>If, on the other hand, he plans to grant the Novell dismissal on the grounds that the copyrights were never transferred, it would allow him to grant IBM's PSJ on the same grounds.
The Novell suit is a "slander of title". Given that the copyrights are in dispute, it will be quite easy for the judge to grant Novell's dismissal. The Judge would not have to go as far as to say that Novell owns the copyrights, only that there is a genuine dispute over them.
IBM's PSJ, on the other hand, is more about SCO's claims in he media that IBM is stealing UNIX to put into Linux. It's not about the direct claims SCO has made in court.
In order for the two judgements both be granted for the same grounds, the Judge would have to one-up Novell's claim and say that Novell owns the copyrights.
That would be very interesting indeed, and would pretty much wrap it up for SCO. I'm hoping for that, but IMHO it's likely that the Judge will grant both requests, but on different grounds. Novell will be granted because the wrong kind of suit was filed. IBM will be granted on the Lanham act. SCO will continue to persue their other claims and spin the losses as though they had won something.
Shouldn't the most powerful democratic nation in the world stand on high ground? Shoudn't we treat people with dignity to show the world what it means to be a free society? Why must attempt to undercut the terrorists and enemy combatants by acting as badly as they do? Isn't it important to win a moral victory by showing ourselves as a shining pinnacle of freedom to the rest of the world? What about Reagan's "city on the hill"? It seems we've forgone any notion that we need to be an example to the world and have devolved into treating people like animals.
>Each of the five hubs contained 40 petabytes of data, the equivalent of 60,000 movies or 10.5 million songs, Ashcroft said.
Does Ashcroft really expect me to believe there are 60,000 distinct movies on that network? Netflix only has 25,000 movies. I suspect they counted the number of COPIES of movies in the whole network. Ashcroft loves to mislead people, doesn't he? Why does he feel the need to inflate the numbers if his goal were upholding the law? Who signs his paycheck, anyway?
>The TV thinks that I am trying to copy DVD's and enables Macrovision.
I'm sure you're aware of this, but to clarify: The DVD is marked with a macrovision flag that tells the DVD player to produce an incorrect NTSC signal intended to mess with the automatic gain of a VCR. The DVD player obligingly corrupts the signal. Many TVs have problems with a macrovision-corrupted signal, especially TV/VCR combos.
I have this problem as well, but I get around it by only buying DVD players in which the macrovision "feature" can be disabled. I don't do this to copy DVDs, I do it so I can watch them.
Ah yes, the "Star Wars" holiday special... George Lucas thought he burned all the remaining copies of that, the pile of putrid filth that it is. Apparently gets quite pissed off when you mention it to him.
I dare you to watch the whole thing in one sitting.
The Ewok movies weren't THAT bad. They're a notch or two below "episode one", but still can't be fairly compared to the holiday special. In any case, George Lucas hasn't completely disowned those, so I'd bet that we'll at least see them on DVD in a few years.
Re:Wake me up when they put the ORIGINALs on DVD
on
Star Wars on DVD
·
· Score: 2, Funny
>fortunately for me you have friends and relatives who remember how much you love Star Wars, and *certainly* one or more of them will purchase this collection for you. Either way, your money will already be mine
No, that's not true. That's impossible! NO!!!!!
Wake me up when they put the ORIGINALs on DVD
on
Star Wars on DVD
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
An open letter to George Lucas.
Dear George,
The nostalgic value for DVD collectors of these movies is very high, but your changes destroy that value. No one who loved the movies in the 70s and 80s wants the "special edition" release, or the changes you have made since. The changes make them new movies, lesser versions of their former selves, they certainly are not the same movies I enjoyed in my youth. One of the great things about Star Wars was the amazing effect work that was very groundbreaking using the technology of the day. Updating the films with new technology destroys that accomplishment.
I will not buy Star Wars (again) until the original, unmodified movie is on DVD. Likewise for Empire.
Thank you. -an 80's Star Wars fan in your target market.
>They could have continued to exist, and terrorize people if it weren't for us killing them, and exposing them for the fraud they were.
That's very true, but these terrorists have very little in common with the Nazis. The nazis had a real millitary and a real organizational structure. That sort of a power can be overcome with overt millitary force. A grassroots geurilla war (i.e. terrorism) cannot. History has shown that time and time again.
>Why don't poor people in the US become suicide bombers then? Why is Osama who was very rich a terrorist? That pretty much destroys your theory.
I don't think it does. Sure there some folks at the bottom of any organization that swear by a certain pseudo-religious ideology, but there's always someone at the top with an economic agenda. There's always some wealth, be it money, land, or otherwise at the root of the issue. Look at any war where "religion" is the supposed cause, and you'll find a leader that uses religion to meet a political end.
Osama is a rich terrorist, but he would like Saudi Arabia to be richer. He probably thinks the United States is keeping Saudi Arabia from being a power on the world scene. His motives are not religious. The Koran condemns murder.
The reason we don't have poor people in the US being suicide bombers... they act out in other ways that are just as violent. They rob banks, commit drive-by shootings, etc. The difference is that no one has pointed them to a clear enemy to act out against(except "terrorism"). If we had a foriegn power occupying our soil, I'd wager that we'd have just as many bombings.
>Where are the Nazi's today if war doesn't solve anything?
The Nazis were not terrorists. The were a political organization in control of a country. They were an agressive, millitaristic regime, who invaded other countries based on weak excuses.
>What do you think the "root" of the problem is? This I have to hear.
The root of the problem is economics (as is nearly all violence), and revenge for other violence. Religion is just an excuse. We are using the natural resources of the middle east, (but many of them are still poor) and supporting Israel (who many claim stole Palestinian land). They see the United States as being an evil agressor, throwing our troops around at will. I don't know exactly how to solve that, but invading more countries is the wrong thing to do.
>What kind of statement is that? You act like half their population has been wiped out
We did kill about 11 thousand iraqi civillians. http://iraqbodycount.net. It's not half the population, but it's many more than died in the 9/11 attacks. It's certainly enough make them want to kill us.
>That sort of idealism is fueled by islam, not simply hatred of America.
That's naive. Islam teaches peace (just like christianity). If it were not Islam, it would be some other religion. The religion is just an excuse to act on feelings caused by secular issues.
Cheney is not charismatic enough to win over the electorate. Bush Jr was picked as a patsy. Cheney doesn't call all the shots. Some are clearly made by Rumsfeld.
>What freedoms of yours have been curtailed?
Well, I never used to have to worry about being declared an "enemy combatant" and put in prison without a hearing or access to a lawyer.
I never used to worry about my ability to listen to the radio broadcasts I enjoy.
>You are moronic if you actually believe the US is into empire building.
Go read some of the literature produced by the "Project for a new american century" then read the author list. Empire building is definately the goal. Search for the phrase "direct intervention".
>The key to stopping radical islam is... killing as many of them as possible.
Nope. Bloodshed causes more hatred which causes more terrorism. That's exactly the wrong thing to do.
>What scares me more is Americans like you who don't realize we are at war.
"War" and terrorism are completly diferent things. You can't "fight terrorism" by sending in tanks. Terrorism is caused by hatred... sending in tanks fuels the fire. Why do americans need to declare "WAR" on everything? Why not look at the root of the problem and try to solve it? Yes, we need to hold those who have commited terrorism accountable, but to go around invading every country (killing thousands of civillians) because we think they might someday attack us is WRONG. The civillians in those countries (that are still alive) now have a reason to join a terrorist group that they didn't have before.
>But if you're not in a swing stae, then vote third party. As a Southerner, Bush is either gonna win my state or if we're swing, Kerry will win in a landslide. That way, my votte for Kerry really wouldn't matter for getting Bush out of office.
But what if your state comes down to a few votes (a la Florida)? Sure the pundits like to categorize states as "swing", but you can't predict a landslide when you don't even know which candidate will win.
>Do you think Kerry will undo the Patriot Act? Do you think he will pull us out of Iraq?
No, but I believe he will make better, more rational decisions in future situations. He will think about the consequences of his actions instead of just doing what Dick Cheney says.
Imagine what would happen if Bush were re-elected. We'd have four more years of the same. We'd have more curtailed freedom, more war based on "faulty intelligence" (w North Korea?), more hatred of Americans abroad (remember that hatred causes terrorism). We'll have four more years of Wolfowitz's "empire building" through "direct intervention". The idea scares me, and should scare the entire world.
There IS a better way. Maybe Kerry's not perfect, but compared to Bush, he's the freaking Messiah. Give the guy a chance.
>That said, something phrased like "Anyone that sues us has their license immediately revoked" would certaintly be interesting.
Yeah, but I'm not sure it would be helpful. To succeed in court, you want the GPL to protect you, because it contains disclaimers about "fitness for a particular purpose" and such. If you revoke the license, those disclaimers would no longer apply either. It would have to be worded in such a way that only your priveledge to copy the software would be revoked, but the rest of the license would stand.
>In my four years, the first 2 didn't even have that many comp sci course, a lot was electives. The first two years should focus on math, the Sciences, English, etc. Very necessary coursework.
>My attendance rate is near zero percent (literally), and i still manage As? Sounds like your college has very low standards.
>for SCO to allow them to claim that they have "sold" a whole bunch more of those Linux licenses
It won't work because no one wants to buy SCO Unix anymore. Does anyone know how many copies they actually sell in a year? They're going to have to bundle a hundred Linux "licenses" per SCO Unix license to seed the market with an appreciable number of them.
>You can't tell the difference between a well rebuilt transmission and a poorly rebuilt one? That's too bad. A good transmission is what you get when you take someone genuinely skilled in the art of Automotive Repair and a depth of knowledge in the problem domain and the tools to be used
Very clever. What's your point exactly other than repeating what I said?
>Are you, or have you ever been a plumber? Perhaps a mechanic?
No. Like I said, I don't want to rag on them. I have replaced a fair amount of pipe, and I have fixed some reasonably involved engine problems. That makes me neither a plumber nor a mechanic.
>Do you care for public appraisal of your expertise?
Is this the inquisition? I merely expressed an opinion, which you are free to disagree with. If you think my work is boring... well, I'm not a skydiving instructor and I doubt you are either.
>By the time a single line of code has been written, 90% of the Software Engineering should already have happened.
The previous poster made no distinction between a Software Engineer and a programmer. Most organizations don't. Usually the programmer and the Software Engineer are the same person.
The idea that a program can be fully designed before a line of code has been written is called the "waterfall" methodology. Though this approach is commonly seen as ideal, it really doesn't work. In fact, it's usually cited as a major reason projects fail. During the implementation phase, serious design problems will emerge and need to be addressed. The iterative approach of the RUP, or the more organic designs of XP tend to work much better IMHO.
I don't mean to scorn plumbers. That's a difficult job as well, and certainly requires expertise and ability. I think it takes more expertise to do my job, but that's just my opinion.
>Coding is as much a gift as auto repair or plumbing. There is a reason you don't see "Teach yourself physics in 24 hours" books.
You can't tell the difference between good and bad code? That's too bad. Good code is what you get when you take someone genuinely skilled in the art of Software Engineering and a depth of knowledge in the problem domain and the language to be used.
Bad code, on the other had, is what you get when you give "teach yourself Java in 21 days" to a physicist. The result may "work" for certian values of work, but the code will ultimately be unmaintainable, unreadable, non-scalable, and generally very crappy.
It's similar to if I have a degree in Software Engineering, and I go out and design a building. It may function (and even remain upright for a few years), but the design will ultimately fail, because I lack the deep skills necessary to do a good job.
Ditto here. A couple of years ago, I had no end of problems with my Athlon systems. I was thinking of moving back to Intel until I heard that the VIA chipset was the cause of all my problems. I moved to Ali and Nvidia chipsets, and now I'm happy as can be with AMD processors. I'm never buying VIA again, because apparently they do very little QA testing. I'd like to upgrade to a more recent chip, but don't want to take a step backwards in overall system stability. Does anyone know of a good non-via chipset for Athlon64?
>Both require different forms of therapy before being reintroduced into society.
Which country do you call home? I'm curious because you seem to have a criminal justice systemt that's much different than in my country.
In the USA at least, though we spout terms like "rehabilitation", the criminal justice system has always been based on deterrence. If you commit this crime, you will be punished for it. That's why we have prisons. Sometimes people will mistakenly assign the prison system with rehabilitative qualities, but you can't really mix the notion that criminals need therapy to be better people with the notion that criminals deserve punishment.
Your statement above implies that people have no free will, and that society is free to inject whatever thoughts are socially acceptable at the time into someone's head. Very scary.
Personally I'm more comfortable with our current system of punishment.
Slashdot Mirror
FYI... The DOS version of "hitchhik" has the invisiclues and a reader for them built-in to the game. All you do is type "HINT" at the prompt.
:)
Also FYI.. The DOS version runs great under DOSEMU.
>You see nothing. The lights are off. ...
Try turning on the light.
>If, on the other hand, he plans to grant the Novell dismissal on the grounds that the copyrights were never transferred, it would allow him to grant IBM's PSJ on the same grounds.
The Novell suit is a "slander of title". Given that the copyrights are in dispute, it will be quite easy for the judge to grant Novell's dismissal. The Judge would not have to go as far as to say that Novell owns the copyrights, only that there is a genuine dispute over them.
IBM's PSJ, on the other hand, is more about SCO's claims in he media that IBM is stealing UNIX to put into Linux. It's not about the direct claims SCO has made in court.
In order for the two judgements both be granted for the same grounds, the Judge would have to one-up Novell's claim and say that Novell owns the copyrights.
That would be very interesting indeed, and would pretty much wrap it up for SCO. I'm hoping for that, but IMHO it's likely that the Judge will grant both requests, but on different grounds. Novell will be granted because the wrong kind of suit was filed. IBM will be granted on the Lanham act. SCO will continue to persue their other claims and spin the losses as though they had won something.
IANAL.
>Enemy combatants don't have rights.
Shouldn't the most powerful democratic nation in the world stand on high ground? Shoudn't we treat people with dignity to show the world what it means to be a free society? Why must attempt to undercut the terrorists and enemy combatants by acting as badly as they do? Isn't it important to win a moral victory by showing ourselves as a shining pinnacle of freedom to the rest of the world? What about Reagan's "city on the hill"? It seems we've forgone any notion that we need to be an example to the world and have devolved into treating people like animals.
Whom do we have to thank for this?
>Each of the five hubs contained 40 petabytes of data, the equivalent of 60,000 movies or 10.5 million songs, Ashcroft said.
Does Ashcroft really expect me to believe there are 60,000 distinct movies on that network? Netflix only has 25,000 movies. I suspect they counted the number of COPIES of movies in the whole network. Ashcroft loves to mislead people, doesn't he? Why does he feel the need to inflate the numbers if his goal were upholding the law? Who signs his paycheck, anyway?
>The TV thinks that I am trying to copy DVD's and enables Macrovision.
I'm sure you're aware of this, but to clarify: The DVD is marked with a macrovision flag that tells the DVD player to produce an incorrect NTSC signal intended to mess with the automatic gain of a VCR. The DVD player obligingly corrupts the signal. Many TVs have problems with a macrovision-corrupted signal, especially TV/VCR combos.
I have this problem as well, but I get around it by only buying DVD players in which the macrovision "feature" can be disabled. I don't do this to copy DVDs, I do it so I can watch them.
Ah yes, the "Star Wars" holiday special... George Lucas thought he burned all the remaining copies of that, the pile of putrid filth that it is. Apparently gets quite pissed off when you mention it to him.
I dare you to watch the whole thing in one sitting.
The Ewok movies weren't THAT bad. They're a notch or two below "episode one", but still can't be fairly compared to the holiday special. In any case, George Lucas hasn't completely disowned those, so I'd bet that we'll at least see them on DVD in a few years.
>fortunately for me you have friends and relatives who remember how much you love Star Wars, and *certainly* one or more of them will purchase this collection for you. Either way, your money will already be mine
No, that's not true. That's impossible! NO!!!!!
An open letter to George Lucas.
Dear George,
The nostalgic value for DVD collectors of these movies is very high, but your changes destroy that value. No one who loved the movies in the 70s and 80s wants the "special edition" release, or the changes you have made since. The changes make them new movies, lesser versions of their former selves, they certainly are not the same movies I enjoyed in my youth. One of the great things about Star Wars was the amazing effect work that was very groundbreaking using the technology of the day. Updating the films with new technology destroys that accomplishment.
I will not buy Star Wars (again) until the original, unmodified movie is on DVD. Likewise for Empire.
Thank you.
-an 80's Star Wars fan in your target market.
>They could have continued to exist, and terrorize people if it weren't for us killing them, and exposing them for the fraud they were.
That's very true, but these terrorists have very little in common with the Nazis. The nazis had a real millitary and a real organizational structure. That sort of a power can be overcome with overt millitary force. A grassroots geurilla war (i.e. terrorism) cannot. History has shown that time and time again.
>Why don't poor people in the US become suicide bombers then? Why is Osama who was very rich a terrorist? That pretty much destroys your theory.
I don't think it does. Sure there some folks at the bottom of any organization that swear by a certain pseudo-religious ideology, but there's always someone at the top with an economic agenda. There's always some wealth, be it money, land, or otherwise at the root of the issue. Look at any war where "religion" is the supposed cause, and you'll find a leader that uses religion to meet a political end.
Osama is a rich terrorist, but he would like Saudi Arabia to be richer. He probably thinks the United States is keeping Saudi Arabia from being a power on the world scene. His motives are not religious. The Koran condemns murder.
The reason we don't have poor people in the US being suicide bombers... they act out in other ways that are just as violent. They rob banks, commit drive-by shootings, etc. The difference is that no one has pointed them to a clear enemy to act out against(except "terrorism"). If we had a foriegn power occupying our soil, I'd wager that we'd have just as many bombings.
>So Cheney is a super smart evil mastermind
I never used the word "smart", or "mastermind".
>Where are the Nazi's today if war doesn't solve anything?
The Nazis were not terrorists. The were a political organization in control of a country. They were an agressive, millitaristic regime, who invaded other countries based on weak excuses.
>What do you think the "root" of the problem is? This I have to hear.
The root of the problem is economics (as is nearly all violence), and revenge for other violence. Religion is just an excuse. We are using the natural resources of the middle east, (but many of them are still poor) and supporting Israel (who many claim stole Palestinian land). They see the United States as being an evil agressor, throwing our troops around at will. I don't know exactly how to solve that, but invading more countries is the wrong thing to do.
>What kind of statement is that? You act like half their population has been wiped out
We did kill about 11 thousand iraqi civillians. http://iraqbodycount.net. It's not half the population, but it's many more than died in the 9/11 attacks. It's certainly enough make them want to kill us.
>That sort of idealism is fueled by islam, not simply hatred of America.
That's naive. Islam teaches peace (just like christianity). If it were not Islam, it would be some other religion. The religion is just an excuse to act on feelings caused by secular issues.
> why didn't Cheney run for president?
... killing as many of them as possible.
Cheney is not charismatic enough to win over the electorate. Bush Jr was picked as a patsy. Cheney doesn't call all the shots. Some are clearly made by Rumsfeld.
>What freedoms of yours have been curtailed?
Well, I never used to have to worry about being declared an "enemy combatant" and put in prison without a hearing or access to a lawyer.
I never used to worry about my ability to listen to the radio broadcasts I enjoy.
>You are moronic if you actually believe the US is into empire building.
Go read some of the literature produced by the "Project for a new american century" then read the author list. Empire building is definately the goal. Search for the phrase "direct intervention".
>The key to stopping radical islam is
Nope. Bloodshed causes more hatred which causes more terrorism. That's exactly the wrong thing to do.
>What scares me more is Americans like you who don't realize we are at war.
"War" and terrorism are completly diferent things. You can't "fight terrorism" by sending in tanks. Terrorism is caused by hatred... sending in tanks fuels the fire. Why do americans need to declare "WAR" on everything? Why not look at the root of the problem and try to solve it? Yes, we need to hold those who have commited terrorism accountable, but to go around invading every country (killing thousands of civillians) because we think they might someday attack us is WRONG. The civillians in those countries (that are still alive) now have a reason to join a terrorist group that they didn't have before.
>every picture they get is near perfect
Except when he looks like a chimp.
>But if you're not in a swing stae, then vote third party. As a Southerner, Bush is either gonna win my state or if we're swing, Kerry will win in a landslide. That way, my votte for Kerry really wouldn't matter for getting Bush out of office.
But what if your state comes down to a few votes (a la Florida)? Sure the pundits like to categorize states as "swing", but you can't predict a landslide when you don't even know which candidate will win.
Every vote counts.
>Do you think Kerry will undo the Patriot Act? Do you think he will pull us out of Iraq?
No, but I believe he will make better, more rational decisions in future situations. He will think about the consequences of his actions instead of just doing what Dick Cheney says.
Imagine what would happen if Bush were re-elected. We'd have four more years of the same. We'd have more curtailed freedom, more war based on "faulty intelligence" (w North Korea?), more hatred of Americans abroad (remember that hatred causes terrorism). We'll have four more years of Wolfowitz's "empire building" through "direct intervention". The idea scares me, and should scare the entire world.
There IS a better way. Maybe Kerry's not perfect, but compared to Bush, he's the freaking Messiah. Give the guy a chance.
>Like most other domestic issues (gay marriage: no, offshoring: yes), their stance is pretty much identical (i.e. pro Hollywood)."
That's not true. John Kerry is anti-offshoring. He went as far as naming CEOs who do extensive offshoring "benedict arnold" CEOs.
>That said, something phrased like "Anyone that sues us has their license immediately revoked" would certaintly be interesting.
Yeah, but I'm not sure it would be helpful. To succeed in court, you want the GPL to protect you, because it contains disclaimers about "fitness for a particular purpose" and such. If you revoke the license, those disclaimers would no longer apply either. It would have to be worded in such a way that only your priveledge to copy the software would be revoked, but the rest of the license would stand.
>In my four years, the first 2 didn't even have that many comp sci course, a lot was electives.
The first two years should focus on math, the Sciences, English, etc. Very necessary coursework.
>My attendance rate is near zero percent (literally), and i still manage As?
Sounds like your college has very low standards.
>for SCO to allow them to claim that they have "sold" a whole bunch more of those Linux licenses
It won't work because no one wants to buy SCO Unix anymore. Does anyone know how many copies they actually sell in a year? They're going to have to bundle a hundred Linux "licenses" per SCO Unix license to seed the market with an appreciable number of them.
>You can't tell the difference between a well rebuilt transmission and a poorly rebuilt one? That's too bad. A good transmission is what you get when you take someone genuinely skilled in the art of Automotive Repair and a depth of knowledge in the problem domain and the tools to be used
Very clever. What's your point exactly other than repeating what I said?
>Are you, or have you ever been a plumber? Perhaps a mechanic?
No. Like I said, I don't want to rag on them. I have replaced a fair amount of pipe, and I have fixed some reasonably involved engine problems. That makes me neither a plumber nor a mechanic.
>Do you care for public appraisal of your expertise?
Is this the inquisition? I merely expressed an opinion, which you are free to disagree with. If you think my work is boring... well, I'm not a skydiving instructor and I doubt you are either.
>By the time a single line of code has been written, 90% of the Software Engineering should already have happened.
The previous poster made no distinction between a Software Engineer and a programmer. Most organizations don't. Usually the programmer and the Software Engineer are the same person.
The idea that a program can be fully designed before a line of code has been written is called the "waterfall" methodology. Though this approach is commonly seen as ideal, it really doesn't work. In fact, it's usually cited as a major reason projects fail. During the implementation phase, serious design problems will emerge and need to be addressed. The iterative approach of the RUP, or the more organic designs of XP tend to work much better IMHO.
I don't mean to scorn plumbers. That's a difficult job as well, and certainly requires expertise and ability. I think it takes more expertise to do my job, but that's just my opinion.
>Coding is as much a gift as auto repair or plumbing. There is a reason you don't see "Teach yourself physics in 24 hours" books.
You can't tell the difference between good and bad code? That's too bad. Good code is what you get when you take someone genuinely skilled in the art of Software Engineering and a depth of knowledge in the problem domain and the language to be used.
Bad code, on the other had, is what you get when you give "teach yourself Java in 21 days" to a physicist. The result may "work" for certian values of work, but the code will ultimately be unmaintainable, unreadable, non-scalable, and generally very crappy.
It's similar to if I have a degree in Software Engineering, and I go out and design a building. It may function (and even remain upright for a few years), but the design will ultimately fail, because I lack the deep skills necessary to do a good job.
>I got *really* tired of unstable VIA chipsets.
Ditto here. A couple of years ago, I had no end of problems with my Athlon systems. I was thinking of moving back to Intel until I heard that the VIA chipset was the cause of all my problems. I moved to Ali and Nvidia chipsets, and now I'm happy as can be with AMD processors. I'm never buying VIA again, because apparently they do very little QA testing. I'd like to upgrade to a more recent chip, but don't want to take a step backwards in overall system stability. Does anyone know of a good non-via chipset for Athlon64?
>Both require different forms of therapy before being reintroduced into society.
Which country do you call home? I'm curious because you seem to have a criminal justice systemt that's much different than in my country.
In the USA at least, though we spout terms like "rehabilitation", the criminal justice system has always been based on deterrence. If you commit this crime, you will be punished for it. That's why we have prisons. Sometimes people will mistakenly assign the prison system with rehabilitative qualities, but you can't really mix the notion that criminals need therapy to be better people with the notion that criminals deserve punishment.
Your statement above implies that people have no free will, and that society is free to inject whatever thoughts are socially acceptable at the time into someone's head. Very scary.
Personally I'm more comfortable with our current system of punishment.