So even though the law specifically states partial birth abortions won't be allowed unless to protect the life of the mother, which btw, the average American you keep sighting would agree should be allowed, it's going to effectively let virtually every partial birth abortion to occur. That's right wing paranoia. The law specifically states otherwise, period. So even when it says that, you're saying otherwise.

Past that btw, are you saying that if a woman didn't abort the baby she would die, they should be legally required to have the baby anyway? Here's the problem; even if what you said is true that the floodgates for partial birth abortions would open, all you're proving is the impossibility to enforce the law. The overwhelming majority of Americans are against partial birth abortion bans that don't allow exceptions when the mother's health is at risk, or in cases of rape or incest.

There are plenty of laws where it's just impractical to enforce properly. I think if the entire US would abide by Prohibition, our society would be much better off without alcohol in the end, considering rates of alcoholism, etc. But it was impossible to enforce, so it was a bad law. I don't personally drink, and both my parents are recovering alcoholics, but I'd never be in favor of Prohibition.

Regardless, FOCA is not far left. It's not. This isn't intellectual dishonesty. I don't even care honestly if it passes or not. But it's not far left. Far left would not contain provisions at all to limit partial birth abortions. It would outright say parental consent laws are superceded and invalid. Etc. FOCA hasn't a single one of those things. It's center-left. But you're calling it far left because it's in any degree more left than where we are now. Same thing with what you're saying about moving any direction to the left on gay marriage. That's ridiculous. This is why we can't make any progress anymore legislatively or politically. Everyone thinks giving up an inch, even when it's a reasonable concession, is a slippery slope, the flood gates will open, Armageddon is coming, blah blah blah. The simple fact of the matter is while we're split on abortion, probably 70% of Americans would agree that we should limit partial birth abortions, but we should have exceptions for rape, incest, and for the health of the mother. FOCA is a reasonable compromise to move a tick to the left. Instead, it's tared and feathered as hard left, with many allegations that are outright lies, not just bending of the truth. Your point about the parental involvement requirements as a case in point. That's utter horsecrap, and you know it.

Prove provisions of the Obamacare is causing your mother's current health insurance coverage to be eliminated, and her premiums to go up. Prove it, explain what's going on, and show me where in Obamacare it's causing this. Until you can prove that, I'm calling BS.

I'm not saying companies don't end certain insurance policies because of Obamacare. I have a friend who works for Microsoft, and they're ending their health insurance plan in favor of another because the current plan falls under the category of a "Cadillac" health insurance plan, and will be penalized via a tax. So he'll go from super-awesome health insurance better than virtually any plan you could hope to find to a darn good one. He's pissed as hell because of this, but when I asked him did he look at this from the perspective of if this is good policy for society as a whole, he looked dumbfounded, as if why should he even consider that. If society as a whole is better off, I don't really care he has health insurance coverage a little closer to what the rest of us have. That should be the debate, not people deciding based on their own selfish interests.

The simple fact of the matter is health insurance premiums were already going up well before Obamacare was ever passed, but a lot of people now blame current premium increases conveniently on Obamacare when they don't know that was the reason why. Forget facts, it's that dang communist Obama!

I have a warped view of what's center-left vs hard left? If the only thing concerning gay marriage that Obama is advocating changing is that the federal gov't will begin recognizing the marriage legal IF and ONLY IF the couple's state considers it legal, explain how that's far left. If the only change to abortion laws is ensuring exceptions to partial birth abortions in cases of rape, incest, and to protect the health of the mother, explain how that's hard left. Explain how Obamacare, which largely keeps the same health care system we already have in place, is hard left. By definition, if we still have employee sponsored health insurance, no public option, no single payer, that's not a hard move to the left. It's not. The conservative right paints them all as these extreme measures, but every single one are compromises. Every single one of them, period.

And here's the result - Conservatives are urging the Supreme Court to dismantle the most significant health care reform since the invention of Medicaid to go back to a system everybody knows is broken, with no plan ready to fix it. We haven't even let Obamacare take effect quite honestly, but it's not stopping the GOP from claiming it's killing the economy. Ridiculous.

>> ^shinyblurry:


Hardly. FOCA will nullify the partial birth abortion ban, and any other state law which could be interpreted to "interfere" with a womans "right" to an abortion. The untruth is to say it is simply codifying roe vs wade; It will create substantial changes to hundreds of laws.
Yes, the law contains language that partial birth abortions would only be allowed in situations where the "health" of the woman could be impacted. Well, that is a meaningless distinction. Almost anything could be allowed under those circumstances, including mental health issues. The fact is, the ban will be repealed and partial birth abortions will be a go, and many will be justified under some flimsy pretext.
Again, to say FOCA isn't far left is simply to be intellectually dishonest. It goes far beyond what the average american would approve of.
I hope it gets thrown out if only for my mothers sake, who will have her current coverage eliminated and her premiums raised because of it.
What's clear is that you have a much different idea of what is far left, and what isn't from the average person.
>> ^heropsycho:

Keep linking to videos of hard right extremists. You're really not making an honest case. You're making a partisan case.

? The video was congressional hearing where Kathleen Selibus gave testimony concerning the contraceptive mandate. How is that "hard right extremists?" Did someone program her answers for her?

There's nothing unconstitutional about that aspect of the bill. Regulation of health care insurance would fall under regulation of interstate commerce. It's not a violation of the 1st amendment. There's nothing forcing an orthodox catholic to use contraception. Again, birth control can be used for reasons utterly and completely unrelated to preventing pregnancy. It is still 100% completely within an individual's rights to use or not use birth control.

Did you watch the video and read the commentary? If you have then you should have understood that it violates the establishment clause of the 1st amendment, which will take precedence. It will be thrown out in court.

Imagine a religion that believes you should not attempt to prevent someone from accidentally dying because you're interfering with God's will. Therefore, seat belts are against their religion. The Church then goes out to buy vehicles. Of course, the federal gov't regulates the automobile industry, and requires every vehicle to have seat belts. So federal regulations requiring seat belts are against the 1st Amendment?!

That is why there is what they call the balancing test, which Kathleen admitted she didn't factor in our her decision. Disallowing seat belts, on balance, would not be in our best interest.

Um, no. According to the Constitution, the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce. Since the constitution says the purpose of gov't, among other reasons, is to promote the general welfare, it has passed laws to provide minimum quality guidelines for meat in the Meat Inspection Act, food and medicine with the Pure Food and Drug Act, cars, building codes, I could go on and on. This provision in Obamacare is intended to mandate minimum socially acceptable health insurance coverage for various things. You can't get denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, etc. Included in this is to say medical insurance must provide coverage for these kinds of contraception. This has nothing to do with favoring certain religions over others. In fact, the use of these types of birth control can be for reasons that haven't a thing to do with preventing pregnancy, and therefore can have absolutely zero religious implications. Everyone can still practice their religions as they want. This isn't the portion of Obamacare that will get declared unconstitutional, or else the legal precedent it would establish would imply that much of the transformational and positive laws we've passed over the last 100 years would also be unconstitutional.

There are lawsuits specifically challenging the contraceptive mandate, and it will be thrown out for violating the establishment cause:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/02/24/7-states-sue-to-block-contraception-mandate/

There are provisions of the bill that there is honest debate about the constitutionality of the law. The individual mandate is an interesting constitutional question. But this? Please. And this isn't far left by any stretch of the imagination. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not believe prescription birth control is amoral, and most believe that it's a basic drug that should be covered by health insurance. Not far left by any stretch of the imagination.

Strike 1...

Not according to this poll:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2012/02/poll-americans-divided-over-contraception-mandate/

Repeal of DOMA? Not far left. All DOMA does is say that states don't have to recognize gay marriages from other states, and the federal government does not consider a gay couple married. Obama's stance is states should decide if gay marriage is illegal.

Let's look at what the Obama administration has a problem with in DOMA. It's Section 3, which is what states the US gov't won't recognize a gay marriage, legal in the state where those people live and in which it was performed, as legal for the purposes of federal taxes, insurance benefits, and the like. IE, Obama wants it to be that if a state says it's legal, the federal gov't will recognize it the same. If it's considered illegal by the state, the US gov't will not supercede it either.

That's far left?! NO! Far left would be supporting legalization of gay marriage via federal legislation or otherwise against states' wills if necessary. That is NOT what Obama has proposed in any shape or form.

Strike 2...

Repealing DOMA has been on the far left agenda since it was enacted. Whatever Obama says his position is, which has switched three times, is irrelevant to the point.

Supporting FOCA is far left? FOCA attempts to codify Roe v. Wade. It declares a woman has the right to get an abortion up to the point the fetus is deemed viable, or in the case that the fetus is a threat to the health of the mother.

That's far left?! Dude, it's what's already pretty much the law!!! Far left would be unrestricted abortions for any reason all the way up to birth. That's not what FOCA is.

In other words, anyone who thinks abortions should be protected even in limited cases, you consider extreme. I submit FOCA isn't extreme; clearly, you are.

Strike 3, thanks for playing.

Apparently you know very little about FOCA. It would establish abortion as a fundamental right, and nullify states laws concerning parental involvement, restrictions on late term abortions, conscience protection laws for health care providers, bans on partial birth abortions, conscience laws for institutions, laws requiring counseling and also ultrasounds. It would compel taxpayer funding through state and federal welfare programs, employee insurance plans, and military hospitals. It would apparently force faith-based hospitals and health care facilities to perform abortions as well.

That's just scratching the surface.

So, you pretty much said it yourself. Despite the obvious evidence to the contrary, you will continue to believe Obama is someone apparently from the hard left, and you have nothing to base this on other than your warped ideology. This is a guy who is criticized by the very far left of his party for not being to the left enough.

I'm sorry, but your views are absurd.

I'll say it for the third time, and I hope you will read it this time. I don't think Obama is necessarily an extreme liberal, although I think he has those tendencies. I don't think he is a traditional democrat, and that there is a lot that is unknown about his particular agenda; an agenda we will discover on his second term.

>> ^heropsycho:

Keep linking to videos of hard right extremists. You're really not making an honest case. You're making a partisan case.

There's nothing unconstitutional about that aspect of the bill. Regulation of health care insurance would fall under regulation of interstate commerce. It's not a violation of the 1st amendment. There's nothing forcing an orthodox catholic to use contraception. Again, birth control can be used for reasons utterly and completely unrelated to preventing pregnancy. It is still 100% completely within an individual's rights to use or not use birth control.

Imagine a religion that believes you should not attempt to prevent someone from accidentally dying because you're interfering with God's will. Therefore, seat belts are against their religion. The Church then goes out to buy vehicles. Of course, the federal gov't regulates the automobile industry, and requires every vehicle to have seat belts. So federal regulations requiring seat belts are against the 1st Amendment?!

Um, no. According to the Constitution, the federal government has the right to regulate interstate commerce. Since the constitution says the purpose of gov't, among other reasons, is to promote the general welfare, it has passed laws to provide minimum quality guidelines for meat in the Meat Inspection Act, food and medicine with the Pure Food and Drug Act, cars, building codes, I could go on and on. This provision in Obamacare is intended to mandate minimum socially acceptable health insurance coverage for various things. You can't get denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition, etc. Included in this is to say medical insurance must provide coverage for these kinds of contraception. This has nothing to do with favoring certain religions over others. In fact, the use of these types of birth control can be for reasons that haven't a thing to do with preventing pregnancy, and therefore can have absolutely zero religious implications. Everyone can still practice their religions as they want. This isn't the portion of Obamacare that will get declared unconstitutional, or else the legal precedent it would establish would imply that much of the transformational and positive laws we've passed over the last 100 years would also be unconstitutional.

There are provisions of the bill that there is honest debate about the constitutionality of the law. The individual mandate is an interesting constitutional question. But this? Please. And this isn't far left by any stretch of the imagination. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not believe prescription birth control is amoral, and most believe that it's a basic drug that should be covered by health insurance. Not far left by any stretch of the imagination.

Strike 1...

Repeal of DOMA? Not far left. All DOMA does is say that states don't have to recognize gay marriages from other states, and the federal government does not consider a gay couple married. Obama's stance is states should decide if gay marriage is illegal.

Let's look at what the Obama administration has a problem with in DOMA. It's Section 3, which is what states the US gov't won't recognize a gay marriage, legal in the state where those people live and in which it was performed, as legal for the purposes of federal taxes, insurance benefits, and the like. IE, Obama wants it to be that if a state says it's legal, the federal gov't will recognize it the same. If it's considered illegal by the state, the US gov't will not supercede it either.

That's far left?! NO! Far left would be supporting legalization of gay marriage via federal legislation or otherwise against states' wills if necessary. That is NOT what Obama has proposed in any shape or form.

Strike 2...

Supporting FOCA is far left? FOCA attempts to codify Roe v. Wade. It declares a woman has the right to get an abortion up to the point the fetus is deemed viable, or in the case that the fetus is a threat to the health of the mother.

That's far left?! Dude, it's what's already pretty much the law!!! Far left would be unrestricted abortions for any reason all the way up to birth. That's not what FOCA is.

In other words, anyone who thinks abortions should be protected even in limited cases, you consider extreme. I submit FOCA isn't extreme; clearly, you are.

Strike 3, thanks for playing.

So, you pretty much said it yourself. Despite the obvious evidence to the contrary, you will continue to believe Obama is someone apparently from the hard left, and you have nothing to base this on other than your warped ideology. This is a guy who is criticized by the very far left of his party for not being to the left enough.

I'm sorry, but your views are absurd.

>> ^shinyblurry:

It's an infringement on religious liberties as protected by the 1st amendment and it won't hold up in court. If you want to learn more, watch this video and follow the conversation in the thread:
http://videosift.com/video/Congressman-Gowdy-Grills-Secre
tary-Sebelius-on-HHS-Mandate
All of this is far left.
Obama supports the FOCA, which is far left.
They receive 1/3 of their income from abortions (around 300k every year and counting), and although they list all of their other services separately, making it seem like abortion is an insignificant percentage, many of those services are directly tied to the abortions themselves, so the percentage is much higher.
He has set a goal to repeal the DOMA:
http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2012/05/ob
amas-ready-repeal-doma-least-theory/52337/
The executive office is the most powerful it has ever been in this nations history. There is no telling what he could do to push his (unknown) agenda forward.
When constructing an national entitlement program, you aren't going to be able to get away with going hard left. Further, we still have no idea how bad Obamacare really is, or the secret deals that transpired behind the scenes to set it up.
Like I said, I don't think Obama is a traditional democrat. I don't believe we have seen the real Barack Obama as of yet.
>> ^heropsycho:

>> ^Payback:

>> ^spoco2:
We just bought a 2 year old Kia Grand Carnival (the Sedona in America), replacing our old 2002 Carnival that had it's engine die after a tiny bloody plastic T joint snapped causing the radiator water to spew onto the road instead of around the engine to cool it. This resulted in an engine that overheated very quickly and a system that was de-pressurised, and apparently not really able to be re-pressurised (don't tell me it could, I don't want to know that it was actually a cheap fix when we're told the engine was cactus... don't want to know we needlessly just paid out a chunk of money on a new car that we didn't need to).
Aaaanyway.
When I was looking into whether the engines in the new Carnivals are any good (apparently they are, Hyundai Lambda engines made in the US of A), I noticed they made a big deal on the wikipedia page about it having a timing CHAIN rather than belt, and wondered why this was a big thing.
Now I know <img class="smiley" src="http://cdn.videosift.com/cdm/emoticon/tongue.gif">

Here is me, NOT telling you it was a cheap fix, even if the engine seized from overheating after you ignored the "check engine" warning light. I also won't tell you that if it didn't come to a screeching, banging, violent halt, you probably could have "nursed" it home/to mechanic by waiting until it cooled down.
No sir, I REFUSE to tell you any of that.
I will tell you that if the reason it couldn't be pressurized was "a warped cylinder head" then ya, the engine is boned, but I'll avoid saying it would be about $2500 for a motor out of a auto wrecker (junk yard, used parts lot, etc) or even around $300 for a new cylinder head.


Well that's good to know (sort of). My wife was driving it at the time, and the check engine didn't come on, but it did come to a screeching, banging halt, with steam pouring out of the engine bay. To get an engine from one of these old ones rebuilt is around $4K (Australian), and that's about all the 2002 carnival is worth now, no-one wants to touch them. There's no point getting a 2nd hand engine from anywhere as there's not many to begin with, and they're just not reliable enough to spend the money on anyway.

So it was either a scrap yard for $500, or a trade in for $600. We had to be able to drive it in. Limped it in (still no check engine light on), handed it over, bid them good luck with it. We had told them the engine had blown up, but they were 'well, if you can drive it in, we'll give you $600 for it'. So it's not like we lied to them about the condition of the car. They'll scrap it for parts anyway.

>> ^spoco2:

We just bought a 2 year old Kia Grand Carnival (the Sedona in America), replacing our old 2002 Carnival that had it's engine die after a tiny bloody plastic T joint snapped causing the radiator water to spew onto the road instead of around the engine to cool it. This resulted in an engine that overheated very quickly and a system that was de-pressurised, and apparently not really able to be re-pressurised (don't tell me it could, I don't want to know that it was actually a cheap fix when we're told the engine was cactus... don't want to know we needlessly just paid out a chunk of money on a new car that we didn't need to).
Aaaanyway.
When I was looking into whether the engines in the new Carnivals are any good (apparently they are, Hyundai Lambda engines made in the US of A), I noticed they made a big deal on the wikipedia page about it having a timing CHAIN rather than belt, and wondered why this was a big thing.
Now I know


Here is me, NOT telling you it was a cheap fix, even if the engine started to seize from overheating after you ignored the "check engine" warning light. I also won't tell you that if it didn't come to a screeching, banging, violent halt, you probably could have "nursed" it home/to mechanic by waiting until it cooled down.

No sir, I REFUSE to tell you any of that.

I will tell you that if the reason it couldn't be pressurized was "a warped cylinder head" then ya, the engine is boned, but I'll avoid saying it would be about $2500 for a motor out of a auto wrecker (junk yard, used parts lot, etc) or even around $300 for a new cylinder head.

>> ^spoco2:

Wow, she's clearly unhinged... take whatever happened to begin with and turn it into trying to kill him and damaging her car, two others and his motorbike.
It would seem that he also has a temper by kicking her car based on whatever words were yelled... but man, it wouldn't have even left a mark.

Also... I really dislike the effect the software image stabilisation has had on this video, causes weird warping.


Actually depending on the boots he was wearing he really could have. Most of my gear has steel plates on the outer tips of the toes. Coming down like that he could've cracked her headlight easily IMO.

Doesn't give her the right to try to flatten him OFC just wanted to throw in my two cents about it

artician, it's software that stabilized it. After Effects by Adobe, for example, will analyze the pixels and apply some 3d voodoo magic in order to remove jitter. It creates, in extreme cases such as this, a warping effect that is disconcerting. If this was attempting to be viral, I doubt they would go for the "double negative" or "reverse psychology" angle...

Wow, she's clearly unhinged... take whatever happened to begin with and turn it into trying to kill him and damaging her car, two others and his motorbike.

It would seem that he also has a temper by kicking her car based on whatever words were yelled... but man, it wouldn't have even left a mark.



Also... I really dislike the effect the software image stabilisation has had on this video, causes weird warping.

Don't bother patronizing me to gain an ally because I defended you, and then turn around and spew that garbage to other people. That kind of crap is what gives religious people a bad name.

If that's the way you want to see it. Messenger stated that he didn't think fornication was "wrong sex"..that he knew what it was and wasn't..and I said he doesn't know that because he has no insight into spiritual matters. What you think is "garbage" is simply a statement of fact from the Christian perspective.

Truth is absolute, but no one has to be right. It is entirely possible that each viewpoint catches a specific aspect of the truth without the ability to capture it in its entirety, and some viewpoints may not capture any of the truth, and some actually warp the truth. That is in fact what insights from varying points of view do.

It depends on the question. If you ask, what is life, you can have many answers, none of which captures the entire truth. On the question of whether Jesus is God, there is a right answer and a wrong answer.

>> ^heropsycho:
Would have been nice had you not posted to messenger...
"You don't know what wrong sex is, because you have no insight into spiritual matters."
Seriously?!
SERIOUSLY?!?!
Don't bother patronizing me to gain an ally because I defended you, and then turn around and spew that garbage to other people. That kind of crap is what gives religious people a bad name.
"Yet truth isn't relative, it is absolute. It isn't your truth and my truth; there is a truth and someone is right and someone is wrong about it."
Truth is absolute, but no one has to be right. It is entirely possible that each viewpoint catches a specific aspect of the truth without the ability to capture it in its entirety, and some viewpoints may not capture any of the truth, and some actually warp the truth. That is in fact what insights from varying points of view do.
>> ^shinyblurry:
I realize you don't agree with my viewpoint but I thank you for interjecting and putting the spotlight on some of this emptry rhetoric. Personally, I have been on both sides of the fence; I started out as an agnostic. I am in control of what I believe, and I am well aware of what others believe and why; I used to believe the same things for the same reasons. The reason I believe Jesus is God is because He has supernaturally changed my life. What scripture describes will happen has happened to me.
What we are talking about are worldviews, and every worldview is founded upon presuppositions. A worldview is the lens through which you fundamentally perceive and understand reality. Everyone has a worldview. My worldview is Christian theism, whereas many here have an atheistic worldview, rooted in naturalistic materialism. Their God (what explains everything) tends to be science (they like to say its omnipotent), not realizing that science can't even be done without the presupposition of the uniformity of nature. If more people realized what their philosophical presuppositions are, or even that they have presuppositions in the first place, we could have a much better dialogue on these subjects.
>> ^heropsycho:
I'm certainly not siding with him in this. But understand this...
We all eventually choose mental frameworks to help us understand the world. He chose a religious framework. You chose a different one. He's in control of his own mind, just as you are in control of your own. As far as I'm concerned, a choice of framework is not a moral choice. The choice to try to be better and get to the truth is a moral choice. People take different paths to get there. Some people completely discard frameworks and adopt others as they progress. I have no problem with any of that. If you're not making a choice to understand the truth, then I have a problem with it. He's choosing to use a religious framework to get to it. Rock on.
>> ^messenger:
Your religion is controlling your mind.

Would have been nice had you not posted to messenger...

"You don't know what wrong sex is, because you have no insight into spiritual matters."

Seriously?!

SERIOUSLY?!?!

Don't bother patronizing me to gain an ally because I defended you, and then turn around and spew that garbage to other people. That kind of crap is what gives religious people a bad name.

"Yet truth isn't relative, it is absolute. It isn't your truth and my truth; there is *a* truth and someone is right and someone is wrong about it."

Truth is absolute, but no one has to be right. It is entirely possible that each viewpoint catches a specific aspect of the truth without the ability to capture it in its entirety, and some viewpoints may not capture any of the truth, and some actually warp the truth. That is in fact what insights from varying points of view do.

>> ^shinyblurry:

I realize you don't agree with my viewpoint but I thank you for interjecting and putting the spotlight on some of this emptry rhetoric. Personally, I have been on both sides of the fence; I started out as an agnostic. I am in control of what I believe, and I am well aware of what others believe and why; I used to believe the same things for the same reasons. The reason I believe Jesus is God is because He has supernaturally changed my life. What scripture describes will happen has happened to me.
What we are talking about are worldviews, and every worldview is founded upon presuppositions. A worldview is the lens through which you fundamentally perceive and understand reality. Everyone has a worldview. My worldview is Christian theism, whereas many here have an atheistic worldview, rooted in naturalistic materialism. Their God (what explains everything) tends to be science (they like to say its omnipotent), not realizing that science can't even be done without the presupposition of the uniformity of nature. If more people realized what their philosophical presuppositions are, or even that they have presuppositions in the first place, we could have a much better dialogue on these subjects.

>> ^heropsycho:
I'm certainly not siding with him in this. But understand this...
We all eventually choose mental frameworks to help us understand the world. He chose a religious framework. You chose a different one. He's in control of his own mind, just as you are in control of your own. As far as I'm concerned, a choice of framework is not a moral choice. The choice to try to be better and get to the truth is a moral choice. People take different paths to get there. Some people completely discard frameworks and adopt others as they progress. I have no problem with any of that. If you're not making a choice to understand the truth, then I have a problem with it. He's choosing to use a religious framework to get to it. Rock on.
>> ^messenger:
Your religion is controlling your mind.

well he didnt seem to treat it with anything so pretty much after a few sessions of the shade heating up and cooling down, its gonna warp like crazy. Oh and dont you dare put any pressure on it, it will snap like a twig. A whole log, wasted. Id much rather stick with either a treated finished strip of wood, or hell just give me a nice looking fake.. its a freaking lamp shade.

There are friendly, professional officers that count on people being ignorant of their rights. Police have no legal obligation to tell the truth, either.

I've seen a video where Stossel or somebody is sitting with an officer and testing a breathalyzer. The needle comes up "low" or negative, the officer taps the glass twice and the fking needle JUMPS to "intoxicated" levels.

Even if DUIs arrests hadn't warped from vague "protecting society" platitudes to an unexamined racket like Drug Prohibition, rights are rights, at all times, including late at night.

What's amazing is the number of sifters who are against police using racial profiling to "make the city safer" who approve of this racket.

Seriously? We're arguing whether or not this is scientifically possible? I'd take Warp speed over this crap any day. Does this mean that if I take an infinite number of pictures with the same camera of an infinite number of bones, I will somehow take a picture that will crash my camera? Don't think it works that way... UGh! NO NO NO! I will not let myself become trapped in that argument. This scene is silly and brainless. Just like most things on TV, especially our politicians.

@mxxcon is right in that there's no absolute reason this isn't possible. There's lots of exploits that start with malicious data, and exploit overflows or error conditions to trick the computer into executing data. This is obviously easier if you start with a digital file, but it wouldn't be impossible to create an analog object that when measured would create that equivalent file.

I mean obviously it would take a chain of crazy that's very, very long (and has nothing to do with fractals), but it's not absolutely impossible.

The target could perhaps be a set of values that are automatically calculated and that wouldn't be affected by things outside of the bad guy's control (random things like the orientation of bones for scanning). Perhaps (and bear with me on the crazy) there would be a set of measurements that are stored as a string, and the artifact could be crafted to have much larger values for those measurements (or more of that feature) than the buffer was prepared to receive. That's a very normal start for an exploit.

Having the surrounding data correspond to a valid popped address, and in turn having that point to runnable code would require either a lot of data, with very predictable quantization, stored consistently and together, or (more simply) omniscience.

Theoretical discussion aside, it was a vaguely clever idea very poorly executed. This is really, really bad for a police procedural. Honestly, though, it's still much better than what you get in sci-fi (eg. Warp 10 made us slugs, transporter fixed it, we're fine now so let's forget about Warp 10).

Terran OP.

No but srsly. Bugs similar to this existed in Starcraft BroodWar. Stuff like being able to glitch a worker through mineral patches by trapping it between the minerals and warped in pylon, or glitching a vulture through with a spider mine. Often maps were designed with these bugs in mind to allow players to use them in creative ways. The bug with the patrol command that allowed some units to stop, turn 180, fire and move again in a fraction of a second were crucial to muta/vulture harass. Without the bug that allowed up to 11 mutalisks to stack all on more or less the same spot the TvZ matchup may well have been impossible to win for Z. Then there was also hold position lurkers that basically put Lurkers on hold fire to allow you to bait more of their army to death.

I just find it interesting that in older games often you'd find gameplay emerging out of bugs and glicthes the developer never intended. I'm not proposing that Terran should be allowed to move tanks around off the edge of the map, just that because these games are generally more polished there is less mutation, less potential for gameplay nobody imagined to evolve like bunny hopping, skiing in Tribes or Muta harass in SC:BW.