The only point I'm making here is that solitary confinement is nowhere near as bad a moral crime as multiple murder.
Why are so many people insisting on misreading what I've written? I never said it was ok. I even spelled it out: there are varying degrees of mistreatment.
No. The comparison is preposterous. Have you forgotten that there are varying degrees of mistreatment?
Depriving a mass murderer of human contact is not even close to being the moral equivalent of murdering dozens of innocent people in a rampage. It's madness that you're suggesting that it could be.
Imho Normal societies should execute criminals like this by drawing up some boundary between 1 and 77 murders and saying "over x murders we just killem".
Why? What advantage do you think this will provide?
NO ONE, deserves to be deprived of all interactions indefinitely from other human beings. You can give them an xbox or whatever, but it doesn't make up for person to person contact.
I'm not sure I agree that no-one deserves this.
A known jihadist radicaliser, for instance. There's a real risk to society for every minute of human interaction they're given.
But you've failed to deal with all the other arguments against the death penalty.
For a start, execution is more expensive than long-term imprisonment. (If you doubt this, do some reading.)
Executing nutters like this doesn't act as an effective deterrent, as crazies can't be deterred.
There's also the issue of accidentally killing the wrong person, which is always a risk with the death penalty, but admittedly doesn't seem like much of an issue in a case like this.
Perhaps my Linux-fu is weak, but there's a difference between a loadable kernel module, and what's baked into the core kernel, right? Can't kernel modules be used for graphics drivers, for the best of both worlds?
If the programmers are working in an environment with poor quality-control, and they're being told to implement a bad spec, would you blame the programmers?
You can be critical of individuals or a sect like ISIS or groups like the KKK but not all muslims or all white people.
And Scientologists? What about the genuinely dangerous denominations of Islam? Or any other insane death cults?
In the real world, things don't fall into neat categories, and unlike ethnicity, religion is both genuinely important (beliefs are actually important, whereas what colour you are isn't) and is a matter of choice.
Slashdot Mirror
Depriving a mass murderer of human contact is not even close to being the moral equivalent of murdering dozens of innocent people in a rampage.
You might not think so... but unless you've tried it, you really don't know that...
Have you lost your mind?
You're seriously trying to argue that putting someone in solitary might be just as bad as murdering dozens of innocents? Seriously!?
What on earth are you talking about?
The only point I'm making here is that solitary confinement is nowhere near as bad a moral crime as multiple murder.
Why are so many people insisting on misreading what I've written? I never said it was ok. I even spelled it out: there are varying degrees of mistreatment.
Yes. Now stop ignoring my point: this is a matter of degree, and they're not even close.
Notice the way I didn't ever say it was OK?
No. The comparison is preposterous. Have you forgotten that there are varying degrees of mistreatment?
Depriving a mass murderer of human contact is not even close to being the moral equivalent of murdering dozens of innocent people in a rampage. It's madness that you're suggesting that it could be.
no better than he is. Don't be absurd.
Imho Normal societies should execute criminals like this by drawing up some boundary between 1 and 77 murders and saying "over x murders we just killem".
Why? What advantage do you think this will provide?
NO ONE, deserves to be deprived of all interactions indefinitely from other human beings. You can give them an xbox or whatever, but it doesn't make up for person to person contact.
I'm not sure I agree that no-one deserves this.
A known jihadist radicaliser, for instance. There's a real risk to society for every minute of human interaction they're given.
Long-term benefit to society is good and all, but, but, catharsis!
But you've failed to deal with all the other arguments against the death penalty.
For a start, execution is more expensive than long-term imprisonment. (If you doubt this, do some reading.)
Executing nutters like this doesn't act as an effective deterrent, as crazies can't be deterred.
There's also the issue of accidentally killing the wrong person, which is always a risk with the death penalty, but admittedly doesn't seem like much of an issue in a case like this.
then you're really no better than he is
You were doing so well. Why finish with something so ridiculous?
Don't be absurd.
Civilized people have a huge issue with killing. Modern militaries have trouble getting their soldiers to actually shoot to kill.
Woops, I should read to the end of the comment next time :P
I had to re-download my entire Steam game library after a hard drive failed
Wouldn't it make more sense to re-download the games only as you play them, rather than downloading them all at once?
If not this, what is the best way to do responsible disclosure?
a 20-day lead time gives criminals plenty of time to tear Samba apart
Indeed, but it's a trade-off between the bad guys getting time to rediscover the bug, and the good guys needing time to schedule repairs.
Perhaps my Linux-fu is weak, but there's a difference between a loadable kernel module, and what's baked into the core kernel, right? Can't kernel modules be used for graphics drivers, for the best of both worlds?
You place undue emphasis on the programmers.
If the programmers are working in an environment with poor quality-control, and they're being told to implement a bad spec, would you blame the programmers?
You can be critical of individuals or a sect like ISIS or groups like the KKK but not all muslims or all white people.
And Scientologists? What about the genuinely dangerous denominations of Islam? Or any other insane death cults?
In the real world, things don't fall into neat categories, and unlike ethnicity, religion is both genuinely important (beliefs are actually important, whereas what colour you are isn't) and is a matter of choice.
The Slate article makes a convincing case. I'd assumed helis were comparable to fixed-wing: looks like they're way more dangerous!
One more quick point:
They, by the fact that nothing is certain, are not safe.
You might want to avoid this sort of 'reasoning' in future - it comes across as obtuse.
Correct.
'Open compute' seems to be about publishing Facebook's techniques to run a large server-farm.
Perhaps it's meant to remind us of OpenStack, but it's certainly nothing to do with FOSS hardware.
'thestack.com' is clearly garbage.
Right, so like I said, they are safe.
Who cares if you're 'worried'? The relevant question is actual safety.
afaik, helicopters are pretty damn safe.
Pretty sure some jobs are categorically out-of-reach for anyone with a criminal record.
Police officer and prison officer, for a start.
there isn't a party that wants this.
You haven't heard of the Libertarian Party?
Agreed. There's very little actual merit to this sort of fancy JavaScript nonsense.
Is it known how the exploit worked?
Did it depend on Flash, or on a specific browser and OS?
What? x12.org is an established website. Why make up something like that?