🔥 Popular | Latest

Sorry if it’s been posted already, but I’m in the middle of a Mister Rogers obsession (I’m from Scotland so never watched him as a kid) and I saw this!!: BASED ON A SCRIPT SY MATTHEN NINER DEANNesSTwoD COURTESY OF SHIELD OF COURSE! My! I THOUGHT I HEARD A COMMOTION UP HERE! IS THAT YOu, THOR? WELL THEN, THATS MUCH APPRECIATED! AYE! JUST GOING ROUND TOWN PROTECTING HOMES FROM ANY STORMS MIGHT... Two MINUTES AND I'LL BE DONE! ... BE INVOLVED WITH. SAY, THATS AN IMPRESSIUE HAMMER You HAUE THERE WOULD IT BE OKAY IFI HELD IT? WELL THERE ARE MANY IS IT HEAVY? WHO FIND IT.. Υου CERTAINΥ CAN, MR.ROGERS OF THE HOOD. IMMOVABLE E HEH How INTERESTING! IT DOESNT SEEM VERY HEAVY TO ME HUH SomE THING THAT MAY BE VERY EASY FOR ONE PERSON BUT YoU KNOW, SOMETIMES LIFE IS A LOT LIKE THAT.. ...MIGHT BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR ANOTHER HAUE YOU FOUND THIS To BE TRUE?YES. UH, YES I HAVE ITHINK THAT ITS BECAUSE EVERYONE IS SPECIAL AND UNIQUE IN DIFFERENT WAYS Do YoU KNOW WHY THAT IS? JUST BECAUSE SOMEONE HAS DIFFICULTY LIFTING YOUR HAMMER DOESNT MEANTHEY ARENT TALENTED IN OTHERWAYS THAT IS TRUE. YOu ARE VERY WISE, SIR ROGERS, IAM HUMBLED BY YOUR COUNSEL IN FACT, I SUSPECT THOSE INDIVIDUALS CAN PROBABLY DO THINGS THAT YoU AND I WOULD NEVER DREAM OF AND I AM SO GLAD YOU DECIDED TO VISTT TODAY CONPEO Sorry if it’s been posted already, but I’m in the middle of a Mister Rogers obsession (I’m from Scotland so never watched him as a kid) and I saw this!!

Sorry if it’s been posted already, but I’m in the middle of a Mister Rogers obsession (I’m from Scotland so never watched him as a kid) a...

Save
May the Duck Gods watch over you.: There's a thing called "Rubber duck debugging" in which a programmer explains the code to a rubber duck in hopes of finding the bug Ultrafacts.tumblr.com ultrafacts tmblr.com ATultrafacts Source absorr Some of you are reblogging because you think its funny that programmers would talk to ducks. I'm reblogging because I think its funny picturing a programmer explaining their code, realizing what they did when they explain the bad code, then grabbing the strangling the duck while yelling "WHY WAS THE FIX THAT SIMPLE!? AM I GOING BLIND!" monobeartheater AS A PROGRAMMER I CAN TELL YOU THAT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU FUCKING DO WE HAD TO BAN THE DUCKS FROM MY CLASSES BECAUSE EVERYONE WOULD FLIP THE DUCK OR THROW IT AT A WALL OR SOMETHING WHEN THEY FIGURED OUT THE PROBLEM IN THEIR CODE kierenwalkerpds so that's the function of a rubber duck lifeofdavo ΑΛΛΛΛΛΛΛΛΛΛΑ cosrnos work at a startup and part of the onboarding package you get when you first start working here now includes a rubber duck. We also have a bigger version of the duck for the extra hard problems. Sometimes one duck doesn't cut it and you need to borrow your neighbors to get more ducks on the problem. One time we couldn't figure out why something wasn't working right so we assembled the counsel of ducks and by the grace of the Duck Gods were we able to finally come to a solution. These ducks have saved many lives and should be respected for the heroes they are. May the Duck Gods watch over you.
Save
Counsel: Nick Jack Pappas & @Pappiness 14m On page 290 of the #MuellerReport, the words of a very innocent and very cool person: On May 17, 2017, Acting Attorncy General Rosenstein appointed Robert S. Mueller, III as Special Counsel and authorized him to conduct the Russia investigation and matters that arose from the investigation.501The President learned of the Special Counsel's appointment from Scssions, who was with the President, Hunt, and McGahn conducting interviews for a new FBI Director.02 Sessions stepped out of the Oval Office to take a call from Rosenstein, who told him about the Special Counsel appointment, and Sessions then returned to inform the President of the news.503 According to notes written by Hunt, when Sessions told the President that a Special Counsel had been appointed, the President slumped back in his chair and said, "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."504 The President became angry and lambasted the Attorney General for his decision to recuse from the investigation, stating, "How could you let this happen, Jeff?"S05 The President said the position of Attorney General was his most important appointment and that Sessions had "let [him] down," contrasting him to Eric Holder and Robert Kennedy.506 Sessions recalled that the President said to him, "you were supposed to protect me," or words to that effect.507 The President returned to the consequences of the appointment and said, "Everyone tells me if you get one of these independent counsels it ruins your presidency. It takes years and years and I won't be able to do anything. This is the worst thing that ever happened to me."508 94tl 7120
Save
Think before you pink: THINK BEFORE YOU PINK MY MOTHER DIED FROM BREAST CANCER 2/11/2000 SUSAN G. KOMEN ONLY GIVES LESS THAN 2 0% OF DONATIONS TO CANCER RESEARCH THEIR CEOMAKES $684,000 A YEAR So proud of my mother for doing her own research after I sent her that meme. A sign she hung i her car window Stay woke pual1010 Is this true? Nat only is it true, it gets worse The Susan G Komen For The Cure Foundation has actually successfully sued competing" charities, because (paraphrasing) their message or branding was infringing You read that correctly they took money that people had donated to cure cancer, and hired attorneys with it, to sue ANOTHER group of people trying to find a cure for cancer, who, in turn, had to us their donated money to hire their own legal counsel to defend themselves. MAKE GIFS AT GIFSOUP COM Yeah signal boost because not enough people know about this and seriously FUCK SUSAN G. KOMEN THEY ARE THE ACTUAL WORST beanmom Some links undation has (reblogged in honor of my mother, who died of breast cancer, 11/1397) Reblog every time I see it. Roughly once a month. blockmind Also please never forget the pink fracking drill bit Doing Our Bit for the Cure that's right fracking you know, a process using chemicals known to cause cancer that leech into the water supply alexithymia42 It's that time of year again, please remember Komen is the actual worst sofia-ciel Komen For The Cure is pretty much awful My mother died in 1996 from breast cancer. Most cancer charities are scams, in that people throw fancy parties and get rich off them and very little money goes into research or support for patients Here are some vetted cancer charities that get good scores on Charity Navigator and pay medical expenses or fund research: Signal boosting this emmalily Reblogging from myself because it's October now 969,381 notes Oct 3rd, 2018 Think before you pink
Save
slightlypsychicparade: thatpettyblackgirl: No kneeling. No marching.#BlackExcellence Ugh. Okay, this is NOT the whole story. The city of Memphis wanted the statues removed, but their state’s legislature decided to be a big bag of dicks about it and passed a law forbidding them from doing so. To get around this, a plan was devised: the city could sell the parks to a private organization and now that it was private property, the state couldn’t tell them what they could and couldn’t do with that property. The city counsel voted under cover of darkness to sell the park to the non-profit run by these men, and construction vehicles immediately moved in to remove the statues. They were gone by morning. Like… this is still #BlackExcellence because (and correct me if I’m wrong here) Memphis is a predominantly black city. I just think it’s important to remember that this was a community effort and not the work of individuals. Fascists love to worship the narratives of “Great Men.” It is the responsibility of the resistance to remember that nothing can happen without the support of the community. : Tariq Nasheed @tariqnasheed Follow Insitoad ()i. marching 8' bo(jging for the city to remove Confederate statues from city parks, e lack rnn in Meermphis purchased the parks that had statues of Jefferson Davis & Nathan Bedford Forrest (founder of the KKK). Then THEY had the statues removed from THEIR property #Salute 1:48 334K views 1:06 PM-23 Dec 2017 721 t 13K 28K slightlypsychicparade: thatpettyblackgirl: No kneeling. No marching.#BlackExcellence Ugh. Okay, this is NOT the whole story. The city of Memphis wanted the statues removed, but their state’s legislature decided to be a big bag of dicks about it and passed a law forbidding them from doing so. To get around this, a plan was devised: the city could sell the parks to a private organization and now that it was private property, the state couldn’t tell them what they could and couldn’t do with that property. The city counsel voted under cover of darkness to sell the park to the non-profit run by these men, and construction vehicles immediately moved in to remove the statues. They were gone by morning. Like… this is still #BlackExcellence because (and correct me if I’m wrong here) Memphis is a predominantly black city. I just think it’s important to remember that this was a community effort and not the work of individuals. Fascists love to worship the narratives of “Great Men.” It is the responsibility of the resistance to remember that nothing can happen without the support of the community.
Save
sapphleaf: libertarirynn: sapphleaf: mccarthyites: eltigrechico: Gotta love Snopes! And here I was, an idiot, thinking this post was overly exaggerated for comedic effect Except what Snopes is actually saying is that, while the explicit claim that the death occurred the day after the firing, what’s false is the implied argument—and often explicitly asserted as well—that the two events have any relation.post hoc ergo propter hoc Except it still isn’t a “mixture” because the statement “Bill Clinton fired his FBI director the day before Vince Foster died“ is irrefutably correct. Yeah but it’s still right to point out that implied connection is not based in fact or logic.Yes, the statement at face value is literal truth, but critical thinking means evaluating the truth and validity of the actual argument. Dude are you being serious right now? As a fact checking site it’s not their job to evaluate what “implied connections“ they need to “correct“. The idea is state what’s true and what’s not. Stating that Bill Clinton fired his FBI director before Vince Foster died is not a “mixture“ of truth and falsehood. Period.: Did Bill Clinton Fire His FBI Director One Day Before Vince Foster Died? Rating Mixture About this rating What's True President Clinton fired FBI Director William Sessions on 19 July 1993, one day before Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster, a longtime associate of the Clintons, was found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. What's False There is nothing inherently suspicious about the coincidental timing of Sessions's firing and Vince Foster's death (which was determined to be a suicide) sapphleaf: libertarirynn: sapphleaf: mccarthyites: eltigrechico: Gotta love Snopes! And here I was, an idiot, thinking this post was overly exaggerated for comedic effect Except what Snopes is actually saying is that, while the explicit claim that the death occurred the day after the firing, what’s false is the implied argument—and often explicitly asserted as well—that the two events have any relation.post hoc ergo propter hoc Except it still isn’t a “mixture” because the statement “Bill Clinton fired his FBI director the day before Vince Foster died“ is irrefutably correct. Yeah but it’s still right to point out that implied connection is not based in fact or logic.Yes, the statement at face value is literal truth, but critical thinking means evaluating the truth and validity of the actual argument. Dude are you being serious right now? As a fact checking site it’s not their job to evaluate what “implied connections“ they need to “correct“. The idea is state what’s true and what’s not. Stating that Bill Clinton fired his FBI director before Vince Foster died is not a “mixture“ of truth and falsehood. Period.

sapphleaf: libertarirynn: sapphleaf: mccarthyites: eltigrechico: Gotta love Snopes! And here I was, an idiot, thinking this post was...

Save
sapphleaf: mccarthyites: eltigrechico: Gotta love Snopes! And here I was, an idiot, thinking this post was overly exaggerated for comedic effect Except what Snopes is actually saying is that, while the explicit claim that the death occurred the day after the firing, what’s false is the implied argument—and often explicitly asserted as well—that the two events have any relation.post hoc ergo propter hoc Except it still isn’t a “mixture” because the statement “Bill Clinton fired his FBI director the day before Vince Foster died“ is irrefutably correct.: Did Bill Clinton Fire His FBI Director One Day Before Vince Foster Died? Rating Mixture About this rating What's True President Clinton fired FBI Director William Sessions on 19 July 1993, one day before Deputy White House Counsel Vince Foster, a longtime associate of the Clintons, was found dead of a self-inflicted gunshot wound. What's False There is nothing inherently suspicious about the coincidental timing of Sessions's firing and Vince Foster's death (which was determined to be a suicide) sapphleaf: mccarthyites: eltigrechico: Gotta love Snopes! And here I was, an idiot, thinking this post was overly exaggerated for comedic effect Except what Snopes is actually saying is that, while the explicit claim that the death occurred the day after the firing, what’s false is the implied argument—and often explicitly asserted as well—that the two events have any relation.post hoc ergo propter hoc Except it still isn’t a “mixture” because the statement “Bill Clinton fired his FBI director the day before Vince Foster died“ is irrefutably correct.

sapphleaf: mccarthyites: eltigrechico: Gotta love Snopes! And here I was, an idiot, thinking this post was overly exaggerated for comed...

Save
Counsel: Helen Ingram @drhingram Not a fan of the new Harry Potter book Criminalising cont PAPER Herpes genitalis and the philosopher's stance Kilian Dunphy ABSTRACT not just episodic physical discomfort but recurrent This artide considers the evidence on herpes intervened and to what extent health professionals sexual liaison. This change of one's sexua For many people, living with genital herpes generates into that of a potential agent of harm a echo themes from the fall in the garden of emotional distress, centred on concems about how to is oddly coincidental that snakes are studi live and love safely without passing infection to others. sciece of herpetology, from the Greek h creep"), to the sexual subtext of vampire transmission, levels of sexual risk, when the law has to present day paranoias concerning i HIV transmission. The emotional ramifi should advise with respect to these issues. It proposes a this are potentially great. A qualitative mechanism by which moral philosophy might provide a around 2000 questions posed in a he rational basis on which to counsel concerning sexual room online over 2 years revealed that monest single anxiety expressed was tl transmission.12 The authors note that, difficult topic is the psycho-social impact Genital herpes is a condition caused by infection ing genital herpes'. As a doctor conveying behaviour with the Herpes simplex virus (HSV). The infection there is a temptation to avoid compos is sexually transmitted and has the potential to hurt of a h with h
Save
libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation. : 7 Ways Police Will Break the Law, Threaten, or Lie to You to Get What they Want Cops routinely break the law. Here's how. By Larken Rose / The Free Thought ProjectOctober 19, 2015 libertarirynn: gvldngrl: wolfoverdose: rikodeine: seemeflow: Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood. 1) “Do you know why I stopped you?”Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself. 2) “Do you have something to hide?”Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt. 3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.”The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.”(Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.) 4) “We’ll just get a warrant.”Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything. 5.) We have someone who will testify against youPolice “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions. 6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.”Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released. 7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.”Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges). Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so. Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore. http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/7-ways-police-will-break-law-threaten-or-lie-you-get-what-they-want One of the biggest realizations with dealing with cops for me was the fact that they CAN lie, they are 100% legally entitled to lie, and they WILL whether you’re a victim of crime, accused of committing a crime or anything else Everyone needs to reblog this, it could save a life. Important Seriously if you ever find yourself in custody don’t say shit until you’ve got some counsel with you. No cop is your friend in that situation.
Save
sea-giraffe: durnesque-esque: mirthalia: tenoko1: cosrnos: lifeofdavo: kierenwalkerpds: monobeartheater: absorr: ultrafacts: Source For more posts like this, CLICK HERE to follow Ultrafacts  Some of you are reblogging because you think its funny that programmers would talk to ducks. I’m reblogging because I think its funny picturing a programmer explaining their code, realizing what they did when they explain the bad code, then grabbing the strangling the duck while yelling “WHY WAS THE FIX THAT SIMPLE!? AM I GOING BLIND!” AS A PROGRAMMER I CAN TELL YOU THAT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU FUCKING DO WE HAD TO BAN THE DUCKS FROM MY CLASSES BECAUSE EVERYONE WOULD FLIP THE DUCK OR THROW IT AT A WALL OR SOMETHING WHEN THEY FIGURED OUT THE PROBLEM IN THEIR CODE so that’s the function of a rubber duck ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I work at a startup and part of the onboarding package you get when you first start working here now includes a rubber duck. We also have a bigger version of the duck for the extra hard problems. Sometimes one duck doesn’t cut it and you need to borrow your neighbors to get more ducks on the problem. One time we couldn’t figure out why something wasn’t working right so we assembled the counsel of ducks and by the grace of the Duck Gods were we able to finally come to a solution. These ducks have saved many lives and should be respected for the heroes they are. I use this for writing, actually. Explain what I’m doing and what I want to do and the different ways i can get to point B from A, as well as the different problems, amazingly working them out as I explain why I could or couldn’t the different things. I love the Rubber Duck theory. Former programmer, can confirm. We didn’t have a duck in our office so our other programmer, who I shared a space with, used me as a duck proxy. (For the explaining, not the throwing.) There was more than one day where I’d casually hear “Hey can you be a duck for a minute?” I use this with my groot that I have on my desk. I talk to him and he helps me. But I don’t throw him : There's a thing called "Rubber duck debugging" in which a programmer explains the code to a rubber duck in hopes of finding the bug Ultrafacts.tumblr.com sea-giraffe: durnesque-esque: mirthalia: tenoko1: cosrnos: lifeofdavo: kierenwalkerpds: monobeartheater: absorr: ultrafacts: Source For more posts like this, CLICK HERE to follow Ultrafacts  Some of you are reblogging because you think its funny that programmers would talk to ducks. I’m reblogging because I think its funny picturing a programmer explaining their code, realizing what they did when they explain the bad code, then grabbing the strangling the duck while yelling “WHY WAS THE FIX THAT SIMPLE!? AM I GOING BLIND!” AS A PROGRAMMER I CAN TELL YOU THAT THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU FUCKING DO WE HAD TO BAN THE DUCKS FROM MY CLASSES BECAUSE EVERYONE WOULD FLIP THE DUCK OR THROW IT AT A WALL OR SOMETHING WHEN THEY FIGURED OUT THE PROBLEM IN THEIR CODE so that’s the function of a rubber duck ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ I work at a startup and part of the onboarding package you get when you first start working here now includes a rubber duck. We also have a bigger version of the duck for the extra hard problems. Sometimes one duck doesn’t cut it and you need to borrow your neighbors to get more ducks on the problem. One time we couldn’t figure out why something wasn’t working right so we assembled the counsel of ducks and by the grace of the Duck Gods were we able to finally come to a solution. These ducks have saved many lives and should be respected for the heroes they are. I use this for writing, actually. Explain what I’m doing and what I want to do and the different ways i can get to point B from A, as well as the different problems, amazingly working them out as I explain why I could or couldn’t the different things. I love the Rubber Duck theory. Former programmer, can confirm. We didn’t have a duck in our office so our other programmer, who I shared a space with, used me as a duck proxy. (For the explaining, not the throwing.) There was more than one day where I’d casually hear “Hey can you be a duck for a minute?” I use this with my groot that I have on my desk. I talk to him and he helps me. But I don’t throw him
Save
Microsoft announced today that it will start requiring all of its U.S.-based suppliers and vendors with more than 50 employees to offer paid parental leave. The paid leave includes a minimum of 12 weeks, for either birth or adoption. The new policy will be phased in over the next year. ___ Microsoft noted the decision came after a Washington state law was passed for paid parental leave that is due to take place in 2020. Microsoft acknowledged that the new policy may increase costs. ___ Microsoft's corporate VP and general counsel Dev Stahlkopf said in a statement: - "Studies show that paid parental leave enriches the lives of families. Women who take paid maternity leave are more likely to be in the workforce a year later and earn more than mothers who do not receive paid time off.": BUSINESS PAID PARENTAL LEAVE Aug 30 | Microsoft will require all of its U.S.-based suppliers and vendors to offer paid parental Teave Microsoft announced today that it will start requiring all of its U.S.-based suppliers and vendors with more than 50 employees to offer paid parental leave. The paid leave includes a minimum of 12 weeks, for either birth or adoption. The new policy will be phased in over the next year. ___ Microsoft noted the decision came after a Washington state law was passed for paid parental leave that is due to take place in 2020. Microsoft acknowledged that the new policy may increase costs. ___ Microsoft's corporate VP and general counsel Dev Stahlkopf said in a statement: - "Studies show that paid parental leave enriches the lives of families. Women who take paid maternity leave are more likely to be in the workforce a year later and earn more than mothers who do not receive paid time off."

Microsoft announced today that it will start requiring all of its U.S.-based suppliers and vendors with more than 50 employees to offer p...

Save
croxovergoddess: emmalily: offending-the-offended: imaginarycircus: sofia-ciel: alexithymia42: blockmind: hello-missdolly: beanmom: nospockdasgay: redbloodedamerica: mallninjacode: pual1010: brownglucose: stunningpicture: So proud of my mother for doing her own research after I sent her that meme. A sign she hung in her car window. Stay woke Is this true? Not only is it true, it gets worse. The Susan G Komen For The Cure Foundation has actually successfully sued “competing” charities, because (paraphrasing) their “message or branding was infringing.” You read that correctly: they took money that people had donated to cure cancer, and hired attorneys with it, to sue ANOTHER group of people trying to find a cure for cancer, who, in turn, had to us their donated money to hire their own legal counsel to defend themselves. Yeah signal boost because not enough people know about this and seriously FUCK SUSAN G. KOMEN THEY ARE THE ACTUAL WORST Some links… http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/ http://www.somethingawful.com/feature-articles/for-the-cure/ http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/132728/susan_g_komen_foundation_has (reblogged in honor of my mother, who died of breast cancer, 11/13/97) Reblog every time I see it. Roughly once a month. Also please never forget the pink fracking drill bit that’s right frackingyou know, a process using chemicals known to cause cancer that leech into the water supply http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/10/baker-hughes-fights-breast-cancer-pink-fracking-drill-bits/ http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/pink-drill-bits-bring-complaints-komen-tie-fracking-n223166 It’s that time of year again, please remember Komen is the actual worst Komen For The Cure is pretty much awful. My mother died in 1996 from breast cancer. Most cancer charities are scams, in that people throw fancy parties and get rich off them and very little money goes into research or support for patients. Here are some vetted cancer charities that get good scores on Charity Navigator and pay medical expenses or fund research: Breast Cancer Research Foundation Cancer Research Institute Dana-Farber Cancer Institute 63 four star rated cancer charities on charity navigator Signal boosting this Reblogging from myself because it’s October now Always sharing : THINK BEFORE YOU PINK MY MOTHER DIED FROM BREAST CANCER 2/11/2000 SUSAN G. KOMEN ONLY GIVES LESS THAN 2 0% OF DONATIONS TO CANCER RESEARCH THEIR CEO MAKES $684,000 A YEA croxovergoddess: emmalily: offending-the-offended: imaginarycircus: sofia-ciel: alexithymia42: blockmind: hello-missdolly: beanmom: nospockdasgay: redbloodedamerica: mallninjacode: pual1010: brownglucose: stunningpicture: So proud of my mother for doing her own research after I sent her that meme. A sign she hung in her car window. Stay woke Is this true? Not only is it true, it gets worse. The Susan G Komen For The Cure Foundation has actually successfully sued “competing” charities, because (paraphrasing) their “message or branding was infringing.” You read that correctly: they took money that people had donated to cure cancer, and hired attorneys with it, to sue ANOTHER group of people trying to find a cure for cancer, who, in turn, had to us their donated money to hire their own legal counsel to defend themselves. Yeah signal boost because not enough people know about this and seriously FUCK SUSAN G. KOMEN THEY ARE THE ACTUAL WORST Some links… http://thinkbeforeyoupink.org/ http://www.somethingawful.com/feature-articles/for-the-cure/ http://thestir.cafemom.com/in_the_news/132728/susan_g_komen_foundation_has (reblogged in honor of my mother, who died of breast cancer, 11/13/97) Reblog every time I see it. Roughly once a month. Also please never forget the pink fracking drill bit that’s right frackingyou know, a process using chemicals known to cause cancer that leech into the water supply http://www.triplepundit.com/2014/10/baker-hughes-fights-breast-cancer-pink-fracking-drill-bits/ http://www.nbcnews.com/health/cancer/pink-drill-bits-bring-complaints-komen-tie-fracking-n223166 It’s that time of year again, please remember Komen is the actual worst Komen For The Cure is pretty much awful. My mother died in 1996 from breast cancer. Most cancer charities are scams, in that people throw fancy parties and get rich off them and very little money goes into research or support for patients. Here are some vetted cancer charities that get good scores on Charity Navigator and pay medical expenses or fund research: Breast Cancer Research Foundation Cancer Research Institute Dana-Farber Cancer Institute 63 four star rated cancer charities on charity navigator Signal boosting this Reblogging from myself because it’s October now Always sharing
Save
<p><a href="http://artsyneurotic.tumblr.com/post/176355271580/miss-madam-404-doingthingswithabby" class="tumblr_blog">artsyneurotic</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://miss-madam-404.tumblr.com/post/176347507863/doingthingswithabby-basement-prussia" class="tumblr_blog">miss-madam-404</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://doingthingswithabby.tumblr.com/post/176347451736/basement-prussia-officialprydonchapter" class="tumblr_blog">doingthingswithabby</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://basement-prussia.tumblr.com/post/176347122427/officialprydonchapter-temporalnocturne" class="tumblr_blog">basement-prussia</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://officialprydonchapter.tumblr.com/post/175962359981/temporalnocturne" class="tumblr_blog">officialprydonchapter</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a class="tumblelog" href="https://tmblr.co/mtOYHS6VTr-NQAlLP05He7A">@temporalnocturne</a></p></blockquote> <p><a class="tumblelog" href="https://tmblr.co/m_5SB9hO2XEq1MejkSeoLMA">@daphenomenal-1</a> </p> </blockquote> <p>if I don’t reblog this, assume I’m dead.</p> </blockquote> <p>same</p> </blockquote> <p>There’s no doubt in my mind he’d be able to wield it… <b>easily</b>, even.</p> </blockquote> <p>I actually have a damn tear in my eye</p>: PARON ME, YOUING MAN IS THIS YOURS? Matthew 'Mathwiz' Wisner In my head, I can see this entire conversation playing out. Mr. Rogers: That is an impressive hammer that you have there. Would it be okay if I held it? Thor: You may certainly try, Sir Rogers of the hood. R: Is it very heavy? T: There are many who find unmovable. R: How interesting. It doesn't seem very heavy to me R: But you know, sometimes life is a lot like that. Something that may be very easy for one person may be very difficult for another. Have you found this to be true? T: Um... yes. Yes, I have. R: Do you know why that is? T: *looks at Rogers curiously* R: I think that it's because everyone is special and unique in different ways. Just because someone has difficulty lifting your hammer, doesn't mean that they are not talented in other ways. In fact, I suspect that those individuals can probably do things that you and I would never dream of. T: *nods* That is true. You are very wise, Sir Rogers. I am humbled by your counsel. R: And I am so glad that you decided to visit today. <p><a href="http://artsyneurotic.tumblr.com/post/176355271580/miss-madam-404-doingthingswithabby" class="tumblr_blog">artsyneurotic</a>:</p><blockquote> <p><a href="https://miss-madam-404.tumblr.com/post/176347507863/doingthingswithabby-basement-prussia" class="tumblr_blog">miss-madam-404</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://doingthingswithabby.tumblr.com/post/176347451736/basement-prussia-officialprydonchapter" class="tumblr_blog">doingthingswithabby</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://basement-prussia.tumblr.com/post/176347122427/officialprydonchapter-temporalnocturne" class="tumblr_blog">basement-prussia</a>:</p> <blockquote> <p><a href="https://officialprydonchapter.tumblr.com/post/175962359981/temporalnocturne" class="tumblr_blog">officialprydonchapter</a>:</p> <blockquote><p><a class="tumblelog" href="https://tmblr.co/mtOYHS6VTr-NQAlLP05He7A">@temporalnocturne</a></p></blockquote> <p><a class="tumblelog" href="https://tmblr.co/m_5SB9hO2XEq1MejkSeoLMA">@daphenomenal-1</a> </p> </blockquote> <p>if I don’t reblog this, assume I’m dead.</p> </blockquote> <p>same</p> </blockquote> <p>There’s no doubt in my mind he’d be able to wield it… <b>easily</b>, even.</p> </blockquote> <p>I actually have a damn tear in my eye</p>

<p><a href="http://artsyneurotic.tumblr.com/post/176355271580/miss-madam-404-doingthingswithabby" class="tumblr_blog">artsyneurotic</a>:<...

Save
The trial of Paul Manafort, former Trump campaign chairman, began Tuesday. Manafort was charged with bank fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy after investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller. The Mueller investigation was focused on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, however, this trial is not related to alleged Russian meddling. The trial is expected to last approximately three weeks. ___ On June 15th Manafort was sent to jail to await his trial on allegations of witness tampering. Manafort faces a second trial on charges of failing to register as a foreign agent and money laundering set to begin on September 17th in Washington D.C.: U.S. NEWS MANAFORT TRIAL July 31 |The first trial of former Trump campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, has begun and is expected to last three weeks. The trial of Paul Manafort, former Trump campaign chairman, began Tuesday. Manafort was charged with bank fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy after investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller. The Mueller investigation was focused on Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, however, this trial is not related to alleged Russian meddling. The trial is expected to last approximately three weeks. ___ On June 15th Manafort was sent to jail to await his trial on allegations of witness tampering. Manafort faces a second trial on charges of failing to register as a foreign agent and money laundering set to begin on September 17th in Washington D.C.

The trial of Paul Manafort, former Trump campaign chairman, began Tuesday. Manafort was charged with bank fraud, tax evasion and conspira...

Save
The White House said that the planned follow-up meeting with Vladimir Putin, which was intended to take place in October, will be postponed until the investigation of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, is complete- which they predict to be next year. ___ John R. Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser, said in a statement: - “The President believes that the next bilateral meeting with President Putin should take place after the Russia witch hunt is over, so we’ve agreed that it will be after the first of the year. “ ___ Last week, Trump said he planned to invite Mr. Putin to Washington in the fall. The Kremlin had not yet replied to the invite, but instead Russian officials offered an option for Mr. Putin and Trump to meet at a gathering of world leaders like the Group of 20.: U.S. NEWS PUTIN'S VISIT DELAYED July 25 | Trump postpones planned meeting with Putin until the investigation into Russia's interference in the 2016 election is complete The White House said that the planned follow-up meeting with Vladimir Putin, which was intended to take place in October, will be postponed until the investigation of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, is complete- which they predict to be next year. ___ John R. Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser, said in a statement: - “The President believes that the next bilateral meeting with President Putin should take place after the Russia witch hunt is over, so we’ve agreed that it will be after the first of the year. “ ___ Last week, Trump said he planned to invite Mr. Putin to Washington in the fall. The Kremlin had not yet replied to the invite, but instead Russian officials offered an option for Mr. Putin and Trump to meet at a gathering of world leaders like the Group of 20.

The White House said that the planned follow-up meeting with Vladimir Putin, which was intended to take place in October, will be postpon...

Save