You know C don't you?



  • I've always worked in IT, I've built PC's, repaired PC's installed
    networks, maintained servers and developed software for automation,
    weather stations, GSM modems, mail servers and GPS kit but I'm not a
    software developer by trade. If anything I more of a general
    techie/sysadmin/script/code/it guy, the kind of guy who does a bit of
    everything in a small company or department, I'm sure many of you know
    the drill.

    About a year ago now I had just moved to a new town and
    was between jobs, a relative said "I can get you a bit of work at our
    place, its only temporary on the production line, low wages." I took him
    up on it because it paid money whilst I was looking for my more usual
    IT work in this new town.

    I was going about doing my job, the
    reason they were taking on extra people was because they had an order of
    a new product that needed to be shipped on time.. only the extra people
    weren't helping. With myself and a couple of other temps on the
    production line we were building kit much faster and highlighted a new
    bottleneck, we could build the things faster than they could be
    programmed.

    This relative of mine had warned me about this before I
    started "Its a pain in the arse, something to do with the PIC, if you
    could sort that out they'd love you." The problem was obvious, we have
    to program two microprocessors, this isn't so bad because they are
    programmed on separate programmers, you can do chip A on one while you
    do chip B on the other. Then we have to squirt some data over the USB
    port which the PIC stores in flash memory and this was taking ages.

    The
    software they had to do this was so bad, it refused to run if anything
    else was running on the computer because it was so timing sensitive,
    even then it had a habit of crapping out half way through the three
    minute long process... and it would only work on one unit at once which
    kind of defeats one of the main points of having USB.

    My first
    piece of 'genius' (</sarcasm>) was to simply find a second
    computer to dedicate to this awful process, thus allowing more than one
    thing to be done at once. I then took a couple of units and a copy of
    the original software home for the weekend and spent a few hours reverse
    engineering their software and writing a new one.

    When Monday
    morning came production started to fly and it actually looked like we
    might meet the deadline, the software now squirted data into multiple
    devices at once, asynchronously and did it without user intervention.
    All the production line monkey had to do was turn it on, then plug it
    in, then unplug it again when the software said it was done.

    The
    production manager stood jaw agape, the directors were beaming that we
    were now going to ship on time, the engineering department and in
    particular the software developers were gritting their teeth and giving
    me evil looks but no matter, talk was flying around that the MD wanted
    me on the staff, permanently.

    So I thought they would take me on to do software.

    ...snip painful negotiations for the right job and more money...

    So
    I got a job on reasonable money but not working on software, they hired
    me to do testing. I think part of this was down to internal politics
    and the fact it was simply available, one guy retired, the guy who used
    to do testing got promoted to replace him and there was a gap I could
    drop into. I made sure I got a pretty clear job description of what the
    testing job entailed so that both sides were clear on what I was being
    paid for and conversely, what was extra.

    ...snip a lot of boring testing...

    Whilst
    doing a lot of the boring testing I realised I could automate so much
    of it, with a few lab supplies and some model servos I built a robot to
    do a lot of the repeat testing for me, I wrote software to tie in with
    the environmental chamber and pneumatic systems. I did all this because
    it made my job easier whilst improving the quality of the results, human
    error is no longer a factor in some of the tests.

    I got asked
    "You know that thing you did with the production software, could you
    like, do the same thing with the data download utility?"

    Not in my
    job description but not a big job as I already had the framework for
    the USB comms on multiple devices working, I negotiated for something in
    return, changes in working hours and holidays in exchange for this
    software.

    So all is well, not the job I envisaged but having built
    a robot to do the boring jobs I now spend most of my time simply
    maintaining that. I still get to do interesting software jobs from time
    to time and every time I do, I negotiate more and more in return, nice.

    The
    last few weeks have been spent working bugs out of the very product I
    was originally building on the production line. This is the sort of work
    that should have been done at the prototype stages, it doesn't help
    that the customer wants to change their requirements AFTER we've sold
    them the product and the company seems happy to oblige them. Already
    we've moved an option on the screen for them, then later moved it back
    again, added new features to already unstable software and changed the
    existing ones.

    We reached a point where the devices were so
    unstable they would reboot themselves, lock up, turn off and suchlike.
    We narrowly escaped from the brink when we realised we could fix
    everything by changing a few interrupt priorities and I advised "That's
    all the major problems found in testing solved, ship it like that while it works and don't mess with it again."

    Of course they've carried on messing with it and its getting silly now, a year after agreeing on, building and a selling thousands of the things we are still developing the software.

    So I'm in a meeting with the engineering director, project manager and software developers going over the latest bug reports coming back from the customer, coming up with lists of yet more changes to make (one of which is re-write the whole thing, at some point, maybe if we get time).

    The meeting ends with the project manager informing the director that Dev A is busy on this and Dev B is busy on something else so the changes required aren't going to get done right away.

    As we all leave the office the director says to me "You know C don't you?"

     



  • @EncoreSpod said:

    As we all leave the office the director says to me "You know C don't you?"
     

     Perfect occassion to ask for a "company vehicle"... I'm thinking about a BMW. Go with the M5 serie.

     



  • Ahhhhh this is my reoccurring WTF area that pays the bills......

    If they originally did not place any value on tools and development to automate the production line, then maybe they haven't any automation on the build tests... this can be stemmed from poor documentation at the product concepts stage.

    Perhaps the product concept from an older background (the founder is more of a analogue electronics guy?) and the company is STILL learning about the 'mixed discipline' of embedded electronic prod development.  This can be still be a problem in company with software teams as the software and hardware guys do not talk and are picked to be experts in 'their field', this allows a very important wedge person (you) in between them and production. 

    Or perhaps this new product comes from a company with a history of making products with low feature sets, so low that manual test/low documentation were acceptable?

     



  • Please, please reassure me that this company is NOT a company that builds chip-and-PIN card readers? From the OP's description, the 'product' could easily be card readers, and I'd just like some reassurance that the product is NOT that because I deal with those things as part of my job and the fault rate of some models is pretty horrific.



  • @EncoreSpod said:

    The meeting ends with the project manager informing the director that Dev A is busy on this and Dev B is busy on something else so the changes required aren't going to get done right away.

    As we all leave the office the director says to me "You know C don't you?"

    So, do you know who C is?

     



  • To explain the background, the company was a leader in its particular specialist field for a good fifty years until a few years back when other BIG manufacturing companies realised they could make something better and with their enormous resources churn it out cheaper. They made losses and got swallowed up by a big American company who have already taken what they needed and only hold onto us as long as we keep making a profit.

    The company did start out in analogue electronics but has been making embedded products for many years, all based on pretty much the same CPU (which BTW we recently heard is soon to go obsolete) and all coded for by one guy who is very good at what he does. As such they never felt the need to have little things like source/version control.

    As competition kicked in and making a loss would have meant the end of them they did two things, cut costs and launch a product with snazzy new gimmicky features... not a good combination.

    Suddenly they had a product with two processors and three developers working on the code, in a rush. Rather than making a single version that was very customisable they then start forking development off into different versions for different customers. We now have about eight versions, each with code for two processors resulting in 16 different software products to keep track of for one piece of hardware. When bugs are found in one, they are often fixed in some but not others and no-one is entirely sure which bugs have been fixed in which builds.

    This however is nothing compared to the major architectural flaws caused by developing the product in such a rush, hence the real need for a complete re-write, some of these bugs are not really bugs as such but simply different manifestations of the same underlying flaw.

    All this is made worst by the cost cutting which means that no-one will allocate the resources to a complete re-write or accept a short term loss by stopping the fire fighting and simply letting the old code burn while we start again with lessons learned.

     

    And no, its not chip'n'pin/card readers, its much more terrifying than that. The products we make can result in people loosing their jobs and in some cases going to prison, fortunately this particular product doesn't fall into either of those categories and the ones that do I'm glad to say are very reliable. 

     

    @Zecc said:

    So, do you know who C is?

     

    Yeah I think he is either Mr Consultant or Mr Cash, either one of those can be my new pseudonym.  :)

     

     



  • @EncoreSpod said:

    The products we make can result in people loosing their jobs and in some cases going to prison, fortunately this particular product doesn't fall into either of those categories and the ones that do I'm glad to say are very reliable.

    Breathalyzers? Radar / Lidar guns? Polygraphs?




  • IMHO you are lucky because you got the opportunity to gain some experience working on some cool stuff (automation is awesome) while not being on the spotlight. If you had found yourself in the software group immediately after your first stunt, it is possible the people whose mistakes you fixed would have made your life difficult; worse, seeing how things go in that organization, you could have ended up working on crazy deadlines, slowly losing your edge and cranking out code that would end up on this site.

    While it may sound silly to do the heavy lifting as an outsider, it is actually a very comfortable position because you can break most rules and you have a wider perspective; if things go well, you are rewarded, if not, you are not really at risk for your job (you were just helping). It's like being an extremely valuable chicken in a scrum.

    As for the manager who asked if you know C, he could be partly clueless, or he could just be playing the politics very well to get what he needs without putting the software group (and/or you) in a difficult position.



  • @Speakerphone Dude said:


    IMHO you are lucky because you got the opportunity to gain some experience working on some cool stuff (automation is awesome) while not being on the spotlight. If you had found yourself in the software group immediately after your first stunt, it is possible the people whose mistakes you fixed would have made your life difficult; worse, seeing how things go in that organization, you could have ended up working on crazy deadlines, slowly losing your edge and cranking out code that would end up on this site.

    While it may sound silly to do the heavy lifting as an outsider, it is actually a very comfortable position because you can break most rules and you have a wider perspective; if things go well, you are rewarded, if not, you are not really at risk for your job (you were just helping). It's like being an extremely valuable chicken in a scrum.

    As for the manager who asked if you know C, he could be partly clueless, or he could just be playing the politics very well to get what he needs without putting the software group (and/or you) in a difficult position.

     

     

    +1 on that one. But seriously, extra vacation days? You should have a pretty neat salary by now. If not, all that cool "rebel work" should give you an impressive CV. And if you don't (or won't) find another job, become their consultant instead. Whatever you do, play the game and climb that power ladder, or you'll end up bitter and underappreciated.

    Either impress the bosses in order to crush the existing IT managers, or win them on your side by having all their "efforts" count as product improvement, "we the team" whatever. Then, when you're their coolest guy, you start squeezing out the lemons one by one and slowly build a top notch IT department. You'll love it, the remaining employees will love you, and management will tell stories about how their savior started off at the production line (propaganda value * 5).

    That's how I'd do it at least. Powwah!!

     



  • @boomzilla said:

    Breathalyzers? Radar / Lidar guns? Polygraphs?

    Breathalyzers were my first guess, if only because of a recent story I heard from a friend who was arrested for DWI. He freely admits that he was driving like a jackass with his nice sports car, taking out frustration with a friend, and was ignorant of the fact he was doing it across the street from a police station (HAHAHA); he doesn't, however, believe he was intoxicated, and the facts of the case would seem to indicate he's correct. Anywho, he had to take a breathalyzer test at the police station and the breathalyzer simply would not register a value. The deputies were baffled and told him to stop doing whatever he was doing and they'd have to test him again. He said he wasn't doing anything and he'd take the breathalyzer all night if necessary (he's one of the most forthright men I know). They tested him five more times and the machine never registered a value (!!).

    They tossed him in jail anyway, he was released on recognizance the next morning, and he fought the case for about a year (due to various legal fuckups in getting documents, continuances, etc.) and finally pled guilty just to get it over with (the legal fees were killing him by that point, and he's a VP making a damn good salary). Counties don't need to have BAC evidence in order to convict. So yeah, he has no license for a year, and I'm wondering if this breathalyzer was an EncoreSpodCo or similar company's product now. :p It's one of the most bizarre DWI cases I've ever heard.



  • @heterodox said:

    Counties don't need to have BAC evidence in order to convict
    You've got to be kidding me... So any cop can arrest, charge and jail you just because he said you were intoxicated, but doesn't have any proof to backup that claim? In a case like this, the burden of proof would be on them seeing as there is no reasonable way you can prove you weren't intoxicated. Did he approach any news outlets regarding this?



  • @C-Octothorpe said:

    @heterodox said:
    Counties don't need to have BAC evidence in order to convict
    You've got to be kidding me... So any cop can arrest, charge and jail you just because he said you were intoxicated, but doesn't have any proof to backup that claim? In a case like this, the burden of proof would be on them seeing as there is no reasonable way you can prove you weren't intoxicated. Did he approach any news outlets regarding this?

    I can personally assure you BAC evidence isn't needed to convict, and this isn't considered to be a problem. The testimony of the cop is evidence enough (if he says your eyes were glassy, you "smelled funny" as they say, were slurring your speech). Field sobriety tests are evidence, if performed, so they should be refused. Road-side breathalyzers aren't admissible as evidence but they can be considered by the judge for sentencing as they're part of the officer's testimony. There's much less burden of proof on the county/state in DWI cases than in any other case; I believe this is due to the magnitude of the public interest in vigorous prosecution, and I don't wholly disagree with that stance.

    In short, "intoxicated" is a subjective judgment, not an objective one, as even BACs don't prove intoxication due to individuals' various tolerances. It's basically up to the judge to make the call.



  • @heterodox said:

    @C-Octothorpe said:
    @heterodox said:
    Counties don't need to have BAC evidence in order to convict
    You've got to be kidding me... So any cop can arrest, charge and jail you just because he said you were intoxicated, but doesn't have any proof to backup that claim? In a case like this, the burden of proof would be on them seeing as there is no reasonable way you can prove you weren't intoxicated. Did he approach any news outlets regarding this?

    I can personally assure you BAC evidence isn't needed to convict, and this isn't considered to be a problem. The testimony of the cop is evidence enough (if he says your eyes were glassy, you "smelled funny" as they say, were slurring your speech). Field sobriety tests are evidence, if performed, so they should be refused. Road-side breathalyzers aren't admissible as evidence but they can be considered by the judge for sentencing as they're part of the officer's testimony. There's much less burden of proof on the county/Commonwealth in DWI cases than in any other case; I believe this is due to the magnitude of the public interest in seeing them prosecuted, and I don't wholly disagree with that stance.

    In short, "intoxicated" is a subjective judgment, not an objective one, as even BACs don't prove intoxication due to individuals' various tolerances. It's basically up to the judge to make the call.

    Christ, that frightens me. Since one has already been tried and convicted at the side of the road, the trial is merely a formality, then? What if you decide to not take the field sobriety test or the breathalyzer? This has got to be some violation of human rights...


  • @C-Octothorpe said:

    So any cop can arrest, charge and jail you just because he said you were intoxicated, but doesn't have any proof to backup that claim?

    Technically, that's all any cop is doing. That's not the same as convicting you. And it's not to say that there aren't consequences if he's abusing his powers.

    @C-Octothorpe said:

    In a case like this, the burden of proof would be on them seeing as there is no reasonable way you can prove you weren't intoxicated.

    This reminds me of seeing stuff on TV shows where a character says, "But that's all just circumstantial!" Which is apparently actually considered pretty strong evidence, and is how most people are convicted. I suppose it's certainly not impossible that a cop could go around giving testimony he knows to be false. But in theory, going to court and swearing his oath, he shouldn't be doing that. And his testimony is generally considered "expert" in this sort of thing, since they're supposed to be trained in this sort of thing. None of which says that abuse doesn't happen.

    And it's probably for the best, overall, that BAC isn't the be all, end all of intoxication. Firstly, there are plenty of other things that can impair your ability to drive safely. And the real point is that you're acting intoxicated. The proportion of alcohol in your system is really just a proxy for that.



  • @C-Octothorpe said:

    Christ, that frightens me. Since one has already been tried and convicted at the side of the road, the trial is merely a formality, then? What if you decide to not take the field sobriety test or the breathalyzer? This has got to be some violation of human rights...

    You have the right not to take the field sobriety test or the Preliminary Breath Test roadside, as they can only give the officer probable cause to arrest you (he only needed reasonable suspicion to stop you). But if he does arrest you for probable cause, you must consent to a breathalyzer; refusal is a crime (in some cases, with the same penalty as DWI). You implicitly consented to that by getting a driver's license in the first place. As far as I know, that's the case in every state. Bet you'll also be pleased to learn that in some states (maybe even most states; I'm not sure), your license is immediately suspended for a short period of time upon arrest (not upon conviction).

    @C-Octothorpe said:

    This has got to be some violation of human rights...

    Awww, I think it's adorable that you think the law exists to protect you. The point is, don't drive drunk, mmmkay.



  • @heterodox said:

    The point is, don't drive drunk, mmmkay.

    I feel obliged to point out, lest people think I'm jaded regarding the criminal justice system (quelle idée!), that boomzilla is quite right in stating why it's a good thing that DWI charges don't require BAC evidence in order to meet the standard of clear and convincing evidence. Also, I say not to drive drunk not because you run the risk of being prosecuted. Serving a life sentence for involuntary manslaughter is nothing next to having to accept that you killed (possibly multiple) people through your actions.

    Also, I don't practice law, none of the above is legal advice, &c.



  •  Generally, you can refuse to take breathalyser etc. tests to avoid the criminal charges if you haven't yet caused an collision or other harm; however doing so (at least in my state) means you will automatically lose your license for at least a year as a civil penalty. But they won't be able to jail you for the 'civil' offense.

    Driving is considered a privilege, not a right.  Also, there are drugs other than alcohol to be impaired by, so a breathalyser is not definitive.



  • @bgodot said:

    Driving is considered a privilege, not a right.

    In the USA, many people consider that according to the Fifth Amendment, driving is actually a right. "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." (Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.)




    This is a very interesting debate, see: various court rulings.



  • @Speakerphone Dude said:

    In the USA, many people consider that according to the Fifth Amendment, driving is actually a right. "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." (Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.)




    This is a very interesting debate, see: various court rulings.

    Jesus Fucking Christ. It's not an interesting debate, it's a bunch of dipshit libertarians who don't understand the law. Next you're going to link to the people who think that you don't have to pay income taxes because you are a sovereign citizen.

    Technically, it's a right, but that doesn't mean it can't be reasonably licensed. There are plenty of rights which are so restricted, like the right to bear arms. And it can be taken, as with any right, by due process of law.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    @Speakerphone Dude said:
    In the USA, many people consider that according to the Fifth Amendment, driving is actually a right. "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." (Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.)




    This is a very interesting debate, see: various court rulings.

    Jesus Fucking Christ. It's not an interesting debate, it's a bunch of dipshit libertarians who don't understand the law. Next you're going to link to the people who think that you don't have to pay income taxes because you are a sovereign citizen.

    Technically, it's a right, but that doesn't mean it can't be reasonably licensed. There are plenty of rights which are so restricted, like the right to bear arms. And it can be taken, as with any right, by due process of law.

    The text in italic is not the opinion of "a dipshit libertarian that does not understand the law". It's verbatim from a court ruling.

    You may be unaware of this, but to become a judge (or even a lawyer) one must have some kind of expertise with the legal system; exactly how much, it depends, but in any case it is a safe guess that judges know more about the law than you do. I don't even need to put a link to back that statement.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

     On the other hand, I have a friend who got busted driving drunk as a skunk, failed the field tests, blew over the limit in the field, blew over the limit at the station and blood tested over the limit at the hospital. Slam dunk case. 

     ... Except the cop didn't show up to court.  Case dismissed because the prosecutor had a pile of paper evidence and no testimony to say "yes, this corresponds to that guy."



  • @Weng said:

     On the other hand, I have a friend who got busted driving drunk as a skunk, failed the field tests, blew over the limit in the field, blew over the limit at the station and blood tested over the limit at the hospital. Slam dunk case. 

     ... Except the cop didn't show up to court.  Case dismissed because the prosecutor had a pile of paper evidence and no testimony to say "yes, this corresponds to that guy."

    On an unrelated matter, did you hear about this cop that was found dead in the trunk of a car in the airport long-term parking? There was no witness because the long-term parking attendant disappeared and so did the CCTV tapes and the driver of Iron Mountain that was supposed to take the archived video footage back to the vault.



  • @Speakerphone Dude said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    @Speakerphone Dude said:
    In the USA, many people consider that according to the Fifth Amendment, driving is actually a right. "The use of the highway for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere privilege, but a common fundamental right of which the public and individuals cannot rightfully be deprived." (Chicago Motor Coach v. Chicago, 169 NE 221.)




    This is a very interesting debate, see: various court rulings.

    Jesus Fucking Christ. It's not an interesting debate, it's a bunch of dipshit libertarians who don't understand the law. Next you're going to link to the people who think that you don't have to pay income taxes because you are a sovereign citizen.

    Technically, it's a right, but that doesn't mean it can't be reasonably licensed. There are plenty of rights which are so restricted, like the right to bear arms. And it can be taken, as with any right, by due process of law.

    The text in italic is not the opinion of "a dipshit libertarian that does not understand the law". It's verbatim from a court ruling.

    You may be unaware of this, but to become a judge (or even a lawyer) one must have some kind of expertise with the legal system; exactly how much, it depends, but in any case it is a safe guess that judges know more about the law than you do. I don't even need to put a link to back that statement.

    Did you actually read what I said, you dumb cocksucker? You clearly don't understand the definition of a right if you don't think it can be reasonably licensed or a person can't be deprived of it by due process of law.

    It's not an interesting debate because there is no sane person who thinks the government can't require a license to drive. It's not even a debate; it's just lunatics shrieking against all reason, history and common sense. You might as well say there's an interesting debate over whether you can power your car with water.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Did you actually read what I said, you dumb cocksucker?

    Yes, after I posted a link to court rulings (and even quoted one of the rulings directly in the post) you said: "it's a bunch of dipshit libertarians who don't understand the law". Which is surprising since court rulings are usually done by people who understand the law.

    You can wrap this in insults and try to spin it any way you want, it is now obvious that you don't take time to think before you post. (If you do, then it's a totally different problem, much more worrying).

    People challenging a state law on a constitutional basis are not always "dipshits". As an example recently someone challenged a law in DC that mandated non-cops to store firearms in a way that required assembly before they could be used. This went to the Supreme Court and there is even a state (Montana) that warned that if the Supreme Court sided with DC, this would put in jeopardy the agreement that was defining their relationship with the federation. The Constitution is serious business.



  • @Weng said:

     On the other hand, I have a friend who got busted driving drunk as a skunk, failed the field tests, blew over the limit in the field, blew over the limit at the station and blood tested over the limit at the hospital. Slam dunk case. 

     ... Except the cop didn't show up to court.  Case dismissed because the prosecutor had a pile of paper evidence and no testimony to say "yes, this corresponds to that guy."

    Fuck your friend. (I bet he gets that a lot.) But I haven't heard of that happening in years, at least in circuit or district courts around here. When you first see a magistrate and get your court date, it's a date that the police officer will definitely be able to appear, according to his schedule. If the prosecutor finds out later that the police officer can't make it, he just gets a continuance (the prosecutor can always get one, the defendant can't get one in DWI cases without the prosecutor's agreement).



  • @Speakerphone Dude said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    Did you actually read what I said, you dumb cocksucker?

    Yes, after I posted a link to court rulings (and even quoted one of the rulings directly in the post) you said: "it's a bunch of dipshit libertarians who don't understand the law". Which is surprising since court rulings are usually done by people who understand the law.

    CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

    And as we all know, no state can ever deprive anyone of common law rights, just as no state can deprive anyone of their inalienable right to "life", to "liberty", or to "the pursuit of happiness".

    @Speakerphone Dude said:

    People challenging a state law on a constitutional basis are not always "dipshits". ... This went to the Supreme Court and there is even a state (Montana) that warned that if the Supreme Court sided with DC, this would put in jeopardy the agreement that was defining their relationship with the federation. The Constitution is serious business.

    This certainly has all the hallmarks of dipshits.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @C-Octothorpe said:
    In a case like this, the burden of proof would be on them seeing as there is no reasonable way you can prove you weren't intoxicated.

    ...

    And it's probably for the best, overall, that BAC isn't the be all, end all of intoxication. Firstly, there are plenty of other things that can impair your ability to drive safely. And the real point is that you're acting intoxicated. The proportion of alcohol in your system is really just a proxy for that.

    Does your legal system not have an equivalent of the English "Driving without due care and attention"? That should be enough to get people who are driving dangerously because they're angry without abusing "Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs". (Actually, I'm not certain that in the English system DUI is a separate offence rather than an aggravating factor to be taken into account when sentencing someone convicted of driving without due care and attention).


  • @pjt33 said:

    Actually, I'm not certain that in the English system DUI is a separate offence rather than an aggravating factor to be taken into account when sentencing someone convicted of driving without due care and attention
    It would appear to be separate offences. 'DUI' - DR codes, Careless - CD codes.



  • @Hatshepsut said:

    CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

    And as we all know, no state can ever deprive anyone of common law rights, just as no state can d

    As for the first part, they have the right to transport and travel, it says nothing about drive, they can be  apassenger, or hire a truck.  It's a grey area here, hence the wild debates.

    @Hatshepsut said:

     

    And as we all know, no state can ever deprive anyone of their inalienable right to "life", to "liberty", or to "the pursuit of happiness". .

    I am sure you HAVE to be saying this sarcastically, States deprive citizens to "the pursuit of happiness" all the time, the debate over gay marriage comes to mind.  Now I don't care what side of the argument you are on, but laws should not be made to deny someone the right for two cosenting adults to establish thier relationship legally.  If you want a moral high ground, that is what your church is for, not the legal system; morality and legality are two different things. 

     



  • @KattMan said:

    Now I don't care what side of the argument you are on, but laws should not be made to deny someone the right for two cosenting adults to establish thier relationship legally.

    Exactly. Like that Austrian guy who would have liked to marry his daughter. Seriously, this is a really stupid argument, and (hopefully) doesn't mean what you think it means.



  • @PJH said:

    It would appear to be separate offences. 'DUI' - DR codes, Careless - CD codes.

    Good find. Thanks.



  • @boomzilla said:

    Like that Austrian guy who would have liked to marry his daughter.
    FPA Australian... Anyway - is it Josef Fritzl you're thinking of?



  • @PJH said:

    @boomzilla said:
    Like that Austrian guy who would have liked to marry his daughter.

    FPA Australian... Anyway - is it Josef Fritzl you're thinking of?

    FPA? Yes, that's the guy.



  • @boomzilla said:

    FPA?
    'First parsed as'

    @boomzilla said:

    Yes, that's the guy.
    I get the feeling that that particular relationship wasn't between two consenting adults... (unless that's the point you were making?)



  • @boomzilla said:

    Like that Austrian guy who would have liked to marry his daughter.
    What about the guy from Florida who adopted his girlfriend as a legal ploy to protect his assets? Man Adopts Girlfriend



  • @PJH said:

    I get the feeling that that particular relationship wasn't between two consenting adults... (unless that's the point you were making?)

    Not really, and yes, I agree that there was nothing consenting about that relationship, it was just the first example of incest that I thought of. Mackenzie Phillips would have been a better (and less distracting) example.



  • @boomzilla said:

    @PJH said:
    I get the feeling that that particular relationship wasn't between two consenting adults... (unless that's the point you were making?)
    Not really, and yes, I agree that there was nothing consenting about that relationship, it was just the first example of incest that I thought of. Mackenzie Phillips would have been a better (and less distracting) example.

    The first example wasn't consenting the second she wasn't an adult at the time.  So neither falls in line with my argument.

    Outside of this, yes there should be s distinction, legality and morality, do NOT confuse the two like you are doing.  I know exactly what this means, there are many things that are immoral but still legal, like cheating on your wife or lying to your neighbor.  They are immoral but not illegal.  Laws should be about legality, We should NOT legeslate morality, but rather legislate protecting the citizens from the consequences of the actions of others, and yes this is still a huge grey area.  Hopefully your dogma will guide your morality above and beyond what the laws require.  That is what makes a civilization, otherwise why not toss in the towel and just get a dictator to tell us what is both legal and moral.



  • @KattMan said:

    The first example wasn't consenting the second she wasn't an adult at the time.  So neither falls in line with my argument.

    Yeah, next time I'll make sure to use a car analogy so you can follow the argument.

    @KattMan said:

    Outside of this, yes there should be s distinction, legality and morality, do NOT confuse the two like you are doing.

    I'm not confusing anything here.

    @KattMan said:

    Laws should be about legality, We should NOT legeslate morality, but rather legislate protecting the citizens from the consequences of the actions of others, and yes this is still a huge grey area.

    Yes, I basically agree with this. But laws not guided by morality are probably worse than attempting to legislate morality. Hint: your morality will guide you when you weigh the pros and cons of various protections.



  • @KattMan said:

    the second she wasn't an adult at the time. 
    Most places consider 19 to be over the age of majority for that sort of thing, and there's some doubt as to the truthfulness of her accusations anyway. I was going to suggest this one from Germany but there's some suggestions that that might not count as consensual either due to some "psychological condition" she has/had.



  • @KattMan said:

    @Hatshepsut said:

    And as we all know, no state can ever deprive anyone of their inalienable right to "life", to "liberty", or to "the pursuit of happiness". .

    I am sure you HAVE to be saying this sarcastically,

    Erm... I would have thought that to be self-evident.

    @KattMan said:

    States deprive citizens to "the pursuit of happiness" all the time, the debate over gay marriage comes to mind.

     

    They deprive citizens of "life" and "liberty" pretty frequently too.


    Which is why I thought a sarcasm tag was unnecessary...


    Silly me.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    you can power your car with water.

    Of course you can, there is no debate about that.



  • @Hatshepsut said:

    ] CASE #2: "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may prohibit or permit at will, but a common law right which he has under the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Thompson v. Smith, 154 SE 579.

    Do courts interpret is as a right to drive, vs as a right to travel? You have a right to travel, but to control a vehicle on public roads is a privilege.



  • @Speakerphone Dude said:

    Yes, after I posted a link to court rulings (and even quoted one of the rulings directly in the post) you said: "it's a bunch of dipshit libertarians who don't understand the law". Which is surprising since court rulings are usually done by people who understand the law.

    Well, not necessarily (Plessy, the Slaughterhouse cases..) but my point is that you don't understand the rulings you linked, like, at all. I'll repeat it again since you are apparently too much of an illiterate fuck-up to read my original post: just because something is a right doesn't mean it can't be reasonably licensed or regulated or that a person can't be deprived of it by due process of law. Practically every right has some bounds.

    @Speakerphone Dude said:

    People challenging a state law on a constitutional basis are not always "dipshits".

    You are such an illiterate piece of garbage. I never once said that. I said that people who claim that drivers licenses are unconstitutional are idiots, just like the people who think income taxes are unconstitutional.



  • @KattMan said:

    I am sure you HAVE to be saying this sarcastically, States deprive citizens to "the pursuit of happiness" all the time

    States deprive people of rights all the time, by due process of law. The point is that a government official cannot arbitrarily deprive you of a right. However, restrictions can be placed on rights so long as they are reasonable and consistently enforced. Gun ownership is a right, but that does not preclude licensing and regulation. Free speech is a right, but plenty of speech is curtailed (can't threaten someone, can't libel or slander someone, can't commit fraud, can't make false advertisements, can't publish pornography in certain jurisdictions..) By the same token, I can have a right to drive but can still be required to have a license and to follow certain laws while driving, and I can have my license suspended for failing to adhere to those laws.



  • @KattMan said:

    Laws should be about legality, We should NOT legeslate morality

    I hate it when people bring out this shit. Laws are about morality, whether you like it or not. How come breaking into someone's house and killing him is illegal but if someone breaks into my house attempting to kill me I can kill them and that's legal? It's a moral decision. The point is that everyone has their own "line in the sand" where they want morality to be legislated. When someone whines that they don't want morality to be legislated, what they're saying is "I want my morality to be legislated, but not yours," which is just childish.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    How come breaking into someone's house and killing him is illegal but if someone breaks into my house my parent's house attempting to kill me I can kill them and that's legal?

    FTFY. Also actually it depends in which state (castle doctrine and all that). In many blue states and in many countries being attacked in your house or in the street is the same from a legal perspective, and self-defense is a case by case thing; in some places you are expected to use reasonable force to immobilize the attacker, in other you are allowed to use slightly more force than what you expect from the attacker. There is even a famous case where someone stabbed the attacker during a home invasion and was later sued for using excessive force. Of course as usual facts may be in the way of your oversimplified opinions so I guess there is no need for a link.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    Laws are about morality

    True, ultimately they are made by humans so they reflect on their morality.
    @morbiuswilters said:
    How come breaking into someone's house and killing him is illegal but if someone breaks into my house attempting to kill me I can kill them and that's legal?

    Funnily in my country you'll go to prison.
    @morbiuswilters said:

    I want my morality to be legislated, but not yours

    It would be interesting to riddled of all that, I have a cunning plan.

    @morbiuswilters said:

    is just childish

    That is an inherent trend of humans, studying history teaches as much.



  • @Speakerphone Dude said:

    @morbiuswilters said:
    How come breaking into someone's house and killing him is illegal but if someone breaks into my house my parent's house attempting to kill me I can kill them and that's legal?

    FTFY. Also actually it depends in which state (castle doctrine and all that). In many blue states and in many countries being attacked in your house or in the street is the same from a legal perspective, and self-defense is a case by case thing; in some places you are expected to use reasonable force to immobilize the attacker, in other you are allowed to use slightly more force than what you expect from the attacker. There is even a famous case where someone stabbed the attacker during a home invasion and was later sued for using excessive force. Of course as usual facts may be in the way of your oversimplified opinions so I guess there is no need for a link.

    That's why I said added "attempting to kill me". And almost all states now have some form of Castle Doctrine (or stronger). Of the handful of states that don't, most are actually red states. And even then, most have case law which gives the same protections as Castle Doctrine.

    As usual, you don't know what the fuck you are talking about. Whatever cases you think you have are either a couple of decades old or had circumstances which reduced the right of the resident to defend himself.



  • @morbiuswilters said:

    And almost all states now have some form of Castle Doctrine (or stronger). Of the handful of states that don't, most are actually red states.

    Yeah, New-York and DC are definitely red states, as long as by "red" you mean that there is a lot of people bleeding to death after not being able to defend themselves with a gun.



  • @serguey123 said:

    Funnily in my country you'll go to prison.

    I still think you live in the US and work for the Federal government.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.