Not really. But there's a serious question in my mind as to why it is assumed that "Jack the Ripper" was a individual person (though it's reasonable to assume that this was true before the papers picked up the story).
It's more complex than that. There are optimal densities, but they differ depending on things like speed of transportation and communication. Still, the safest cities will usually be smaller cities, and possibly villages. Rural isn't particularly safe, because of poor enforcement (for fairly obvious reasons). Similarly dense cities are poor because of ease of get-away (among other things).
As for degree of violence (i.e. emotionality) it tends to be higher among those who grow up not being exposed to "foreign ideas". They tend to form a ridgid mind-set that's especially favorable to us-vs-them thinking, and to not caring about what happens to "them". And note that "them" can be based on any believably identifiable characteristic, and people can believe some pretty strange things. For this reason cities tend to be less violent than smaller places given otherwise similar environmental features. People who grow up in cities tend to be exposed to people living and believing in lots of different ways. They may not like it, but they're used to it.
You need a bit of history. The death rate among slaves being transported in the triangle trade (1700's) was over 1/4. In some times and places slaves were more valuable, or shipping less expensive, or travel times less, and so conditions were better...but not in all times and places.
The point you really were making is that sometime the people in power are sociopaths with a dictator complex. And the time to stop them from doing something is before they decide that it's desirable.
He did suffer. He suffered loss of face and power. He clearly deserved worse, at the time I was in favor of crucifying him in a public square, but to say he didn't suffer is incorrect.
FWIW, I generally vote Libertarian or Green. I don't necessarily agree with their platform but I don't want to be told that I'm unconcerned about the result. This is foolish reasoning, but it's mine. I can't yet agree with a friend of mine who said: "Burn the polls, ye sons of Freedom" (Large banner in red, white, & blue, and with an eagle motif that you would recognize.)
So I partially agree with you. A little chance is better than none, even though I am aware that the Libertarian party, at least, is even worse than the Republicans. (I tend to be a Minarchist, but there isn't a sane minarchist party.)
More to the point, they use particular packages written in that language.
A Linux kernel privlege escalation bug is a Linux bug. It's only a C bug if it depends on a violation the the C language standard. C misfeatures aren't bugs, but they sure make be cautious when I use it. In particular, one C misfeature is that it's impossible to check the length of an array at run time. In any lengthy piece of code I get quite paranoid about that. But if I make a mistake it's a bug in my code. In C it's only a misfeature.
Similar these things appear to be, e.g., a bug in Struts. (I'm not a user of same, it's conceivably only a misfeature in Struts, and a bug in some program that uses it.)
So I agree, it doesn't appear to be a bug in Java. Or in Linux. But one could argue that there are design errors.
Well there's really two different problems. One is the hardware, the other is the algorithms. Currently, if we had quantum processors there's only a few things it could do better than conventional hardware. Prime number factorization is the leading light in that, This doesn't describe much of what computers currently do, so currently a real quantum processor wouldn't be really useful except for things like "Quantu Key Exchange", code breaking, etc. But there *ought* to be a large number of things it could do, if we could only figure out how.
Because of this, only certain groups are really interested in developing quantum processors. (Expected cooling requirements makes things worse.) But if a few more algorithms could be developed it's likely that EVERY datacenter would want to have at least one to use as a server. Maybe.
There's a distinction that needs to be made between worthy and constitutional. So, yes:
Social Security should have required a constitutional ammendment. The basic idea is quite worthy, in some form or other, but the constitution doesn't justify the actions that are taken to create or continue it. Should it? Probably. There is an ammendment process for that.
Similarly, the interstate highways are not justified except at the borders between the states. The basic idea is quite worthy, in some form or other, but the constitution doesn't justify the actions that are taken to create or continue it. Should it? Probably. There is an ammendment process for that.
Similarly, paying people to build infrastructure we're still using today and that benefited the nation greatl. The basic idea is quite worthy, in some form or other, but the constitution doesn't justify the actions that are taken to create or continue it. Should it? Probably. There is an ammendment process for that.
But if the folk on the right were concerned about the constitution, then they would work to get those that they couldn't repeal covered by constitutional ammendments. And you can say the EXACT same thing about those on the left, only for different projects.
In the federal system, the federal government is supposed to work through the states. When the federal government itself becomes intrusive, then it stops being a federal system....which it clearly has. The constitution was quite effective up through 1864. Since then the power of the federal government has grown and the (relative) power of the state governments has declined, until now they are closer to provinces. The only step remaining is for the federal government to appoint the state governors, and they'll probably skip that step as unneeded due to better communication and faster transportation.
Under the federal system the states acted as an effective check on the federal government to keep it from growing too powerful and intrusive, and to hold it to the constitution. That check has now failed, and the remaining checks are too weak to make a deciscive difference. The constitution is still a bit more than a memory, but not a whole bunch. It's already been so baroquely mal-interpreted that it doesn't say what it was intended to say, and the only parts that are adhered to are those where there is still a decent balance of power.
The US was a great country. The Civil War killed it by causing over centralization of power...it's just taken awhile to become obvious.
Actually, the primary purpose of the 2nd was originally for defense of the state, and only secondarily for defense against the state. It was corrupted when "a well organized militia" became interpreted as a militia organized by, or approved of by, the state.
OTOH, cities in North America in revolutionary times were considerably smaller then current cities, transportation was slower, and individual firearms were weaker. (Even flintlock rifles were muzzle loaders.) It's not clear that the original interpretation would work. (Matt Dillon brought the law to Dodge City by forbidding the wearing of guns in town. That was a small town, but sixshooters were a lot more deadly [up close] than was a Kentucky flintlock rifle. This changes things.)
I do agree that those things should NOT be in the province of federal law, however. And that the constitution doesn't allow it to be. Unfortunately, it also appears to forbid such rules to the states and their cities (whose powers are delegated by the state, if I understand legal theory correctly). The proper solution would be to ammend the 2nd ammendment to state that the federal government had no right to forbid the bearing of arms. Instead the "easy way" of just ignoring the clear language and reinterpreting it until black means white was used.
The constitution, as originally understood, did not prohibit slavery, though a few of the signatories wished that it did.
I agree with most of your argument, but it needs to be rephrased.
P.S.: You need to examine that "ballot box" argument a bit more. in a system with plurality rules voting, then two parties will become so dominant that there is little chance of a third party being successful. If, then, the candidates of both leading parties have their vote purchased by a entity with interests not aligned with the interests of the citizenry at large, then the ballot box will be ineffective as a mechanism of change.
Constitutional ammendments do not need to measure up to the existing constitution. Their process of approval does, but the ammendment itself is intentionally intended to NOT agree with the current constitution (as currently understood).
No, he didn't get shouted down. And this doesn't say he was basically correct, either, it says ONE of his ideas was pretty good. If you go on an actual Atkins diet, expect your triglycerides to rise...which is not good, even if your weight goes down (which it is also likely to do).
FWIW, my doctor and the dietician she referred me to both said "Atkins is ok for the short term, I guess. But I'm not really happy with it, and don't stay on it for a long time." I think they were excessively chairitable towards him. Rising triglycerides is very not good, and I came off that diet "consistent with pre-diabetic", when before my only problem was weight.
OTOH, I still avoid refined carbohydrates, potatoes, etc. I'm hoping that the triglyceride levels will soon drop again.
You've shown negligence, not malice. To me this is clearly negligent homocide. I see no evidence of murder (intentional homocide) much less malice aforethought. This doesn't mean they aren't there, but you haven't even started to make that case.
No. The only way to hope to (re-?)establish order and honor in the police is to hold them to the very laws they are expected to enforce. If there are no consequences when they disobey the laws, then they will continue to become more arbitrary, dishonorable, an untrustworthy.
For that matter, they should be held to a higher standard. A police officer should be held more stringently to obedience to the law than a normal citizen, and the punishment should be harsher (though not by too much) when they break the laws.
That they are not is quite clear, so their powers should be reduced, because they have been repeatedly shown to not be trusted with the ones that they have. For this reason I am in favor of requiring a camera that they cannot disable to be upon them at all times, and that malfunction of the camera should mean that they are not paid for that period AND that an independent investigation of the case is launched. It should record sound as well as video, and should be immediatedly transmitted to a secure read-only cache. Also, they should be on leave without pay from the instant the camera is disabled until it is repaired. This is clearly an onerous requirement, and if the police had been shown to be at all trustworthy I wouldn't consider anything this strict. They have, however, shown that they cannot be so trusted.
Also, any action that they take while the camera is known to be non-operational and they are in uniform should be considered taken "under the cloak of authority", i.e., if they commit a crime, there is an additional penalty because they are fraudulently claiming to represent the law. Because of this the camera should be equipped with a soft beep that plays intermittently while it is operational, and a louder chirp that plays intermittently (once every 2 sec.?) while it is non-functional. Perhaps the chirp could encode the camera id, so that others recording in the area would have information as to which one.
OK, then *I'll* say that the supervisor who said that was legal superior and ordered police to follow it should be charged with... I want "conspiracy to commit manslaughter", but I don't think that's possible, so I'd settle for malfeasance. And I don't think that excuses the officer from negligent homocide....unless you want to argue that he did it intentionally.
The fact that this is a part of a pattern of behavior means that I don't think he should be exonerated even if the evidence were to show that in this particular case the bicyclist *did* swerve out in front of him.
Imagined? I doubt that. From what I read in the summary it sounded like they were pissed off when their old programs couldn't read the new file format. To me that sounds fair. I don't think very highly of breaking backwards compatibility. It's occasionally necessary, but extremely more rarely than it is done. Usually it seems a strategy to force a purchase of new versions. And to me that sounds like abuse of a dominant market position. (I'd say abuse of monopoly, but somebody always thinks that means there aren't any competitors.)
There are all sorts of reasons why they might not want to admit in the open that they had such a backdoor, and the left hand might not want the right hand to see what it's holding, too.
Slashdot Mirror
Not really. But there's a serious question in my mind as to why it is assumed that "Jack the Ripper" was a individual person (though it's reasonable to assume that this was true before the papers picked up the story).
It's more complex than that. There are optimal densities, but they differ depending on things like speed of transportation and communication. Still, the safest cities will usually be smaller cities, and possibly villages. Rural isn't particularly safe, because of poor enforcement (for fairly obvious reasons). Similarly dense cities are poor because of ease of get-away (among other things).
As for degree of violence (i.e. emotionality) it tends to be higher among those who grow up not being exposed to "foreign ideas". They tend to form a ridgid mind-set that's especially favorable to us-vs-them thinking, and to not caring about what happens to "them". And note that "them" can be based on any believably identifiable characteristic, and people can believe some pretty strange things. For this reason cities tend to be less violent than smaller places given otherwise similar environmental features. People who grow up in cities tend to be exposed to people living and believing in lots of different ways. They may not like it, but they're used to it.
You need a bit of history. The death rate among slaves being transported in the triangle trade (1700's) was over 1/4. In some times and places slaves were more valuable, or shipping less expensive, or travel times less, and so conditions were better...but not in all times and places.
The point you really were making is that sometime the people in power are sociopaths with a dictator complex. And the time to stop them from doing something is before they decide that it's desirable.
He did suffer. He suffered loss of face and power. He clearly deserved worse, at the time I was in favor of crucifying him in a public square, but to say he didn't suffer is incorrect.
I understand that that is listed as a purpose of government, but I cannot read that as enabling any specific acts.
FWIW, I generally vote Libertarian or Green. I don't necessarily agree with their platform but I don't want to be told that I'm unconcerned about the result. This is foolish reasoning, but it's mine. I can't yet agree with a friend of mine who said:
"Burn the polls, ye sons of Freedom" (Large banner in red, white, & blue, and with an eagle motif that you would recognize.)
So I partially agree with you. A little chance is better than none, even though I am aware that the Libertarian party, at least, is even worse than the Republicans. (I tend to be a Minarchist, but there isn't a sane minarchist party.)
Since the problem appears to lie in Java libraries, I don't understand your argument at all.
More to the point, they use particular packages written in that language.
A Linux kernel privlege escalation bug is a Linux bug. It's only a C bug if it depends on a violation the the C language standard. C misfeatures aren't bugs, but they sure make be cautious when I use it. In particular, one C misfeature is that it's impossible to check the length of an array at run time. In any lengthy piece of code I get quite paranoid about that. But if I make a mistake it's a bug in my code. In C it's only a misfeature.
Similar these things appear to be, e.g., a bug in Struts. (I'm not a user of same, it's conceivably only a misfeature in Struts, and a bug in some program that uses it.)
So I agree, it doesn't appear to be a bug in Java. Or in Linux. But one could argue that there are design errors.
Well there's really two different problems. One is the hardware, the other is the algorithms. Currently, if we had quantum processors there's only a few things it could do better than conventional hardware. Prime number factorization is the leading light in that, This doesn't describe much of what computers currently do, so currently a real quantum processor wouldn't be really useful except for things like "Quantu Key Exchange", code breaking, etc. But there *ought* to be a large number of things it could do, if we could only figure out how.
Because of this, only certain groups are really interested in developing quantum processors. (Expected cooling requirements makes things worse.) But if a few more algorithms could be developed it's likely that EVERY datacenter would want to have at least one to use as a server. Maybe.
Informally, I agree with you that it is treason. It does not, however, meet the legal test for such. So your conclusion(?) is invalid.
You left out the anthrax that was mailed to one of the main opponents. That eventually turned out to have come from the US Army.
Nixon was a sociopath, and it worked on him. What you should have said was "Doesn't work on *all* sociopaths.".
There's a distinction that needs to be made between worthy and constitutional. So, yes:
Social Security should have required a constitutional ammendment. The basic idea is quite worthy, in some form or other, but the constitution doesn't justify the actions that are taken to create or continue it. Should it? Probably. There is an ammendment process for that.
Similarly, the interstate highways are not justified except at the borders between the states. The basic idea is quite worthy, in some form or other, but the constitution doesn't justify the actions that are taken to create or continue it. Should it? Probably. There is an ammendment process for that.
Similarly, paying people to build infrastructure we're still using today and that benefited the nation greatl. The basic idea is quite worthy, in some form or other, but the constitution doesn't justify the actions that are taken to create or continue it. Should it? Probably. There is an ammendment process for that.
But if the folk on the right were concerned about the constitution, then they would work to get those that they couldn't repeal covered by constitutional ammendments. And you can say the EXACT same thing about those on the left, only for different projects.
In the federal system, the federal government is supposed to work through the states. When the federal government itself becomes intrusive, then it stops being a federal system....which it clearly has. The constitution was quite effective up through 1864. Since then the power of the federal government has grown and the (relative) power of the state governments has declined, until now they are closer to provinces. The only step remaining is for the federal government to appoint the state governors, and they'll probably skip that step as unneeded due to better communication and faster transportation.
Under the federal system the states acted as an effective check on the federal government to keep it from growing too powerful and intrusive, and to hold it to the constitution. That check has now failed, and the remaining checks are too weak to make a deciscive difference. The constitution is still a bit more than a memory, but not a whole bunch. It's already been so baroquely mal-interpreted that it doesn't say what it was intended to say, and the only parts that are adhered to are those where there is still a decent balance of power.
The US was a great country. The Civil War killed it by causing over centralization of power...it's just taken awhile to become obvious.
Actually, the primary purpose of the 2nd was originally for defense of the state, and only secondarily for defense against the state. It was corrupted when "a well organized militia" became interpreted as a militia organized by, or approved of by, the state.
OTOH, cities in North America in revolutionary times were considerably smaller then current cities, transportation was slower, and individual firearms were weaker. (Even flintlock rifles were muzzle loaders.) It's not clear that the original interpretation would work. (Matt Dillon brought the law to Dodge City by forbidding the wearing of guns in town. That was a small town, but sixshooters were a lot more deadly [up close] than was a Kentucky flintlock rifle. This changes things.)
I do agree that those things should NOT be in the province of federal law, however. And that the constitution doesn't allow it to be. Unfortunately, it also appears to forbid such rules to the states and their cities (whose powers are delegated by the state, if I understand legal theory correctly). The proper solution would be to ammend the 2nd ammendment to state that the federal government had no right to forbid the bearing of arms. Instead the "easy way" of just ignoring the clear language and reinterpreting it until black means white was used.
The constitution, as originally understood, did not prohibit slavery, though a few of the signatories wished that it did.
I agree with most of your argument, but it needs to be rephrased.
P.S.: You need to examine that "ballot box" argument a bit more. in a system with plurality rules voting, then two parties will become so dominant that there is little chance of a third party being successful. If, then, the candidates of both leading parties have their vote purchased by a entity with interests not aligned with the interests of the citizenry at large, then the ballot box will be ineffective as a mechanism of change.
No.
Constitutional ammendments do not need to measure up to the existing constitution. Their process of approval does, but the ammendment itself is intentionally intended to NOT agree with the current constitution (as currently understood).
No, he didn't get shouted down. And this doesn't say he was basically correct, either, it says ONE of his ideas was pretty good. If you go on an actual Atkins diet, expect your triglycerides to rise...which is not good, even if your weight goes down (which it is also likely to do).
FWIW, my doctor and the dietician she referred me to both said "Atkins is ok for the short term, I guess. But I'm not really happy with it, and don't stay on it for a long time." I think they were excessively chairitable towards him. Rising triglycerides is very not good, and I came off that diet "consistent with pre-diabetic", when before my only problem was weight.
OTOH, I still avoid refined carbohydrates, potatoes, etc. I'm hoping that the triglyceride levels will soon drop again.
FWIW, high fructose corn syrup is a carb.
OTOH, I don't think they counted which group ate more turnip greens, cabbage, etc. And those are carbs too.
You're leaving out profit. Once you feel secure in your monopoly, then incompatible upgrades are a benefit, because they force users to upgrade.
You've shown negligence, not malice. To me this is clearly negligent homocide. I see no evidence of murder (intentional homocide) much less malice aforethought. This doesn't mean they aren't there, but you haven't even started to make that case.
No. The only way to hope to (re-?)establish order and honor in the police is to hold them to the very laws they are expected to enforce. If there are no consequences when they disobey the laws, then they will continue to become more arbitrary, dishonorable, an untrustworthy.
For that matter, they should be held to a higher standard. A police officer should be held more stringently to obedience to the law than a normal citizen, and the punishment should be harsher (though not by too much) when they break the laws.
That they are not is quite clear, so their powers should be reduced, because they have been repeatedly shown to not be trusted with the ones that they have. For this reason I am in favor of requiring a camera that they cannot disable to be upon them at all times, and that malfunction of the camera should mean that they are not paid for that period AND that an independent investigation of the case is launched. It should record sound as well as video, and should be immediatedly transmitted to a secure read-only cache. Also, they should be on leave without pay from the instant the camera is disabled until it is repaired.
This is clearly an onerous requirement, and if the police had been shown to be at all trustworthy I wouldn't consider anything this strict. They have, however, shown that they cannot be so trusted.
Also, any action that they take while the camera is known to be non-operational and they are in uniform should be considered taken "under the cloak of authority", i.e., if they commit a crime, there is an additional penalty because they are fraudulently claiming to represent the law. Because of this the camera should be equipped with a soft beep that plays intermittently while it is operational, and a louder chirp that plays intermittently (once every 2 sec.?) while it is non-functional. Perhaps the chirp could encode the camera id, so that others recording in the area would have information as to which one.
OK, then *I'll* say that the supervisor who said that was legal superior and ordered police to follow it should be charged with ... I want "conspiracy to commit manslaughter", but I don't think that's possible, so I'd settle for malfeasance. And I don't think that excuses the officer from negligent homocide....unless you want to argue that he did it intentionally.
The fact that this is a part of a pattern of behavior means that I don't think he should be exonerated even if the evidence were to show that in this particular case the bicyclist *did* swerve out in front of him.
Imagined? I doubt that. From what I read in the summary it sounded like they were pissed off when their old programs couldn't read the new file format. To me that sounds fair. I don't think very highly of breaking backwards compatibility. It's occasionally necessary, but extremely more rarely than it is done. Usually it seems a strategy to force a purchase of new versions. And to me that sounds like abuse of a dominant market position. (I'd say abuse of monopoly, but somebody always thinks that means there aren't any competitors.)
There are all sorts of reasons why they might not want to admit in the open that they had such a backdoor, and the left hand might not want the right hand to see what it's holding, too.