You only need to prove intent or lack or it. It doesn't matter if you kill a man because he banged your wife, or if you hate his mother, his religion, ethnicity, or anything else. Intent is simply intent. The reasons why are totally irrelevant, aside from maybe proving intent, but regardless, the penalty should be the same.
In your other argument: By the logic of your question, the second crime wasn't at random, the person was singled out for their ethnicity or gender. That specificity makes it a different crime.... Because in #1, the intent is murder. In #2, the intent is murder and terrorism against a specific group of people... In #1, someone is dead. In #2, someone is dead as a result of their circumstances of birth, or choice of religion
Why should that be different? The whole "terrorism" thing is hogwash. That is only distinguished by the person defining the word, and who the perpetrator and target is. An intentional killing is only that. If you want, add a racketeering change to it. The law already makes room for organized crime. Whether you realize it or not you are defending hate crime laws.
You are picking nits. The law already breaks it down for us without involving "hate". Man one and two, first and second degree murder, negligent and justifiable homicide, etc. Using this ethereal "hate" is merely a pretext to control thought, and it is bigotry. A black man intentionally killing a white man and vice versa should carry the exact same penalty. But in our society "intent" will not be equally applied. Murder is murder. "Hate crime" is designed to single out a specific group to sanction more than the other. The system should not distinguish between cop killers and killer cops. Both are murderers, but the law separates them miles apart. One goes to the gas chamber, and the other collects a pension. Criminal justice needs to be a lot less driven by emotion, and much less subjective, but there is little desire to make it so, in fact this "hate crime" stuff is doing exactly the opposite, with clear intent.
The thought police are coming. Be afraid.. Most people are for it. In fact they would have you locked up for daring to malign or ridicule the idea.
"Hate crime" Jeebus! Can somebody tell me why motivation makes a difference? They are just saying a crime of assault/murder is perfectly justifiable if the reasons are right and the perpetrator is "righteous". And "online abuse", a scandal created out of thin air to make censorship more palatable.
But everybody is looking for the perfect "solution" to a grossly misdiagnosed problem. It is not what the speaker says. It is what the listener does. Acting in bad faith on hearsay is what should be heavily sanctioned, not the hearsay itself. It's too easy to turn your back on it. The chosen reaction is the only thing that matters. Until that is acknowledged, everybody will continue wagging the dog, which is perfectly natural due to expedience, nothing more. Censorship is nothing more than animal control. You neuter the speaker to keep an idea from spreading around and "impregnating" the listener. Quick and easy, but it is subhuman. There are no words that can physically compel involuntary action from a human. It takes physical force, like with a gun or a fist. And I'm not considering the bullshit about shouting "fire" or "bomb". This is a text forum, not a theater or a plane. Words have to be learned, and reactions have to be conditioned. Pavlov and Skinner have both confirmed that many years ago. If you want to "censor" something, go after the inflection, or tone of voice, and good luck with that.
To get all biblical 'n shit. The original sin was, and still is, the failure to resist temptation, not the temptation itself. The crime is taking the bribe, not offering it.
But it is expedient, in the same way animal control neuters the male instead of spaying the female because he "gets around".
Sad fact is that the 1st Amendment will be neutered. Too many people already believe it goes too far in protecting the right to speak. The fascists win again.
Increases in battery life have been "incremental" but also exponential - the increase has been something like 7% per year on the average, a ten-year doubling.
Yeah well, considering the lack of resistance as pointed out above (unjustly modded down), it really does hardly matter what you call it. The people have spoken, they approve, and that's that. Since they can't be bothered, let's call it a day and have a cold one.
The only form of acceptable editing is by appending a post with all the easy to identify indenting or whatever, but in the same box as the original. Any removal or any kind of change of original content must remain absolutely verboten. Slashdot's 17 years of intact archives are testimony to its success and what makes it unique, above all the rest. There simply is nothing better out there. I sincerely hope any attempt to change it will be met with great resistance.
not abused often enough
"Often enough" is not good enough, too vague, merely anecdotal. *Etched in stone* is impossible to abuse. I'll take those odds over anything thankyouverymuch. Editing original content is abuse, by default.
And the moderation system with its maximum 50 points of "karma" is perfectly fine also, it goes a long way to avoid forum poisoning by gangs of trolls that have attacked the other sites, which are usually just a circle jerk with their own political agenda anyway.
And furthermore, as you pointed out below "ghost banning" is too easy to spot. Fortunately I have seen no evidence of any of that here. If I do, I will raise holy hell about it.
Sorry to disagree with you, but Slashdot's system is by far the best, with SoylentNews being a very close number 2 (don't care for the old UI so much), so far.
No editing, no censorship, and no damn unicode! The PC snowflakes looking for a *safe space* and an echo chamber are quickly shooed away with well deserved ridicule and mockery. Slashdot subscribers can create their rubber room in semi private journal entries if and when they want. You just can't beat that.
Civil asset forfeiture, foreclosure fraud, drug offenses, IRS, no fly lists, Our 100 mile "constitution free zone", for almost any non responsive government bureaucracy, the list goes on...
Ah, a joke.. Well, very good then. I certainly concur that he does know how to have fun. It's what makes him kinda special. You would do well to apply the same notion to a few other people I have described in a vaguely similar fashion.
Yes, reading "tone" in a text forum is more difficult for me without hearing the inflection and seeing the facial expression. I'll try to do better
Slashdot Mirror
Centuries of case law are completely at odds with your idea.
Yeah, I know I'm going up against tradition here, but it is analogous to the defense of bullfighting as "respecting" a cultural institution.
brick by brick
Until the room is sealed.. Case law has become a prison. Is "hate crime" the final brick?
You only need to prove intent or lack or it. It doesn't matter if you kill a man because he banged your wife, or if you hate his mother, his religion, ethnicity, or anything else. Intent is simply intent. The reasons why are totally irrelevant, aside from maybe proving intent, but regardless, the penalty should be the same.
In your other argument:
By the logic of your question, the second crime wasn't at random, the person was singled out for their ethnicity or gender. That specificity makes it a different crime.... Because in #1, the intent is murder. In #2, the intent is murder and terrorism against a specific group of people... In #1, someone is dead. In #2, someone is dead as a result of their circumstances of birth, or choice of religion
Why should that be different? The whole "terrorism" thing is hogwash. That is only distinguished by the person defining the word, and who the perpetrator and target is. An intentional killing is only that. If you want, add a racketeering change to it. The law already makes room for organized crime. Whether you realize it or not you are defending hate crime laws.
You are picking nits. The law already breaks it down for us without involving "hate". Man one and two, first and second degree murder, negligent and justifiable homicide, etc. Using this ethereal "hate" is merely a pretext to control thought, and it is bigotry. A black man intentionally killing a white man and vice versa should carry the exact same penalty. But in our society "intent" will not be equally applied. Murder is murder. "Hate crime" is designed to single out a specific group to sanction more than the other. The system should not distinguish between cop killers and killer cops. Both are murderers, but the law separates them miles apart. One goes to the gas chamber, and the other collects a pension. Criminal justice needs to be a lot less driven by emotion, and much less subjective, but there is little desire to make it so, in fact this "hate crime" stuff is doing exactly the opposite, with clear intent.
The thought police are coming. Be afraid.. Most people are for it. In fact they would have you locked up for daring to malign or ridicule the idea.
"Hate crime" Jeebus! Can somebody tell me why motivation makes a difference? They are just saying a crime of assault/murder is perfectly justifiable if the reasons are right and the perpetrator is "righteous". And "online abuse", a scandal created out of thin air to make censorship more palatable.
Yeah, then the damn people will accuse you of spreading viruses using an obsolete OS. The upgrade treadmill is fully operational.
A bunch of cannibals?
They have no experts because Trump got 'em all. And they're really great experts, just like his economic and foreign policy experts.
I'd rather shiver in a cave in the woods.
And groove with a pict?
What would Slashdot do?
Yep, Slashdot has the best system going by far.
But everybody is looking for the perfect "solution" to a grossly misdiagnosed problem. It is not what the speaker says. It is what the listener does. Acting in bad faith on hearsay is what should be heavily sanctioned, not the hearsay itself. It's too easy to turn your back on it. The chosen reaction is the only thing that matters. Until that is acknowledged, everybody will continue wagging the dog, which is perfectly natural due to expedience, nothing more. Censorship is nothing more than animal control. You neuter the speaker to keep an idea from spreading around and "impregnating" the listener. Quick and easy, but it is subhuman. There are no words that can physically compel involuntary action from a human. It takes physical force, like with a gun or a fist. And I'm not considering the bullshit about shouting "fire" or "bomb". This is a text forum, not a theater or a plane. Words have to be learned, and reactions have to be conditioned. Pavlov and Skinner have both confirmed that many years ago. If you want to "censor" something, go after the inflection, or tone of voice, and good luck with that.
To get all biblical 'n shit. The original sin was, and still is, the failure to resist temptation, not the temptation itself. The crime is taking the bribe, not offering it.
But it is expedient, in the same way animal control neuters the male instead of spaying the female because he "gets around".
Sad fact is that the 1st Amendment will be neutered. Too many people already believe it goes too far in protecting the right to speak. The fascists win again.
Don't know much security
Don't know much about a fortran book
Don't know much about the C I took
But I do know I'll embed with you
And I know if you embed me too
What a wonderful world this would be
a 4000 mAh mobile battery
How nice! A bomb that can finally get through security. *Put your phaser on overload* Do they really make that high pitch squeal before going off?
Increases in battery life have been "incremental" but also exponential - the increase has been something like 7% per year on the average, a ten-year doubling.
Pack safe!
You forgot flammable and explosive. That part has been achieved.
*The world's next energy revolution is always more than five or ten years away.*
How far "Beyond 2000" was all that stuff supposed to be?
Tomorrow
Tomorrow
I love you, tomorrow
You're always a day awaaaaaay...
Yeah well, considering the lack of resistance as pointed out above (unjustly modded down), it really does hardly matter what you call it. The people have spoken, they approve, and that's that. Since they can't be bothered, let's call it a day and have a cold one.
The only form of acceptable editing is by appending a post with all the easy to identify indenting or whatever, but in the same box as the original. Any removal or any kind of change of original content must remain absolutely verboten. Slashdot's 17 years of intact archives are testimony to its success and what makes it unique, above all the rest. There simply is nothing better out there. I sincerely hope any attempt to change it will be met with great resistance.
not abused often enough
"Often enough" is not good enough, too vague, merely anecdotal. *Etched in stone* is impossible to abuse. I'll take those odds over anything thankyouverymuch. Editing original content is abuse, by default.
And the moderation system with its maximum 50 points of "karma" is perfectly fine also, it goes a long way to avoid forum poisoning by gangs of trolls that have attacked the other sites, which are usually just a circle jerk with their own political agenda anyway.
And furthermore, as you pointed out below "ghost banning" is too easy to spot. Fortunately I have seen no evidence of any of that here. If I do, I will raise holy hell about it.
Sorry to disagree with you, but Slashdot's system is by far the best, with SoylentNews being a very close number 2 (don't care for the old UI so much), so far.
No editing, no censorship, and no damn unicode! The PC snowflakes looking for a *safe space* and an echo chamber are quickly shooed away with well deserved ridicule and mockery. Slashdot subscribers can create their rubber room in semi private journal entries if and when they want. You just can't beat that.
Demand that the ISPs become common carriers.
:-) So I did read you right the first time. Gotta admit, you had me going for a second, Mr. Trump.
it would need to have its own power supply
You're right, I forgot. Use geothermal from even deeper underground. TNX!
By the way, what function does this isolated computer perform?
Solitaire. What else is there?
Civil asset forfeiture, foreclosure fraud, drug offenses, IRS, no fly lists, Our 100 mile "constitution free zone", for almost any non responsive government bureaucracy, the list goes on...
Not to mention the obvious workaround, USE A SSD. sigh.
Any manager that makes some security policy based on such studies should be beaten.
What's wrong with building a windowless soundproof Faraday cage 500 feet underground? I'd like to see the seismographer that can read through that.
Ah, a joke.. Well, very good then. I certainly concur that he does know how to have fun. It's what makes him kinda special. You would do well to apply the same notion to a few other people I have described in a vaguely similar fashion.
Yes, reading "tone" in a text forum is more difficult for me without hearing the inflection and seeing the facial expression. I'll try to do better
:-) C'mon man, we're in genpop, you can make up better shit than that.