That fact continues to escape you and your kind. By minimizing the loss, you simply afford more mercy to those that are criminals and less to all the victims.
But you're to stupid to realize that crime affects more than just its immediate victims. Three of my friends didn't get a chance to grow up, that is my loss. Five members of society don't exist now because of crimes, and that is the loss to society.
How I feel about Bradford Bishop is exactly how I feel about John Couey (convicted sex offender, murderer). I know one, never met the other. My personal loss is not at issue here.
One might have a tinge of vengeance, the other has none. Justice is making sure that criminals stop being criminals one way or another. Jail is not Justice, it barely is punishment.
I bet you're one of those people who think making people live in tents, wear pink underwear and eat bologna sandwiches are cruel and inhumane punishment.
Along those lines, I would think that if "ethical" and "security" are a problem, having valuable data on a phone is downright stupid. How many people lose their phones? I happens all the time.
I don't know what is non-ethical or un-ethical about using a cloud (whatever THAT means). Does that mean you can't use WIFI or 3G to transmit data? Does it mean you have ethical problems with hosted solutions? What would those Ethical problems be if the data was encrypted both in transit and in storage?
I've worked with people that were paranoid, it isn't ever pretty. And it rarely ends well for anyone. (self fulfilling)
I grew up with his sons who were very good friends of mine. He and his wife were friends with my parents. The FBI came to our house when investigating the murders.
My oldest daughter had an attempted rape. So Shut the FUCK UP.
You have no idea the crap you're spewing to justify your stupid liberal insanity. Just because I was talking about a bicycle in relation to an article about how a bicycle (motorcycle) thief's punishment seem "over the top" by many here on Slashdot, doesn't mean I don't know what it means to be a victim.
CRIME hurts more than the immediate victim. It harms society. And stupid idiots like yourself cant see the forest because the damn trees are in the way.
I never said the first article is not needed, but rather is misleading at best, and worst is pure propaganda.
"Car Fleeing Palestinian Rock Attack strikes boy" doesn't incite the right kind of emotion as the original headline. But it is far more representative of what happened.
"I don't have compassion for the victims, which is sheer bullshit."
I never said you don't have compassion for your victims. I said your viewpoint has more compassion for the criminal than the victim. Which you show here....
"Yet meting out harsh punishment does nothing for the victim"
You don't care about the NEXT victims of the repeat criminals who don't learn not to be a criminal in our current system.
Meting out harsh punishment does something for FUTURE victims, the ones that never become a victim because the criminal now has to worry about losing another appendage, and learns enough control not to steal ever again.
Why is it that people completely ignore the self preservation instinct is a great (perhaps even the greatest) motivator?
I'm not for cutting appendages off for the victim's sake, but for society's sake. Not for retribution, but rather as a lesson to be learned.
I don't know if you remember that kid that got caned in Malaysia (I think)for graffiti. Well that country doesn't have a graffiti problem. You may think it is harsh, but when you walk down a street and there isn't a place that hasn't been tagged it makes you wonder why we don't cane people here.
I guess it is just better to have graffiti everywhere, because caning a person is worse than graffiti everywhere.
When people say "its just a bicycle" in response to my suggestion (see above), it diminishes not only THAT victim, it diminishes all other victims.
The victim had no choice in what happened, that is why they are victims. The criminal always has a choice. They need incentive to make the right choice, because obviously they cannot choose to do the right thing (not steal) by themselves.
Crying for "fairness" always falls at the expense of victims, as what happens to them is never fair.
Okay, slight exaggeration using "Most", as some of the bottom 50% do pay income taxes. The trend has been ever increasing plurality pay no income taxes, and within a few years will be the majority.
Its not just a bicycle, and that's the problem. It was her way to school. It was her birthday present from her family. It was cherished and needed.
But like all typical bleeding hearts, you have more compassion for the criminal than the person who is a victim. You view hacking an appendage as the problem, and not the asshole who stole a locked bicycle in broad daylight.
Because even if the bicycle was replaced, it is unusable because the thieves are out there willing to take it in broad daylight because they have NO FEAR of the law, because people like you say "its just a bicycle".
Your "its just a bicycle" view is more evil than the thief, because it diminishes the victim worse than the thief ever did.
I agree, they deserve swift punishment. How about a swift whack with a sword removing an appendage? Would that suffice? It would also be a warning to those that would follow after his footsteps. Or how about branding the forehead with "Thief"?
But of course the bleeding hearts want to rehabilitate (expensive, non-effective) criminals. We don't need to do that, we just need to enable their self preservation instincts, which is truly rehabilitative.
My daughter had her locked bicycle stolen from a high traffic location in broad daylight. The ONLY way this can happen is if the people stealing the bike weren't afraid of the consequences. How come the bleeding hearts never bleed for the victims, but always for the criminals?
Most people pay no taxes at all. The diminishing middle class is increasingly being held to pay the bulk of taxes. Rich can avoid taxes, the poor don't pay any, and the rest is screwed.
This is why INCOME taxes are evil, especially the progressive income tax structure we have now. For corporations, we need to have wealth transfer taxes instead of income taxes. Dividends are taxed, shifting "fees" and "payments" to foreign (offshore) corporations are taxed, payments for imported goods are taxed etc. Anytime money is transferred there is a "tax" upon that transfer (corporatations).
And, if we understand corporations are creations of the state, we'd better understand their role. However they aren't treated as creations of the state, but rather as "non-person entities" which erode the liberties of people, which is a huge problem.
Your questions regarding the second source, did you ask the same questions of the first?
Because the basic information you're asking is the same. I'm not the naive one, I question everything, which is how I found the analysis article that gives a better expose' of what really happened that day.
They cannot change. The entire business model of the last couple of centuries has been altered drastically. Their existing models is founded and based on how things USED to work, that no longer work. They are dead and dying. This is nothing more than the buggy whip manufacturers in the age of automobiles. They cannot change their model because what they are selling is no longer needed.
This isn't to say that news isn't needed, because we're getting news. It is just that it is unfiltered, unedited and raw. We don't get the edited video, we get the whole reel (archaic reference). We see how news is being fabricated to support one particular view or another. Instead of seeing the "evil Israeli hit and running a Palestinian young boy", we see the unedited video showing that the whole thing was a setup, including an "impartial photographer" picking up a rocks as part of the ambush.
Why should we listen to propaganda presented as news? If this was an isolated incident, I would toss it aside. But it isn't. Much of what comes to us from "official news sources" is biased edited crap that is designed to illicit emotional reactions to shape opinions, be it from FAUX News or NY Times.
Why stop at the arbitrary "two people" ? When law defines marriage as between one man and one woman, the first and primary argument is that defining marriage between one man and one woman is arbitrary distinction that is an anachronism. However, historically, there is much more support for polygamy than there is for homosexual marriage.
Replace all the arguments for gay marriage with polygamous ones and they still stand. WHICH really shows what the agenda is. It isn't about defining marriage, it is about establishing something that never existed because of political advantage.
Lastly, I'm Libertarian. I don't think the government should define marriage at all, for anyone. Government has no business governing people's lives at that level. It is a holdover from the Roman Empire Theocracy. Further, it is a violation of Separation of Church and State.
No, it was a limitation of the Database (DBase III), on 40x25 Monochrome CRTs attached to DOS (XT/286). Just because it can be done easier today doesn't mean that was always the case.
And which completely misses the point, that customers want what they want, even if it is not possible (budget, complexity, timelines, features).
In this case, I provided exactly what the customer asked, the at the time, budget and complexity that was all manageable. The customer didn't want to change how they did things, but wanted the system to change how it did things, which wasn't possible with the tools I was using at the time.
PreGUI relational databases in DOS were fun, but this kind of thing drove me nuts. It wouldn't today, because SQL and sanitizing input is much easier.
Customers change their minds, and say "I didn't ask for that" all the time. Ask any waiter.
You're the exception not the rule. My view is not self centered.
I use Linux, Windows, Mac. I have a Blackberry and next phone will be Droid X or something similar. I have iPod, because it works with everything in my house (dock on stereo, iHome in kitchen etc), and I don't have to think about it.
I see things as tools, some are better than others at things. When they stop being useful, I'll move to something that is.
If you want to complain about VENDOR lockin, just take a look at CPU market. AMD and Intel, running on X86 BIOS based systems (for the most part). WHY? Because that is what runs Windows. The fact that Apple had to switch a few years ago is more troublesome to me than anything Apple is doing to the Mac Market.
The customer wanted to be able to sort by dates, I did that. The pain of doing things differently wasn't about anything other than not wanting to change when change is what was requested.
I would rather type to extra numbers than have to manually sort though records because data in a field wasn't indexable (DBaseIII) the way the customer wanted. But that is me, I can see the benefit of not doing things the hard way, and changing how I do things to get things done better, more efficiently.
Of course it is easy to solve that problem today, we have better tools for dealing with it. But the TYPE of problem still exists. Customers saying they want something, and realizing what they asked for isn't really what they want.
You're missing the point. (besides making assumptions that is is a current problem)
This was back in DbaseIII days (DOS,40x25 screens, monochrome CRTs). The problem is customers wanting something, but not willing to do what it might take to get there. OFTEN times choosing the harder way (manually sorting records) rather than doing things "differently".
I could have really customized the code and done a whole bunch of sanity checks on the user input, all to save two digits being entered. All of which would increase complexity and other types of problems. Defaulting to current year in programming logic is great, until it isn't. Then you're in a race to fix the exceptions, which adds to bloat and slowness.
And it is no wonder that there is so much database fubar out there with people coding defaults, having to fill in exceptions rather than making things explicit in the first place.
I could have had pull down menus, and/or clickable graphical calendars too. And people wonder why software is bloated with features only a few people want. Which is exactly what the article itself is saying.
Lastly, this was from DbaseIII days, not modern SQL and Web based forms generated and sanitized by Perl Scripts, which would make such a feature quick and dirty point click easy (for the user).
Slashdot Mirror
He's a nonprophet for profit, not a prophet for nonprofit. Of course that makes this whole thing about false prophets and false profits.
Passenger 2: I have a bad feeling about this
But then he puts customer data on a phone. I trust the cloud more than I do with a person with a cellphone.
Risk management requires understanding where the risk actually is.
Sorry, the loss was not just mine.
That fact continues to escape you and your kind. By minimizing the loss, you simply afford more mercy to those that are criminals and less to all the victims.
But you're to stupid to realize that crime affects more than just its immediate victims. Three of my friends didn't get a chance to grow up, that is my loss. Five members of society don't exist now because of crimes, and that is the loss to society.
How I feel about Bradford Bishop is exactly how I feel about John Couey (convicted sex offender, murderer). I know one, never met the other. My personal loss is not at issue here.
One might have a tinge of vengeance, the other has none. Justice is making sure that criminals stop being criminals one way or another. Jail is not Justice, it barely is punishment.
I bet you're one of those people who think making people live in tents, wear pink underwear and eat bologna sandwiches are cruel and inhumane punishment.
Along those lines, I would think that if "ethical" and "security" are a problem, having valuable data on a phone is downright stupid. How many people lose their phones? I happens all the time.
I don't know what is non-ethical or un-ethical about using a cloud (whatever THAT means). Does that mean you can't use WIFI or 3G to transmit data? Does it mean you have ethical problems with hosted solutions? What would those Ethical problems be if the data was encrypted both in transit and in storage?
I've worked with people that were paranoid, it isn't ever pretty. And it rarely ends well for anyone. (self fulfilling)
We don't need the MSM explaining YouTube Videos to us, do we?
Actually, I know what is like to have someone close to me murdered, so shut the FUCK UP.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradford_Bishop
I grew up with his sons who were very good friends of mine. He and his wife were friends with my parents. The FBI came to our house when investigating the murders.
My oldest daughter had an attempted rape. So Shut the FUCK UP.
You have no idea the crap you're spewing to justify your stupid liberal insanity. Just because I was talking about a bicycle in relation to an article about how a bicycle (motorcycle) thief's punishment seem "over the top" by many here on Slashdot, doesn't mean I don't know what it means to be a victim.
CRIME hurts more than the immediate victim. It harms society. And stupid idiots like yourself cant see the forest because the damn trees are in the way.
You're just a douche bag.
I never said the first article is not needed, but rather is misleading at best, and worst is pure propaganda.
"Car Fleeing Palestinian Rock Attack strikes boy" doesn't incite the right kind of emotion as the original headline. But it is far more representative of what happened.
"I don't have compassion for the victims, which is sheer bullshit."
I never said you don't have compassion for your victims. I said your viewpoint has more compassion for the criminal than the victim. Which you show here ....
"Yet meting out harsh punishment does nothing for the victim"
You don't care about the NEXT victims of the repeat criminals who don't learn not to be a criminal in our current system.
Meting out harsh punishment does something for FUTURE victims, the ones that never become a victim because the criminal now has to worry about losing another appendage, and learns enough control not to steal ever again.
Why is it that people completely ignore the self preservation instinct is a great (perhaps even the greatest) motivator?
I'm not for cutting appendages off for the victim's sake, but for society's sake. Not for retribution, but rather as a lesson to be learned.
I don't know if you remember that kid that got caned in Malaysia (I think)for graffiti. Well that country doesn't have a graffiti problem. You may think it is harsh, but when you walk down a street and there isn't a place that hasn't been tagged it makes you wonder why we don't cane people here.
I guess it is just better to have graffiti everywhere, because caning a person is worse than graffiti everywhere.
When people say "its just a bicycle" in response to my suggestion (see above), it diminishes not only THAT victim, it diminishes all other victims.
The victim had no choice in what happened, that is why they are victims. The criminal always has a choice. They need incentive to make the right choice, because obviously they cannot choose to do the right thing (not steal) by themselves.
Crying for "fairness" always falls at the expense of victims, as what happens to them is never fair.
http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html
Okay, slight exaggeration using "Most", as some of the bottom 50% do pay income taxes. The trend has been ever increasing plurality pay no income taxes, and within a few years will be the majority.
However my point remains.
Its not just a bicycle, and that's the problem. It was her way to school. It was her birthday present from her family. It was cherished and needed.
But like all typical bleeding hearts, you have more compassion for the criminal than the person who is a victim. You view hacking an appendage as the problem, and not the asshole who stole a locked bicycle in broad daylight.
Because even if the bicycle was replaced, it is unusable because the thieves are out there willing to take it in broad daylight because they have NO FEAR of the law, because people like you say "its just a bicycle".
Your "its just a bicycle" view is more evil than the thief, because it diminishes the victim worse than the thief ever did.
I agree, they deserve swift punishment. How about a swift whack with a sword removing an appendage? Would that suffice? It would also be a warning to those that would follow after his footsteps. Or how about branding the forehead with "Thief"?
But of course the bleeding hearts want to rehabilitate (expensive, non-effective) criminals. We don't need to do that, we just need to enable their self preservation instincts, which is truly rehabilitative.
My daughter had her locked bicycle stolen from a high traffic location in broad daylight. The ONLY way this can happen is if the people stealing the bike weren't afraid of the consequences. How come the bleeding hearts never bleed for the victims, but always for the criminals?
Most people pay no taxes at all. The diminishing middle class is increasingly being held to pay the bulk of taxes. Rich can avoid taxes, the poor don't pay any, and the rest is screwed.
This is why INCOME taxes are evil, especially the progressive income tax structure we have now. For corporations, we need to have wealth transfer taxes instead of income taxes. Dividends are taxed, shifting "fees" and "payments" to foreign (offshore) corporations are taxed, payments for imported goods are taxed etc. Anytime money is transferred there is a "tax" upon that transfer (corporatations).
And, if we understand corporations are creations of the state, we'd better understand their role. However they aren't treated as creations of the state, but rather as "non-person entities" which erode the liberties of people, which is a huge problem.
Ask yourself this:
Your questions regarding the second source, did you ask the same questions of the first?
Because the basic information you're asking is the same. I'm not the naive one, I question everything, which is how I found the analysis article that gives a better expose' of what really happened that day.
They cannot change. The entire business model of the last couple of centuries has been altered drastically. Their existing models is founded and based on how things USED to work, that no longer work. They are dead and dying. This is nothing more than the buggy whip manufacturers in the age of automobiles. They cannot change their model because what they are selling is no longer needed.
This isn't to say that news isn't needed, because we're getting news. It is just that it is unfiltered, unedited and raw. We don't get the edited video, we get the whole reel (archaic reference). We see how news is being fabricated to support one particular view or another. Instead of seeing the "evil Israeli hit and running a Palestinian young boy", we see the unedited video showing that the whole thing was a setup, including an "impartial photographer" picking up a rocks as part of the ambush.
How it is being reported in the news
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/8051813/Palestinian-boy-run-over-by-Jewish-settler-in-East-Jerusalem.html
Here's the rest of the story
http://hipsterjew.com/2010/10/12/man-runs-over-boy/
Why should we listen to propaganda presented as news? If this was an isolated incident, I would toss it aside. But it isn't. Much of what comes to us from "official news sources" is biased edited crap that is designed to illicit emotional reactions to shape opinions, be it from FAUX News or NY Times.
Why stop at the arbitrary "two people" ? When law defines marriage as between one man and one woman, the first and primary argument is that defining marriage between one man and one woman is arbitrary distinction that is an anachronism. However, historically, there is much more support for polygamy than there is for homosexual marriage.
Replace all the arguments for gay marriage with polygamous ones and they still stand. WHICH really shows what the agenda is. It isn't about defining marriage, it is about establishing something that never existed because of political advantage.
Lastly, I'm Libertarian. I don't think the government should define marriage at all, for anyone. Government has no business governing people's lives at that level. It is a holdover from the Roman Empire Theocracy. Further, it is a violation of Separation of Church and State.
13 is also 00:13
13 is also 1:30
13 is also 13:00
which one of those is right when I type 13?
No, it was a limitation of the Database (DBase III), on 40x25 Monochrome CRTs attached to DOS (XT/286). Just because it can be done easier today doesn't mean that was always the case.
And which completely misses the point, that customers want what they want, even if it is not possible (budget, complexity, timelines, features).
In this case, I provided exactly what the customer asked, the at the time, budget and complexity that was all manageable. The customer didn't want to change how they did things, but wanted the system to change how it did things, which wasn't possible with the tools I was using at the time.
PreGUI relational databases in DOS were fun, but this kind of thing drove me nuts. It wouldn't today, because SQL and sanitizing input is much easier.
Customers change their minds, and say "I didn't ask for that" all the time. Ask any waiter.
You're the exception not the rule. My view is not self centered.
I use Linux, Windows, Mac. I have a Blackberry and next phone will be Droid X or something similar. I have iPod, because it works with everything in my house (dock on stereo, iHome in kitchen etc), and I don't have to think about it.
I see things as tools, some are better than others at things. When they stop being useful, I'll move to something that is.
If you want to complain about VENDOR lockin, just take a look at CPU market. AMD and Intel, running on X86 BIOS based systems (for the most part). WHY? Because that is what runs Windows. The fact that Apple had to switch a few years ago is more troublesome to me than anything Apple is doing to the Mac Market.
Bingo, we have a winner.
The customer wanted to be able to sort by dates, I did that. The pain of doing things differently wasn't about anything other than not wanting to change when change is what was requested.
I would rather type to extra numbers than have to manually sort though records because data in a field wasn't indexable (DBaseIII) the way the customer wanted. But that is me, I can see the benefit of not doing things the hard way, and changing how I do things to get things done better, more efficiently.
Of course it is easy to solve that problem today, we have better tools for dealing with it. But the TYPE of problem still exists. Customers saying they want something, and realizing what they asked for isn't really what they want.
You're missing the point. (besides making assumptions that is is a current problem)
This was back in DbaseIII days (DOS,40x25 screens, monochrome CRTs). The problem is customers wanting something, but not willing to do what it might take to get there. OFTEN times choosing the harder way (manually sorting records) rather than doing things "differently".
You and the other people are missing the point.
I could have really customized the code and done a whole bunch of sanity checks on the user input, all to save two digits being entered. All of which would increase complexity and other types of problems. Defaulting to current year in programming logic is great, until it isn't. Then you're in a race to fix the exceptions, which adds to bloat and slowness.
And it is no wonder that there is so much database fubar out there with people coding defaults, having to fill in exceptions rather than making things explicit in the first place.
I could have had pull down menus, and/or clickable graphical calendars too. And people wonder why software is bloated with features only a few people want. Which is exactly what the article itself is saying.
Lastly, this was from DbaseIII days, not modern SQL and Web based forms generated and sanitized by Perl Scripts, which would make such a feature quick and dirty point click easy (for the user).
that all works until someone needs 4 to mean AM sometimes and PM all the other time.
Defaulting the current year makes sense, until you have cards for December being entered in January (11 months difference), a common yearly adventure.
Did you miss the part that she would rather manually sort through the records than type two characters?