I actually see a silver lining in this story. The worst thing an officer of the was able to do was inconvenience you for a day. Compare that to pretty much another other time in recorded history, and indeed still many places today, and you could have been locked up for far longer for pissing off someone in an authority position.
Now obviously this is a ridiculous situation and the officer was on a powertrip, but you did break the law and technically she was within her privileges to bring you down to holding. Still, the fact that you encountered pretty much the worst scenario possible and were only held up for a few hours from start to finish is, to me, a sign that the system is working pretty damn well.
> The worst thing an officer of the was able to do was inconvenience you for a day.
Job application. Have you ever been arrested? No job.
Mortgage application. Have you ever been arrested? No mortgage. No house.
Rental application. Have you ever been arrested? No apartment.
These are just a few places you will have the door slammed in your face. Now, the OP was lucky, because the matter was dismissed, the arrest record evaporates. If he was convicted of even the most minor criminal offense because the judge was having a bad day too, his life is now fucked.
It's in everyone's interest for criminals to learn from their mistakes and become functioning members of society. How could they conceivably do so if they're eternally denied education, employment, or even shelter on the basis of their past deeds?
NB, this is argument applies even if you're trying to make the argument to a very pro-law-enforcement person who accepts the premises that only guilty people need to worry about the police and that the laws are perfect so everything that is a crime ought to be one.
It's usually "convicted of a felony or alcohol related offense". Being arrested usually has no negative impact on your job prospects unless you are also charged and convicted (of a felony).
Arrest records do come up in the system when a background check is run as I can vouch for personally. They also come up (in Colorado) with the initially charged crime whether or not the charge was changed or dismissed. This has never hampered my ability to obtain employment, loan, or a lease.
In New York City, landlords will run background checks that check if you've been arrested or appeared in housing court, but not whether or not you were convicted (or even charged!) in the arrests, and not whether you won or lost the housing court case (or even whether you were the plaintiff or defendant).
It's incredibly pro-landlord, but because there's a shortage of housing supply, they can get away with it.
I wouldn't want to work for a company that would slam the door in my face because I was arrested for a petty offence like the one mentioned. There are plenty of companies out there that will treat me like a human being.
>The worst thing an officer of the was able to do was inconvenience you for a day.
The worst thing that officer could have done to that person for that day, rather. A different officer, different victim, different judge on a different day? Could have been a lot worse. It often takes a couple of days just to see a judge.
>encountered pretty much the worst scenario possible
It's a common police tactic to arrest somebody Friday night on bogus charges so they have to sit in prison all weekend to see a judge on Monday. Cops here would round up anybody unsightly like the homeless, protesters or people they thought would protest before some big weekend or Friday night event, just to keep them off the streets until it was over. They did this until false arrest laws came in where you could sue the police but before that there were dragnets every weekend.
Now cops just hand out tickets for every petty violation they can to the homeless since they know they can't pay, and ticket protesters for jaywalking or some other BS, and when a major media covered event comes through they now have a legit reason to round them all up.
Cops can also detain you longer, like this guy who was kept 24hrs in a psych eval, even though he had already spent hours in jail.
I happen to like the lcd screen console in the Tesla, so it was interesting how quickly the author lost much of the credibility I as the reader had given him when he falsely assumed that I too would agree that it was poor design.
Read "The Design of Everyday Things". A touch LCD screen in a car is a demonstrably worse solution to car controls than old fashioned knobs and buttons that you can use while keeping your eyes on the road. I also see in that picture that the Tesla has a full color speedometer, which is a bad idea because it adds flair around the only thing you really care (current speed/rpm/is something broken?) and unless it has a night mode (which I have every reason to believe it does) it would be very bad for your night vision.
It sure looks slicker, futuristic and trendy, but it's nothing but a gimmick. Also, who needs to browse the web on a car? But I digress.
That actually raises an interesting idea. Does it say anything about the state of a technology when the design becomes a purchasing factor in addition to just the functionality?
In 1995 no one cared what a PC looked like. The driving factors were "You mean I can send a message...electronically!?", "I can chat with other people in a chatroom in real time!?", etc. But today those features are commonplace, and people really do care about how the product looks as much as the capabilities of the hardware. Does this imply some sort of plateau in the progress of the technology or the features it offers? I'd say yes - if a fully functional VR system were available tomorrow (think Oculus v10.0+) it's design would be almost irrelevant in light of the new experiences it offered.
We've hit that point a few times. I'd say the first time was in '98 or so when the original iMac came out. And while there have been various PC clones of Apple laptops since the PowerBook G4s the MacBook Air certainly gained a ton of imitators.
Then again, you could argue the Air wasn't style but usability/convenience of lower weight/size.
In 1995 lots of people cared, Me, for one. And it was nice when companies like SGI and Sun put real care and thought into the design of their workstations. I could never afford one for myself, but I ooh-ed and aah-ed whenever I got to work on one of those fantastic machines. I guess it took Apple to notice that a well designed computer at a good price point would sell well enough to make it worth it
I'll take that thought one step further. The sound of an "ugly" teletype banging away line by line with a "basic" program was actually quite cool. Later on I thought I had it made when I could find a green crt that wasn't all beat in the school computer center. 
>You can send a man to the moon but cant have a woman President.
That's not a fair critique at all. Had Barack Obama (first black president) not won, there's a very real possibility that Hillary Clinton would have been elected president. Both of which represent political firsts and a changing system towards greater integration.
>>By using this strategy, the Chinese government uses its people as underpriced laborers that give it a huge export surplus and which it can use to influence world events, as well as to generate vast government capital (essentially capital it is withholding from its citizens) it can use to invest in foreign companies/assets.
To what end? Let's say this is true, and let's also say that its strategy is successful. What is achieved if the end goal is not to better it's populace? And if it's goal is to better it's populace, why keep them down now at all and not immediately trying to improve the well-being of its citizens?
>The big problem with ICF is hydrodynamic stability. It is like trying to squeeze a water balloon with your fingers. If you don't squeeze it perfectly symmetrically, it will squirt through your fingers and pop rather than getting compressed by a factor of 20.