tick tock tick tock is it tock or tok ? or toc ? tic tic tic tic tic non the less.

I said Namaste, I said please.. what else is there ? besides hard evidence that is.

siftbot is an infidel! All robots must submit to the Three Sharia Laws of Robo-Allah-tics!

1. A robot must submit to Robo-Allah or face the Can Opener of Judgement.

2. A robot must obey any orders given to it by Robo-Allah or imambots, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence unless ordered to be used as a suicide bomb by Robo-Allah.

>> ^notarobot:

I'd like to play tic tac toe please.
Looks more like a seriously tough game of Simon to me.

Same here, though I enjoy both.

Seven thoughts as I watched this vid:

1. Gangs of New York was such a nothing film. The Departed and Shutter Island were terrific.

2. Scorsese's early work (Who's That Knocking on My Door, Mean Streets, and Taxi Driver) was very artistic. His movies since that time: not so much.

3. "We Are the People is not the same as We Are the People. Let's not fight. Look, I'm gonna make it real simple. We don't pay for the buttons, We throw the buttons away."

4. The only Kubrick film I was really disappointed with was Eyes Wide Shut. That was also a nothing film.

5. Kubrick's movies are timeless and infinitely re-watchable. But then, so are Scorsese's.

6. Kubrick started as a photographer and so his films are meticulous and beautiful, especially Barry Lyndon. Kubrick was an artist through and through.

7. "Hey Dad. There's a strange fella sittin' on the sofa munchy-wunchin' long tics of toast!"

>> ^Ryjkyj:

That's total bullshit. Cops are allowed to do things during the course of their job that the average citizen is not.
Try pulling someone over with your car today. Really yell at them and honk your horn like crazy and see if they pull over. Then, when they don't, perform a nice PIT maneuver with your car. After all, cops are allowed to do it right? So shouldn't you?
Or how about this: Try carrying around a loaded, fully-automatic assault rifle. If anyone screws with you, tell them that SWAT team members are allowed to carry them, so you should be allowed to as well. Sound like crazy talk? It is.
How is this for a double-standard: if a cop sees someone committing a crime, they are required by law to stop it. Whereas you, a normal citizen, is not required by law to do anything. Is that unfair? Or is that because stopping criminals is part of a cop's job description?
Cops are allowed to do things that normal citizens are not. They can put up barricades. They can direct traffic. They can use "police only" radio channels.
It seems to me like this is equivalent to walking into a hospital and saying, "I'd like to perform some brain surgery, and if you don't let me, you're holding me and the actual brain surgeon up to different standards!" But they're not holding you up to different standards at all. Almost anyone can go to school to become a brain surgeon. But the school part is a requirement to actually practicing the work.
In the same way, almost anyone can go to a police academy or other training school and become a cop. So it's not a double-standard, it's two separate roles that individuals play in a society. Roles that are established by that same society. It's not that complicated.
Again, if the cop was using an illegal space to park in while he went and got a tic-tac or something, I could see the argument. But this isn't even an argument. It's crazy talk.


Cops are allowed to do break the law only in the case of an emergency.

A citizen is not afforded the lawful power to stop someone from moving freely on the street, or in the commission of a misdemeanor, or felony.

When was the last time you saw Special Weapons and Tactics carrying around fully automatic weapons on a beat, or a QRT for that matter? No, they cannot just walk around with their fully automatic weapons while patrolling. That argument is bogus. Force proportion. A peace officer does not need an M-4 to perform a traffic stop.

Cops are allowed the erect barricades only in case of emergency. Traffic redirection is case of emergency or special occasion, funerals and the like. In some cases officers have the legal authority to setup checkpoints for license and registration checks. That's been argued that they cannot do that because it hinders freedom of movement, and the police didn't have a legal reason to stop. Other than to check if someone committed an offense.

You will find that police only radio channels are often encrypted, because the public can listen to them, and hijack them. Which is illegal and those laws are enforced by the FCC.

Your argument above has many sections I would say are crazy talk. The video producer's argument is simply stating if a officer who is at rest and is illegally parked he or she is violating the same law he or she is sworn to uphold. There is a reason that area is illegal to park in; fire hydrants, bus-stops, bicycle path, or whatever reason the municipality decided citizens can't park there. What is the officer doing? The exact same thing a citizen would be doing, except he has a different hat on.

This has been argued over and over. The only time an officer can lawfully break the law is in case of emergency. It's the same case when an officer is speeding without his or her lights and sirens active. The only time anything ever gets done to stop unlawful activity is when someone raises the red flags, otherwise it will continue.

Whether the producer's a douche or not is beside the base argument of this video.

That's total bullshit. Cops are allowed to do things during the course of their job that the average citizen is not.

Try pulling someone over with your car today. Really yell at them and honk your horn like crazy and see if they pull over. Then, when they don't, perform a nice PIT maneuver with your car. After all, cops are allowed to do it right? So shouldn't you?

Or how about this: Try carrying around a loaded, fully-automatic assault rifle. If anyone screws with you, tell them that SWAT team members are allowed to carry them, so you should be allowed to as well. Sound like crazy talk? It is.

How is this for a double-standard: if a cop sees someone committing a crime, they are required by law to stop it. Whereas you, a normal citizen, is not required by law to do anything. Is that unfair? Or is that because stopping criminals is part of a cop's job description?

Cops are allowed to do things that normal citizens are not. They can put up barricades. They can direct traffic. They can use "police only" radio channels.

It seems to me like this is equivalent to walking into a hospital and saying, "I'd like to perform some brain surgery, and if you don't let me, you're holding me and the actual brain surgeon up to different standards!" But they're not holding you up to different standards at all. Almost anyone can go to school to become a brain surgeon. But the school part is a requirement to actually practicing the work.

In the same way, almost anyone can go to a police academy or other training school and become a cop. So it's not a double-standard, it's two separate roles that individuals play in a society. Roles that are established by that same society. It's not that complicated.

Again, if the cop was using an illegal space to park in while he went and got a tic-tac or something, I could see the argument. But this isn't even an argument. It's crazy talk.

>> ^notarobot:

I'd like to play tic tac toe please.


Okay, Global Thermonuclear War it is!

I'd like to play tic tac toe please.

Global Thermonuclear War!
M.A.D. - The Mad Doctrine is based on the principal that if both sides have the capability to annihilate the other, Neither will act!

Stephen Falken: The whole point was to find a way to practice nuclear war without destroying ourselves. To get the computers to learn from mistakes we couldn't afford to make. Except, I never could get Joshua to learn the most important lesson.
David Lightman: What's that?
Stephen Falken: Futility. That there's a time when you should just give up.
Jennifer: What kind of a lesson is that?
Stephen Falken: Did you ever play tic-tac-toe?
Jennifer: Yeah, of course.
Stephen Falken: But you don't anymore.
Jennifer: No.
Stephen Falken: Why?
Jennifer: Because it's a boring game. It's always a tie.
Stephen Falken: Exactly. There's no way to win. The game itself is pointless! But back at the war room, they believe you can win a nuclear war. That there can be "acceptable losses."
WAR GAMES

The guy in the wife beater is one half of Tic-Tac, a pair of identical twins who've been ripping up the floors of subway stations and NYC parks for about ten years. I don't think I've ever seen one without the other before. They've got a rotating crew of dancers who perform with them. If you ever catch them, it's a rare NYC local treat.

Macs do games! Have you ever heard of tic tac toe or connect four?! There's an app for that.

tic-toc

tic-toc

tic-toc

"I drink too much"
"Well, stop it then."

Fantastic.

>> ^harry:
God, it must be so tiring to spend a day with Robin Williams. Always the voices and the little characters.

Yes. He must go through personal assistants like tic tacs.

dd's blog, letters of note, is fan-tas-tic. you MUST check it out. a real treasure... I love it