>> ^Porksandwich:

From third party experience and personal observations of the system, the checks and balances need to be returned into the system. Like I stated earlier, the police department refused to comply with written orders from a judge. And this same judge when shown the paperwork the police department wanted signed said that he'd never seen that paperwork before and that he himself wouldn't have signed it under any circumstance.
There's just too much complication to the system, each part of the 3 wanting to take the powers of the other two upon itself while being completely kept out of the loop as to the other branches goings on. No handful of people have the time to check out the other goings on when they are so busy trying to get more power for themselves.
They need to implement a system in which laws that are reviewed and thrown out when a new law takes over it's function, or if the law is outdated with the times and requires an update to create an update that doesn't require broad interpretation of every word in it. Lots of interpretation slowly becomes the new "spirit" of the law that was never intended to be used in such ways.

I guess I see a problem with both of these suggestions. First, how do you restore checks and balances? If the police refuse to comply with written instructions from a judge, what's supposed to happen? If the police refuse because the judge didn't use a particular form the police expect for a particular type of legal request, who settles the dispute? For that matter, who's supposed to take action to resolve the dispute?

I'd also point out that isn't really a question of checks and balances so much as trouble with inefficient communications.

Second, the problem with all law is that it's still written in English, which is not a formal language, free of all ambiguity. I mentioned in another thread that so-called "legalese" is usually about trying to make law more precise, so that it reduces the ambiguity of its meaning. But even then, there's often still room for interpretation, because legalese is still just technical English, and is therefore bound to include ambiguous elements.

For example, if you're going to ban "drunk driving" you have to come up with rigorous, objective standards for what constitutes being "drunk", and also what constitutes "driving". Is a separate law needed for boats and aircraft, for example? What about farm machinery? Is drunkenness determined by a test for impaired function, or by some sort of biochemical standard? In either case, you need to set a standard for what constitutes a valid test, how you verify the authenticity of the test, and how you document the test.

If the law defines "driving" as operating a gasoline-powered vehicle with 2 or 4 wheels, and someone is driving around with an ethanol-fueled car or a trike, should he be exempt from the law?

As for legal precedent, a lot of times that comes into play because the law was intentionally written to leave room for judges to make their own interpretation on the meaning of things that could never be exhaustively defined (e.g. "reasonable suspicion"). Over time you do start building up a more regular definition of "reasonable suspicion" by the way cases have been decided in the past, and so you'll find that the topic of precedent will naturally come up whenever a prosecutor or defense wants to challenge (or defend) the way one of those ambiguous standards was applied.

As for the way the courts tend to screw you if you try to file claims, I think part of that is because the court system is perpetually starved for resources, and they want to try to stave off frivolous lawsuits by making the process a pain in the ass.

1....2...yeah it's a trike.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's really easy and commonplace to look to the past and say "oh that's just common sense- of course that was the right way to do it."

The truth is that no one was making a phone that was a finger driven multi-touch, all screen "the device is the screen" device.

Now everyone seems to be- and I think that's great. But credit where credit is due. The current crop of smart phones have borrowed heavily from the iPhone in just about every way.


>> ^rottenseed:
Right...and all that really matters is what's under the hood (bonnet). At the end of the day, you have 2 good cars to choose from in your analogy. Google didn't invent the search engine, but what they did with it was revolutionary. It's ok to take an idea and build upon it. Your only comparison seems skin deep. Besides, in my opinion, the iphone's "look" is the lowest common denominator. It's not flashy, it's not sexy...it's a bit slippery though. It's not like they had a revolutionary design. Their design was based on simplicity. Which works. And you can't patent simplicity.>> ^dag:
A closer analogy would be that if everyone was driving motorized trikes -and then someone invents the Ford Mustang. Then all the motorized trike makers decide to start making Camaros.
>> ^rottenseed:
I see the shape is the same...and they're both black. They also both have icons. That's like saying 2 cars are the same because they have 4 wheels, 4 doors, and windows.

Right...and all that really matters is what's under the hood (bonnet). At the end of the day, you have 2 good cars to choose from in your analogy. Google didn't invent the search engine, but what they did with it was revolutionary. It's ok to take an idea and build upon it. Your only comparison seems skin deep. Besides, in my opinion, the iphone's "look" is the lowest common denominator. It's not flashy, it's not sexy...it's a bit slippery though. It's not like they had a revolutionary design. Their design was based on simplicity. Which works. And you can't patent simplicity.>> ^dag:
A closer analogy would be that if everyone was driving motorized trikes -and then someone invents the Ford Mustang. Then all the motorized trike makers decide to start making Camaros.
>> ^rottenseed:
I see the shape is the same...and they're both black. They also both have icons. That's like saying 2 cars are the same because they have 4 wheels, 4 doors, and windows.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

A closer analogy would be that if everyone was driving motorized trikes -and then someone invents the Ford Mustang. Then all the motorized trike makers decide to start making Camaros.

>> ^rottenseed:
I see the shape is the same...and they're both black. They also both have icons. That's like saying 2 cars are the same because they have 4 wheels, 4 doors, and windows.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'travis pastrana, megaramp, jump, backflip, bigwheel, attempts, thrillbillies' to 'travis pastrana, megaramp, jump, backflip, bigwheel, trike, tricycle, thrillbillies' - edited by kronosposeidon

Tags for this video have been changed from 'trike, trycycle, kids, toddlers, accidents, flip, fall, faceplant, tricycle' to 'trike, trycycle, kids, toddlers, accidents, flip, fall, faceplant, tricycle, crash' - edited by deedub81

Tags for this video have been changed from 'trike, trycycle, kids, toddlers, accidents, flip, fall, faceplant' to 'trike, trycycle, kids, toddlers, accidents, flip, fall, faceplant, tricycle' - edited by deedub81

I think Harley Davidson has the patent on this.

that trike should not have survived.

Assholes like this cop do make it harder for other cops to do their job. If people can't trust their police to react appropriately (the police officer could have motioned for the cyclist to pull over) in a situation, who the hell can they trust?

The level of force used was disproportionate and inappropriate. There was no order to stop and the cyclist did not represent a threat (hell, my neighbours 4 year old manages to go faster than that guy on her trike...).

And because the dumbass was stupid enough to get caught on camera and then lie on a report, chances are if this doesn't quiet down (and I don't see protest groups and civil liberties mobs letting it die down) he will probably be punted to save face more than to punish him (whether he serves time for assault is another matter).

The cyclist was acting illegally and may be charged, or not, depending on how embarrassing this gets for the NYPD.

it sounds simple, but I believe gorgonieap would object, and even I can think of things that would fit in geek but not really engineering. I think the community will define things.

In any case, I am likely to be very inclusive about what fits in engineering.

In reply to this comment by CaptWillard:
How about this simple analysis: All engineering is geek, but not all geek is engineering. That is, engineering is a subset of geek. Kind of like all rocknroll is music, but not all music is rocknroll. Too simplistic? Or am I making much ado about nothing?

In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
Well, I'm ok with a little chaos.

To me, geek is a cultural thing, and engineering can be everything from engineering ethics, to math applications, to gadgets. If something is about how to produce something, or how a design failed, it might not be geek. For instance, the first page of engineering has almost no geek, because it's about stuff like how to do sound engineering, how to put a himi in a trike, how to demolish, or fail to demolish, a building.

It's harder for me to think of things that would be geek but not engineering, but you came up with an example.

How about this simple analysis: All engineering is geek, but not all geek is engineering. That is, engineering is a subset of geek. Kind of like all rocknroll is music, but not all music is rocknroll. Too simplistic? Or am I making much ado about nothing?

In reply to this comment by oxdottir:
Well, I'm ok with a little chaos.

To me, geek is a cultural thing, and engineering can be everything from engineering ethics, to math applications, to gadgets. If something is about how to produce something, or how a design failed, it might not be geek. For instance, the first page of engineering has almost no geek, because it's about stuff like how to do sound engineering, how to put a himi in a trike, how to demolish, or fail to demolish, a building.

It's harder for me to think of things that would be geek but not engineering, but you came up with an example.

Well, I'm ok with a little chaos.

To me, geek is a cultural thing, and engineering can be everything from engineering ethics, to math applications, to gadgets. If something is about how to produce something, or how a design failed, it might not be geek. For instance, the first page of engineering has almost no geek, because it's about stuff like how to do sound engineering, how to put a himi in a trike, how to demolish, or fail to demolish, a building.

It's harder for me to think of things that would be geek but not engineering, but you came up with an example.


In reply to this comment by CaptWillard:
Wow, in a couple of short days the Engineering channel has over 16 pages of videos. Of course I realize that many people, just like me, reviewed all their videos and retroactively applied the Engineering tag, but that's still very impressive. I've always thought that the "Geek" channel was too broad. However, could you tell me when something is Geek and NOT Engineering, or the other way around, or both? To me, "Geek" ALWAYS means enthusiast of some sort or another. For example, there are comic book "geeks", but that has nothing to do with engineering. However computer design is both geek AND engineering. Can you name examples of anything that is Engineering but NOT Geek, besides what I already mentioned?

In other words, I'm a little confused. Maybe a Venn diagram would help. Gorgonheap is the maestro of the Geek channel; maybe you and he need to draw up a Sift Talk post that clearly defines what both defines and delineates your channels. I would appreciate it.

I hope I'm not coming across as an anal-retentive anus. I only want to be precise in my channel assignments.

Thanks in advance.

"A soothingly quiet trike"

Huh?!!! Quiet? How many bicycles and tricycles are loud?