Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Recent Posts
1
DnD Central / Re: Is there a police psychology problem??
Last post by ersi -
Having only ever had minor dealings with the police in my life, such as applying for a passport, it's been interesting to try to figure out how criminal police interrogation works in USA. I've watched a bunch of those interrogations on Youtube now and, in short, police is a total liar and a thief.

People often ask at the police station, "Am I under arrest?" Where does this question come from? Weren't they told that they were under arrest before they arrived at the interrogation room in front of the cameras and mikes? Is this not breach of protocol by the police?

Anyway, when you are at the police station, how is it somehow in question whether you are under arrest or not? Unless you are a witness or victim who showed up voluntarily to give testimony at the police station, yes, you are under arrest, duh. Police officers can call it "detained" sometimes, but it is a distinction without a difference. How is this not obvious?

To the question, the police often answers, "Let me explain everything," and proceeds to explain nothing. Instead, they go straight to leading questions.

Then there's also the business with "rights", the right to remain silent etc. However, the "rights" are only for those explicitly arrested. Therefore, declaration of arrest is delayed as long as possible, preferably until *after* self-snitching. In a rare case when the arrest and rights are spelled out to the detainee before the interrogation, somehow almost nobody makes use of the rights. Part of the reason is that the police weasels when reading the rights, "So you understand your rights, yes? Sign here please. Now, how about...?" and thus the interrogation continues regardless of the rights.

And commentators of the videos often say that the detainees are "not smart". In my view the problem is the culture. The police is geared to trick the system and the detainees are being encouraged to ignore their rights.
2
DnD Central / Re: Tripe about Ukraine
Last post by ersi -
The West isn’t ready to give Ukraine the security pledges it wants

Quote from: https://www.politico.eu/article/the-west-isnt-ready-to-give-ukraine-the-security-pledges-it-wants-russia-war/
Ukraine is pleading for binding security guarantees to ensure long-term survival. Allies just aren’t ready to do that yet.

Despite months of conversations about the subject, the Western alliance is still divided over nearly every element of how to respond to the request, according to five European diplomats.

Should NATO, which Ukraine is aspiring to join, be having that conversation? Or should the world’s biggest military powers provide individual pledges? Are any guarantees short of NATO membership worthwhile?

And, officials are wondering, what even constitutes a “security guarantee”?
My answer is that security guarantee is Article 5. It's Nato membership after the war. But to demonstrate that there is commitment to this promise, Nato should act right now as if Ukraine were already a Nato member and as if Article 5 had been invoked.

Article 5 has not been put to a real test yet. This is the test.

What is there to fear in following through with the promise? Collapse of Russia? USSR collapsed and nothing bad happened. Nothing bad to Europe anyway. Don't be nuke cowards.

Why chicken out and make wishy-washy commitments? According to the Budapest Memorandum, USA, UK and Russia were supposed to provide security assurances for Ukraine. This failed. Minsk Agreements — Russia, France, and Germany — also failed. Don't imagine that chickens can tame the bear. Okay?
3
DnD Central / Re: The twits on Twitter
Last post by ersi -
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
(But -on your reading, Obama would be liable, too! What a can of worms...)
You're like an incurable drunkard, imagining that everybody else must be drunkard too but hiding it. I mean, being hyperpartisan you think everybody else must be hyperpartisan too but hiding it.

I'm not hiding it. I am not partisan at all. I do not care what happens to Obama. Or Clinton. Or Biden. I do not care what happens to the entire USA tomorrow. I do not care what happens to Trump either. It's just worrisome that you type obviously false stuff about your own country when it's very easy to know better half a globe away.

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
I did see a riot of sorts; although nothing like the Antifa/BLM riots throughout the previous year!
Well, let's assume Antifa/BLM did evil stuff. Therefore the same evil stuff when done by your side automagically turns into virtue? Like, seriously?

Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
Your use of the term "insurrection" indicates -to me- either  an uncritical reliance on propaganda from the MSM or a Woke  vocabulary perverting your common sense...
Insurrection is when you see the government — or a branch of it — being overrun. Note that Antifa/BLM did not overrun government or court buildings. Jan 6 rioters did — on the sign given by their President. That's a coup attempt and insurrection. There's been a steady stream of convictions to this effect for two years now.

Meh, remain blind as you wish.
5
DnD Central / Re: The twits on Twitter
Last post by OakdaleFTL -
Quote from: ersi on
I fault the judicial system here. The law you cited, Trump should easily fall under it for his stealing of confidential documents and for famously tweeting info from his secret intelligence briefing. Trump has not been locked up for this dangerous breach of law - should be, but hasn't. A systemic problem with the judicial system.
Your understanding of presidential powers in the U.S. regarding classification of documents is deficient; hence your mistaken belief that Trump breached that law...
But you often confuse your  understanding (biases and all...) with reality. :)

(But -on your reading, Obama would be liable, too! What a can of worms...)


Quote from: ersi on
You did not see the insurrection unfolding in front of you
I did see a riot of sorts; although nothing like the Antifa/BLM riots throughout the previous year! Your use of the term "insurrection" indicates -to me- either  an uncritical reliance on propaganda from the MSM or a Woke  vocabulary perverting your common sense...
6
Browsers & Technology / Re: The Hardware Thread
Last post by ersi -
If green thinking is the point, then all industrial pollution matters, not just emissions. The mining of metals and production of chemicals, how to recycle or dispose of them, everything.

It's obvious that nobody is thinking holistically about this. Nobody except a few isolated ecofascists. In the mainstream politics, we have the half-assed bottle recycling scheme that is nowhere near the recycling scheme that was in effect in Soviet Union. And we have silly initiatives like banning plastic straws while leaving plastic covers for cups. Essentially just turning everything into a such a stupid joke that no ecologically minded person wants to be associated with it - and clearly isn't, otherwise the initative would be sensible.

And don't even get me started on sorting garbage.
8
Browsers & Technology / Re: The Hardware Thread
Last post by ersi -
Rowan Atkinson published an opinion piece about electric vehicles.

Quote from: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jun/03/electric-vehicles-early-adopter-petrol-car-ev-environment-rowan-atkinson
As you may know, the government has proposed a ban on the sale of new petrol and diesel cars from 2030. The problem with the initiative is that it seems to be based on conclusions drawn from only one part of a car’s operating life: what comes out of the exhaust pipe. Electric cars, of course, have zero exhaust emissions, [but] Volvo released figures claiming that greenhouse gas emissions during production of an electric car are 70% higher than when manufacturing a petrol one.
I still wonder how this obvious fact is not obvious and finds no consideration in the current wave of "green thinking". It is obvious: There is no green thinking. There is only greenwashing.

Edit: The issue has a catchy name these days, 'Nickel Pickle'
9
DnD Central / Re: The twits on Twitter
Last post by ersi -
Quote from: OakdaleFTL on
I'd like to continue this... But your ability to ignore reality and accept Democrat Party narratives as Gospel makes that a pointless endeavor! :(
You did not see the insurrection unfolding in front of you and even in hindsight you refuse any facts about it. This condemns you as a wilfully blind hopelessly brainwashed partisan sycophant.

I do not care anything about the Democrat Party. Lock Hillary up, if you want. Lock her up and never let her out, if you think there's a reason for it.

But here's the catch: Trump promised to do it. He was armed with the same allegations and investigations as you, but he did not do it. So, assuming Hillary should be locked up, Trump FAILED in a matter of national interest! Somehow you do not fault Trump for this. You fault Hillary. You do not fault the judicial system, but the criminal for failing to incriminate herself, confess prior to trial and go to prison by herself.

I fault the judicial system here. The law you cited, Trump should easily fall under it for his stealing of confidential documents and for famously tweeting info from his secret intelligence briefing. Trump has not been locked up for this dangerous breach of law - should be, but hasn't. A systemic problem with the judicial system.
10
DnD Central / Re: The twits on Twitter
Last post by OakdaleFTL -
Quote from: ersi on
So here we have it. When it comes to Democrats, your standard is: Guilty if suspicious.
I'd like to continue this... But your ability to ignore reality and accept Democrat Party narratives as Gospel makes that a pointless endeavor! :(

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton had a private email server in her private residence over which she communicated classified information with her boss, President Obama; when this was discovered and those emails subpoenaed, her lawyers selected some 30,000 emails for exclusion, and her various employees physically destroyed their phones and other devices... As FBI Director Comey and Obama said, she was "grossly negligent" in her handling of classified information. (Indeed, the FBI concluded that her server was hacked by foreign intelligence services...) But had "not intended to harm" the U.S., so she wouldn't be prosecuted.

I cited the relevant law... This is it:
Quote
(f)Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.
(source)
And its wording is plain and clear[1]: She was guilty; nothing like "if suspicious," my friend.
1 Even Obama, the half-assed Harvard-trained lawyer would know...↵