Whether or not we can keep them locked up indefinately doesnt address whether it is just or not, and as for the notion of deterrent, I would just offer up these thoughts:
According to the Humanitarian theory, to punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore, barbarous and immoral. It is maintained that the only legitimate motives for punishing are the desire to deter others by example or to mend the criminal...... My contention is that this doctrine, merciful though it appears, really means that each one of us, from the moment he breaks the law, is deprived of the rights of a human being.
The reason is this. The Humanitarian theory removes from Punishment the concept of Desert.
But the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust.....There is no sense in talking about a ‘just deterrent’ or a ‘just cure’. We demand of a deterrent not whether it is just but whether it will deter. We demand of a cure not whether it is just but whether it succeeds. Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether; instead of a person, a subject of rights, we now have a mere object, a patient, a ‘case’.
I still wonder who the heck came up with that particular idea for lethal injection, and how this is "better" than either a firing squad or sufficient depressants / tranquilizers to stop the heart.
But no, an expensive cocktail of 3 drugs which can go wrong in all sorts of ways is clearly better.
When you go to the Chrome "about" screen, I dont believe the words "ubuntu 11.4 version" ever pop up. I believe the version is an all numeric string that is the same regardless of what language you speak, like "23.0.1271.64 m"
So i just did a little flash research. If you had to guess, how do you suppose Georgia voted in the 1960 Presidential election? Turns out it was 63% in favor of Kennedy. In fact, North and South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, all voted majority for Kennedy.
This whole discussion is ridiculous, I certainly will not imply that all democrats are racist, but to try to prove that the republican party has been the enemy of civil rights is frankly absurd.
Nothing in my post was to indicate how I think the middle east situation should be fixed, simply that I cannot fault Israel for targetting Hamas sites that have been used to attack civilian Israeli populations.
Nothing anyone ever says would convince me that rocket attacks aimed at civilian populations are justified-- with the sole exception of the presence of guerrilla forces.
When Israel shells or bombs civilian populations that have no Hamas presence, then yea, they have also crossed a line. But thats not whats happening here.
If you read carefully, you will note that their issue is with wearing the device with its chip and battery removed, which I dont think would be addressed if she wore the device with a microwaved chip.
The civil rights movement was also headed up by the republicans. Unless parties have shifted around since I last looked, Richard Nixon was a republican, not a democrat, and it was southern democrats who opposed the civil rights movement.
If slashdot wants to live in its revisionist fantasy, though, thats fine.
At some point you have to stop living with the past and deal with the people living in the middle east right NOW. I can hardly justify rocket attacks on communities of Israelis who had no part in taking the land in the first place half a century ago.
The whole situation sucks, and my heart / prayers go out to Palestineans caught in the crossfire-- but what would you have israel do? Years of thousands of rockets being fired by Hamas into Israel-- could you honestly tell them to sit back, and eat the cost of making only partially effective interceptors?
Hamas bears at least as much blame for any casualties inflicted by the shelling; one of the most fundamental roles of government is to protect its people from outside aggression, and I dont know what to call the Hamas rockets if not such aggression.
First off, the article I saw on drudge a few days ago indicated a $35-50k cost per interceptor-- its just that they launch two per incoming missile.
Seems to me it would have to be at LEAST as expensive as the thing they are intercepting, since they need to be able to detect the threat in air and manuever to hit it. The rockets just have to be lobbed into the air, with the hope they hit something valuable. The rockets can be cheaper as well, because its not a big deal whether one is taken out or not; whereas from a defensive position a rocket getting through IS a big deal, so the interceptors need to be correspondingly more accurate and expensive.
Think of it this way-- I imagine a sniper round costs no more than $100 per shot. How expensive per shot do you suppose it would be to have a laser system that could detect and incinerate the bullet in the split second before it hit a VIP? Consider that the sniper doesnt care if only half of his bullet makes it to the target-- that will kill just as well. The laser system has to do BETTER than the sniper to be of any value at all.
The shitbox unguided bottle rockets that the Muslims are terrorising Israel with, aren't coming in that fast, and can be cheaply and easily intercepted.
For values of "cheap" that include "40-60x more expensive than the weapon being intercepted", yes. Apparently its about $35-50,000 per interceptor missile, with two launches per interception. Several thousand missiles have been launched in the last several years.... that gets pretty expensive pretty fast.
Apparently, the US and Israel are working on "Skyguard", a laser-based system which would only cost about $1k per firing, about the same as a hamas rocket launch.
Destroying a nuke is not the same as detonating one. With conventional explosives, perhaps you could trigger an explosion, but with a nuke there is a specific detonation sequence that has to happen to get a nuclear reaction.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally, if the condemned is free from disease, I'd want to at least put the organs to use.
Condemned or not, its still a person, not a sack of organs, and mandatory organ donation blurs that distinction in a way thats kind of scary.
Whether or not we can keep them locked up indefinately doesnt address whether it is just or not, and as for the notion of deterrent, I would just offer up these thoughts:
According to the Humanitarian theory, to punish a man because he deserves it, and as much as he deserves, is mere revenge, and, therefore, barbarous and immoral. It is maintained that the only legitimate motives for punishing are the desire to deter others by example or to mend the criminal......
My contention is that this doctrine, merciful though it appears, really means that each one of us, from the moment he breaks the law, is deprived of the rights of a human being.
The reason is this. The Humanitarian theory removes from Punishment the concept of Desert.
But the concept of Desert is the only connecting link between punishment and justice. It is only as deserved or undeserved that a sentence can be just or unjust.....There is no sense in talking about a ‘just deterrent’ or a ‘just cure’. We demand of a deterrent not whether it is just but whether it will deter. We demand of a cure not whether it is just but whether it succeeds. Thus when we cease to consider what the criminal deserves and consider only what will cure him or deter others, we have tacitly removed him from the sphere of justice altogether; instead of a person, a subject of rights, we now have a mere object, a patient, a ‘case’.
--CS Lewis, The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment
Fitting the punishment to the crime, for a crime of orchestrating the murder of millions, seems to require at the least depriving him of his life.
I still wonder who the heck came up with that particular idea for lethal injection, and how this is "better" than either a firing squad or sufficient depressants / tranquilizers to stop the heart.
But no, an expensive cocktail of 3 drugs which can go wrong in all sorts of ways is clearly better.
...Except that sunspider is going to be more a function of the javascript engine than the cpu, sure.
A low end Core i3 is roughly 60% of the cost of a Wii.
Lets not lose focus here. Whether or not its difficult has no bearing on what is right and what is acceptable.
but if you put them in an environment that facilitates it they may stray in a moment of weakness,
Yea, people just "find themselves" in these situations with no idea how it happened?
Possibly the culprit is not caring enough to avoid the "environment that facilitates it" in the first place.
When you go to the Chrome "about" screen, I dont believe the words "ubuntu 11.4 version" ever pop up. I believe the version is an all numeric string that is the same regardless of what language you speak, like "23.0.1271.64 m"
So i just did a little flash research. If you had to guess, how do you suppose Georgia voted in the 1960 Presidential election? Turns out it was 63% in favor of Kennedy. In fact, North and South Carolina, Georgia, Mississippi, Alabama, all voted majority for Kennedy.
This whole discussion is ridiculous, I certainly will not imply that all democrats are racist, but to try to prove that the republican party has been the enemy of civil rights is frankly absurd.
I particularly like this part from his bug report:
VERSION
Chrome Version:Ubuntu 11.4 version
Operating System: [Ubuntu 11.4]
Man I love that version of chrome. What do you call a security researcher who cant even identify his platform in his bug reports?
Its not about being afraid. If the existing system offers them legal protections, it makes zero business sense not to utilize them.
Nothing in my post was to indicate how I think the middle east situation should be fixed, simply that I cannot fault Israel for targetting Hamas sites that have been used to attack civilian Israeli populations.
Nothing anyone ever says would convince me that rocket attacks aimed at civilian populations are justified-- with the sole exception of the presence of guerrilla forces.
When Israel shells or bombs civilian populations that have no Hamas presence, then yea, they have also crossed a line. But thats not whats happening here.
If you read carefully, you will note that their issue is with wearing the device with its chip and battery removed, which I dont think would be addressed if she wore the device with a microwaved chip.
The "best" (hardest to remove) rootkits still infect the boot sector. I just had to deal with one a few days ago.
The civil rights movement was also headed up by the republicans. Unless parties have shifted around since I last looked, Richard Nixon was a republican, not a democrat, and it was southern democrats who opposed the civil rights movement.
If slashdot wants to live in its revisionist fantasy, though, thats fine.
At some point you have to stop living with the past and deal with the people living in the middle east right NOW. I can hardly justify rocket attacks on communities of Israelis who had no part in taking the land in the first place half a century ago.
The article I saw said 75%, and it had a quote where an official seemed to acknowledge that number.
The whole situation sucks, and my heart / prayers go out to Palestineans caught in the crossfire-- but what would you have israel do? Years of thousands of rockets being fired by Hamas into Israel-- could you honestly tell them to sit back, and eat the cost of making only partially effective interceptors?
Hamas bears at least as much blame for any casualties inflicted by the shelling; one of the most fundamental roles of government is to protect its people from outside aggression, and I dont know what to call the Hamas rockets if not such aggression.
First off, the article I saw on drudge a few days ago indicated a $35-50k cost per interceptor-- its just that they launch two per incoming missile.
Seems to me it would have to be at LEAST as expensive as the thing they are intercepting, since they need to be able to detect the threat in air and manuever to hit it. The rockets just have to be lobbed into the air, with the hope they hit something valuable. The rockets can be cheaper as well, because its not a big deal whether one is taken out or not; whereas from a defensive position a rocket getting through IS a big deal, so the interceptors need to be correspondingly more accurate and expensive.
Think of it this way-- I imagine a sniper round costs no more than $100 per shot. How expensive per shot do you suppose it would be to have a laser system that could detect and incinerate the bullet in the split second before it hit a VIP? Consider that the sniper doesnt care if only half of his bullet makes it to the target-- that will kill just as well. The laser system has to do BETTER than the sniper to be of any value at all.
Im no great scholar of history, but havent past attempts at using ground forces on Israel ended disastrously for the aggressor?
The shitbox unguided bottle rockets that the Muslims are terrorising Israel with, aren't coming in that fast, and can be cheaply and easily intercepted.
For values of "cheap" that include "40-60x more expensive than the weapon being intercepted", yes. Apparently its about $35-50,000 per interceptor missile, with two launches per interception. Several thousand missiles have been launched in the last several years.... that gets pretty expensive pretty fast.
Apparently, the US and Israel are working on "Skyguard", a laser-based system which would only cost about $1k per firing, about the same as a hamas rocket launch.
Unless Austraila has recently relocated, Im pretty sure that that first world nation is not in NATO.
Destroying a nuke is not the same as detonating one. With conventional explosives, perhaps you could trigger an explosion, but with a nuke there is a specific detonation sequence that has to happen to get a nuclear reaction.
Just lasering through it is not enough.