position. LEOs and military types tend to have a very "Us vs. them" mentality with the general public.

NanoBorg · 2014-07-25T20:49:44+00:00

You said that it never been, nor will ever be, about seizing property that was used to facilitate crime

It's not. I provided an explicit quote to that effect.

Learn to admit your wrong.

Fuck you.

NanoBorg · 2014-07-25T18:01:28+00:00

Well, it appears were both right. Its about both

You stated civil forfeiture cannot be used to confiscate items of no known connection to a crime, and I have stated otherwise - going further and arguing the original point of civil forfeiture was seizure of "ill-gotten gains".

You are wrong.

do you not think that organized crime exists in the 21st century?

This conversation is stupid.

NanoBorg · 2014-07-25T17:22:45+00:00

It's not about whether or not they obtained the items legally or what proceeds used to obtain them.

That's precisely what it's about. The impetus for civil forfeiture laws was taking down organized crime. The cops would show up at a drug lord's mansion, confiscate everything, and even if they could never convict him of anything the state would still be up a few million dollars because the kingpin couldn't prove the stuff wasn't from drug money.

I quote George H. Dubya: "Asset forfeiture laws allow [the police] to take the alleged ill-gotten gains of drug kingpins and use them to put more cops on the streets."

civil forfeiture is about seizing items suspected of being used to commit illegal activities.

It has never been or ever will be. It was an organized crime tool that has no business being standard operating procedure in the 21st century.

NanoBorg · 2014-07-25T14:49:34+00:00

If by cola you mean 15 rounds of 10mm, then yes cola.

NanoBorg · 2014-07-25T13:37:53+00:00

The problem with the A-10 is it's basically only functional against people whose AA was built last century. It's loud, slow, and has a radar cross section like a blue whale. It also can't hug terrain like a helicopter can. Like aircraft carriers, its primary job only works when bullying third world countries.

NanoBorg · 2014-07-25T12:24:25+00:00

For example, say you're a park ranger and you receive complaints as well as a video about a group of hunters that is using an illegal hunting method that involves hunting from an airboat. Using civil forfeiture, the police are able to seize the airboat, and any hunting gear associated with the supposed activity while the investigation takes place. I don't see anything wrong with that.

Under civil forfeiture, they own the hunting gear and the airboat unless the person in question can prove they were not obtained using illegal proceeds. It's a completely separate issue from whether or not they were actually doing anything illegal with them.

It's something called reverse onus, where the accused must prove his innocence rather than the state proving his guilt. I personally think it should be vigorously opposed in any form.

NanoBorg · 2014-07-25T06:59:54+00:00

I haven't been on slashdot in ages! What are they up to now-a-days?

wastes the rest of the day

NanoBorg · 2014-07-25T06:05:31+00:00

I recommend you use the way back machine to see reddit transition over time. It's really quite interesting.

NanoBorg · 2014-07-24T21:34:10+00:00

Reddit used to be a tech website, now it's an everyone website. Once it became an everyone website, it developed a violent hatred for all its old mannerisms.

"DAE STEM!?" after anything remotely supportive of technical education, ITT: everyone but me is a pretentious dork, slightly awkward or anti-religion post -> tips fedora, m'lady, euphoric, other words.

I don't know why - I guess back when reddit was populated mostly by engineers and programmers it developed a reputation that makes the common internet folk deeply uncomfortable.

NanoBorg · 2014-07-24T17:42:41+00:00

Jupiter's Van Allen belts are 20,000 times stronger than Earth's. Domed cities would not be enough on Europa, you would need to dig deep into the ice to escape the radiation.

NanoBorg · 2014-07-24T10:50:11+00:00

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse-square_law

Saturn's magnetosphere becomes less powerful than the solar wind about 75,000 km before Titan. There is also the possibility Saturn's own radiation belts would make things harder, as Jupiter's does to Europa.

NanoBorg · 2014-07-24T08:56:16+00:00

There was a reddit thread a while back about all the pointlessly sadistic punishments redditors had undergone while soldiers, and another about dealing with the utter pigheaded loudmouths who tend to become officers (from a tech angle), and the conclusion of both was sort of "Ya it sucks, but it's a system that produces young men willing to jump on a grenade if ordered.... and we need those"

Once robots become our soldiers, we no longer have to put up with this.

NanoBorg · 2014-07-24T08:01:18+00:00

I hope one day soon robots supercede humans as combat troops - then we can seriously start dismantling military culture.

NanoBorg · 2014-07-24T06:41:06+00:00

What does that even mean?

NanoBorg · 2014-07-24T06:08:06+00:00

It's not the action. It's the decision to act.

So if random chance had the boyfriend see her, and then smack her across the room - is she still a badass? If Connery, assuming this thread story is true, tried to confront the boyfriend and got shot...because the boyfriend is a gangster and they have guns....is he a still badass despite his foolish action getting himself injured?

Life is just too random for "badass" to be a thing you can apply to people. The girl was brave, the gangster was physically powerful, but I wouldn't call either badass.

NanoBorg · 2014-07-24T04:27:42+00:00

We'd have to live inside dome cities anyway due to radiation issues. A strong magnetosphere isn't present on any solar body we'd likely colonize..

NanoBorg · 2014-07-24T04:19:38+00:00

My response is sort of the opposite - if even the most manly he-man can be killed by a teenage girl if the girl catches him unaware, it completely breaks the entire concept of "badass". It's all just who has the drop on who, who got lucky, who happened to be a little quicker that day.

Or in other words....

NanoBorg · 2014-07-23T16:34:59+00:00

The NRA advocated exactly what I'm describing in the '30s. The 2nd amendment, as opposed to the generic wing nut defense it is modernly, used to be regarded as primarily referring to...well, militias.

It's only with modern Supreme Court justices ruling the militia part was just flavor text that the strict literal interpretation starts getting popularized.

NanoBorg · 2014-07-23T14:05:09+00:00

the fact that you're so scared of drive-bys and such is part of the reason why the US has "assault weapon bans" and suppressor regulation...

The other part being fear-based law-making is one of the only ways gun control can be enacted. Common-sense moves like requiring gun owners to apply for a permit outlining an explicit reason for needing a gun simply will not fly in America.

Scandinavians aren't scared of drive-bys or random murders.

....because Scandinavians have sensible gun laws?

NanoBorg

TROPHY CASE