3) A guilty man who will eventually be emboldened. He may cause another incident, he may kill agaon, he may get away with it again. He wont get away with it many times before some random person kills him.
Um...did I miss any? Cuz I am seeing no problem here.
WTF? Regardless of whatever is going on in your head around the events of the situation involving Zimmerman, the idea that someone who kills and is not brought to justice because if they kill more people they'll get caught is retarded. We (as a society) don't want those extra people killed. At the very least, there is a problem there.
For game players, anyone who played Dragon Age, one of the kind of funny, but very different from the norm things they did was that I personally was quite fond of: each race had an accent, even if it was very mild, but the best decision they made, is I think they had the first dwarves with VO in the last 30 years that WEREN'T FREAKIN SCOTTISH.
So, interesting fact. I know the developer at Bioware in Canada who was responsible for the dwarves. The Dwarves were the last of the three major plot items to make it in the game; they were close to being removed due to time and budget restrictions. It turns out they had American accents, not because it was planned that way, but because they had a budget and L.A. voice actors are cheaper than British voice actors! That's it - they probably would have had British accents otherwise.
Actually, one of the things I love about the Dragon Age games is that the Dwarves have an American accent. They are also fiercely independent, look down on other cultures, and have an incredibly stratified yet still somewhat democratic society. It seems fitting.
So, interesting fact. I know the developer at Bioware in Canada who was responsible for the dwarves. The Dwarves were the last of the three major plot items to make it in the game; they were close to being removed due to time and budget restrictions. It turns out they had American accents, not because it was planned that way, but because they had a budget and L.A. voice actors are cheaper than British voice actors! That's it - they probably would have had British accents otherwise.
That statement is somewhat misleading. That statement implies that the British people, not Americans, invented baseball and the Americans didn't.
The American people in the 1750-1800s were, for all intents and purposes, British. The British "invented America". They were pretty much the one and the same for a long time.
Although I'm glad you are skeptical about the way the universe works and are correct to point out that science, by its fundamental process, is constantly proving old accepted science wrong, you're unfortunately very wrong about what a Scientific Theory is. And unfortunately you're wrong in the way that Creationists try to demean science.
A Scientific Theory is not a guess in the way that a detective has a theory on what happened. The Theory of Gravity is not speculation. The statement,
In science ALL things are theories, because we will never have a complete understanding....
is utterly incorrect. Most "things" are facts, not scientific theories. A plethora of facts and data points comprise a scientific theory. Furthermore,
...and the theories are eventually proven wrong
is also, well, untruthy:). Facts are proven wrong; theories aren't facts. Nuances of theories change. I am not away of any scientific theory that has ever just been completely thrown out the window. When new science and data about gravity comes along that disproves old science and data, one wouldn't say that the Theory of Gravity was wrong all along.
The reason this misunderstanding is dangerous is because Creationists like to use the misguided argument, "Evolution is just a theory." In Georgia we almost were forced to put this sticker on all biology books in the state. It's total ignorance of what Scientific Theories are. They should have added "Gravity is just a theory" to complete their perverse understanding of science.
I have never had a job which cared about pot, and I have only had nice jobs. In fact, one application said "Please list any felony crimes, excluding marijuana related charges."
People that think science is faith-based because they can't see electrons are hiding behind the real issue. Electrons can be tested and disproven, mathematics can be tested and disproven, and determining events that happened 5 million years ago can be tested and disproven, even though none of us were around.
Yes, you accept many scientific ideas on so-called "faith" because you don't want to test them yourself, but it's still possible to test scientific ideas and disprove them.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Cosmic Jewish Zombie Jesus, etc., cannot be tested and disproven, therefore they aren't science.
I'll probably get modded down, but I will point out 2 things:
You pointed out three things.
You _do_ know that a Catholic priest gave us the theory of the Big Bang, right?
This is completely irrelevant. It's a strawman argument. So what? That's like when Ann Coulter says Hitler was a vegetarian whenever she discusses vegetarianism.
a) You ignorant to assume that the Scientific Method is _mutually exclusive_ with Religion (the latter which is _supposed_ to be the Science of the Mind when it is not corrupted, but I digress.)
And
Have you _personally_ seen an electron?
Grammar failure there. Do you mean to say You are ignorant? Anyways, nobody says everything about religion and the Scientific Method it is mutually exclusive. There are some things that are mutually exclusive, but not all.
b) It is arrogant to assume your objective "faith" is somehow more valid then someone else's subjective faith who has a different set of assumptions. It would behoove you to spend less time criticizing others who don't think like you and focus on solving problems.
Anything that is testable is scientifically more valid than that which is not testable. We know that nobody can disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but that electrons can be tested and disproved. Therefore, electrons are scientifically more valid than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, even though a regular layman can't test or disprove electrons.
1. You CAN fast forward. 2. You should have watched it, you are making assumptions without evidence. It is well made and interesting and it doesn't claim to be a brand new invention.
Thank you. My sig has been your point for years because of the the same crap that people keep spreading. I swear it's an internet thing - nobody said that America wasn't a democracy 25 years ago.
Totally agree. I get angry. When I was a child, it was worse, and I had tantrums. When I was a teenager, it got (a little) better. When I was in college, when I had my first job, etc. I'm at the point where I would never write such putrid vitriol. It's probably because I've been humbled enough (even though I'm really smart) to reign in my emotions when confronted with inferiority because I myself am not perfect. The fact that he's an older man writing with that language reeks of someone who hasn't had many experiences of being humbled... i.e. someone never calling his bullshit. If you just saw that last part independently, you'd probably presume it came from a snarky little teenager written on an internet forum.
ah I guess the key phrase here was "killer by itself". Anyways, we all know that obese people and people who don't sleep have more health problems and hence "more unhealthy" than otherwise.
So here's a plea: if you have anything to do with security in a distro, and think that my kids (replace "my kids" with "sales people on the road" if you think your main customers are businesses) need to have the root password to access some wireless network, or to be able to print out a paper, or to change the date-and-time settings, please just kill yourself now. The world will be a better place.
This sounds like a post from an anonymous coward on Slashdot!
Absolutely, I do see what you're saying. And I don't think I have a perfect answer for it.
I suppose the reason that I accept bias intimidation laws as acceptable in theory is that such offences are an offence on top of the existing offences. If someone intends* to harm many by harming one, then there should be a way to provide punishment for the effect of harming many. If someone didn't intend to harm many by harming few, then they shouldn't be punished for it. * intent is the key word here
If perhaps there was a good way to have such a punishment without bias intimidation laws, I would be OK with that. For example, the range of punishment could be much wider (a prank against a friend vs. an attack on a community could mean community service versus many years in jail for the same offence). I don't see how to codify this, though, without including the measures of "harming many vs harming a few" into every single law.
And yes, I do see the inherit problem with the very idea of bias intimidation laws. They are abused, as such is the case in Ravi's scenario. They are obviously misunderstood - lots of people think that they are laws criminalizing thought/hate (which they aren't - they only criminalize actions), and apparently they are actually used as such sometimes. I'm just trying to clearly separate what they are meant for from what they are unintentionally thought to be for and incorrectly used for.
Idiot. We aren't talking about mere disagreement. We're talking about agents of the State committing violence against someone for the "crime" of turning on a webcam.
No, we aren't talking about any agent of the State committing violence by the act of a court prosecution. If that's the case then every court case is an agent of the State committing violence.
And if you didn't catch the irony, the judge and prosecutor shouldn't be killed even if they are wrong. And the "crime" wasn't a "crime" in quotes, it was an actual crime of which most everyone here seems to agree with. They don't agree with the degree of punishment nor the bias intimidation accusation (and neither do I), but they tend to agree that Ravi did indeed commit a crime by turning on the webcam and publishing another citizen's private, intimate moments.
it has been proved that bad sleep is a killer by itself
Citation needed
Totally disagree that a citation is needed. You should already know this. You wouldn't have asked for a citation if the quote was "it has been proved that obesity is a killer by itself".
If you are under enough stress, or have some other problem keeping you awake, its as likely those issues are to blame as the use of these drugs. The headlines could just as well have been "Trouble Sleeping may be Killing you".
OK, fair enough. But what would you do about the case of a burning cross or an effigy of a hanging man in a black family's yard in a mixed neighborhood?
In reality, such an offence is a paltry collection of property violations: illegal trespassing and slight destruction of a part of the yard. Nobody was hurt, yet the horror and repercussions of the crime is obviously much more than the simple property violations. In reality, such a crime would cause terror throughout the entire neighborhood. The black families would live in fear. And likely some of the white families would learn to think less of the black families, when such actions can be taken with such insignificant repercussions, and be more likely to do things against the black families whereas before they wouldn't.
Now, like I said elsewhere, I don't believe the case against Ravi constitutes a hate crime. But to say all hate crime laws should not exist, then what should the law do about the above scenario?
1. There is supposed to be proof that the defendant intended to cause harm to a group of people. The jury decides if the proof is good enough. 2. As for most of your other questions, I supposed these questions are decided by the laws written by legislators, and the judges who have to interpret them.
Slashdot Mirror
3) A guilty man who will eventually be emboldened. He may cause another incident, he may kill agaon, he may get away with it again. He wont get away with it many times before some random person kills him.
Um...did I miss any? Cuz I am seeing no problem here.
WTF? Regardless of whatever is going on in your head around the events of the situation involving Zimmerman, the idea that someone who kills and is not brought to justice because if they kill more people they'll get caught is retarded. We (as a society) don't want those extra people killed. At the very least, there is a problem there.
Wow, nice one!
For game players, anyone who played Dragon Age, one of the kind of funny, but very different from the norm things they did was that I personally was quite fond of: each race had an accent, even if it was very mild, but the best decision they made, is I think they had the first dwarves with VO in the last 30 years that WEREN'T FREAKIN SCOTTISH.
So, interesting fact. I know the developer at Bioware in Canada who was responsible for the dwarves. The Dwarves were the last of the three major plot items to make it in the game; they were close to being removed due to time and budget restrictions. It turns out they had American accents, not because it was planned that way, but because they had a budget and L.A. voice actors are cheaper than British voice actors! That's it - they probably would have had British accents otherwise.
Actually, one of the things I love about the Dragon Age games is that the Dwarves have an American accent. They are also fiercely independent, look down on other cultures, and have an incredibly stratified yet still somewhat democratic society. It seems fitting.
So, interesting fact. I know the developer at Bioware in Canada who was responsible for the dwarves. The Dwarves were the last of the three major plot items to make it in the game; they were close to being removed due to time and budget restrictions. It turns out they had American accents, not because it was planned that way, but because they had a budget and L.A. voice actors are cheaper than British voice actors! That's it - they probably would have had British accents otherwise.
the Rohirrim Texan accents (close to the Hobbits, still country but a little more refined)
HA! Where'd you get the idea that Texas accents are more refined than other Southern accents? Nothing from Texas is "more refined" than anything. ;)
That statement is somewhat misleading. That statement implies that the British people, not Americans, invented baseball and the Americans didn't.
The American people in the 1750-1800s were, for all intents and purposes, British. The British "invented America". They were pretty much the one and the same for a long time.
Although I'm glad you are skeptical about the way the universe works and are correct to point out that science, by its fundamental process, is constantly proving old accepted science wrong, you're unfortunately very wrong about what a Scientific Theory is. And unfortunately you're wrong in the way that Creationists try to demean science.
A Scientific Theory is not a guess in the way that a detective has a theory on what happened. The Theory of Gravity is not speculation. The statement,
In science ALL things are theories, because we will never have a complete understanding....
is utterly incorrect. Most "things" are facts, not scientific theories. A plethora of facts and data points comprise a scientific theory. Furthermore,
...and the theories are eventually proven wrong
is also, well, untruthy :). Facts are proven wrong; theories aren't facts. Nuances of theories change. I am not away of any scientific theory that has ever just been completely thrown out the window. When new science and data about gravity comes along that disproves old science and data, one wouldn't say that the Theory of Gravity was wrong all along.
The reason this misunderstanding is dangerous is because Creationists like to use the misguided argument, "Evolution is just a theory." In Georgia we almost were forced to put this sticker on all biology books in the state. It's total ignorance of what Scientific Theories are. They should have added "Gravity is just a theory" to complete their perverse understanding of science.
I have never had a job which cared about pot, and I have only had nice jobs. In fact, one application said "Please list any felony crimes, excluding marijuana related charges."
+1
People that think science is faith-based because they can't see electrons are hiding behind the real issue. Electrons can be tested and disproven, mathematics can be tested and disproven, and determining events that happened 5 million years ago can be tested and disproven, even though none of us were around.
Yes, you accept many scientific ideas on so-called "faith" because you don't want to test them yourself, but it's still possible to test scientific ideas and disprove them.
The Flying Spaghetti Monster, the Cosmic Jewish Zombie Jesus, etc., cannot be tested and disproven, therefore they aren't science.
I'll probably get modded down, but I will point out 2 things:
You pointed out three things.
You _do_ know that a Catholic priest gave us the theory of the Big Bang, right?
This is completely irrelevant. It's a strawman argument. So what? That's like when Ann Coulter says Hitler was a vegetarian whenever she discusses vegetarianism.
a) You ignorant to assume that the Scientific Method is _mutually exclusive_ with Religion (the latter which is _supposed_ to be the Science of the Mind when it is not corrupted, but I digress.)
And
Have you _personally_ seen an electron?
Grammar failure there. Do you mean to say You are ignorant? Anyways, nobody says everything about religion and the Scientific Method it is mutually exclusive. There are some things that are mutually exclusive, but not all.
b) It is arrogant to assume your objective "faith" is somehow more valid then someone else's subjective faith who has a different set of assumptions. It would behoove you to spend less time criticizing others who don't think like you and focus on solving problems.
Anything that is testable is scientifically more valid than that which is not testable. We know that nobody can disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but that electrons can be tested and disproved. Therefore, electrons are scientifically more valid than the Flying Spaghetti Monster, even though a regular layman can't test or disprove electrons.
1. You CAN fast forward.
2. You should have watched it, you are making assumptions without evidence. It is well made and interesting and it doesn't claim to be a brand new invention.
But it only takes 50% + 1 to elect a senator/congressman, or to dictate that gays can't marry in California, for example.
See my sig.
Thank you. My sig has been your point for years because of the the same crap that people keep spreading. I swear it's an internet thing - nobody said that America wasn't a democracy 25 years ago.
Hey look at my sig!
Totally agree. I get angry. When I was a child, it was worse, and I had tantrums. When I was a teenager, it got (a little) better. When I was in college, when I had my first job, etc. I'm at the point where I would never write such putrid vitriol. It's probably because I've been humbled enough (even though I'm really smart) to reign in my emotions when confronted with inferiority because I myself am not perfect. The fact that he's an older man writing with that language reeks of someone who hasn't had many experiences of being humbled... i.e. someone never calling his bullshit. If you just saw that last part independently, you'd probably presume it came from a snarky little teenager written on an internet forum.
ah I guess the key phrase here was "killer by itself". Anyways, we all know that obese people and people who don't sleep have more health problems and hence "more unhealthy" than otherwise.
From Linus's post,
So here's a plea: if you have anything to do with security in a distro, and think that my kids (replace "my kids" with "sales people on the road" if you think your main customers are businesses) need to have the root password to access some wireless network, or to be able to print out a paper, or to change the date-and-time settings, please just kill yourself now. The world will be a better place.
This sounds like a post from an anonymous coward on Slashdot!
Absolutely, I do see what you're saying. And I don't think I have a perfect answer for it.
I suppose the reason that I accept bias intimidation laws as acceptable in theory is that such offences are an offence on top of the existing offences. If someone intends* to harm many by harming one, then there should be a way to provide punishment for the effect of harming many. If someone didn't intend to harm many by harming few, then they shouldn't be punished for it.
* intent is the key word here
If perhaps there was a good way to have such a punishment without bias intimidation laws, I would be OK with that. For example, the range of punishment could be much wider (a prank against a friend vs. an attack on a community could mean community service versus many years in jail for the same offence). I don't see how to codify this, though, without including the measures of "harming many vs harming a few" into every single law.
And yes, I do see the inherit problem with the very idea of bias intimidation laws. They are abused, as such is the case in Ravi's scenario. They are obviously misunderstood - lots of people think that they are laws criminalizing thought/hate (which they aren't - they only criminalize actions), and apparently they are actually used as such sometimes. I'm just trying to clearly separate what they are meant for from what they are unintentionally thought to be for and incorrectly used for.
Idiot. We aren't talking about mere disagreement. We're talking about agents of the State committing violence against someone for the "crime" of turning on a webcam.
No, we aren't talking about any agent of the State committing violence by the act of a court prosecution. If that's the case then every court case is an agent of the State committing violence.
And if you didn't catch the irony, the judge and prosecutor shouldn't be killed even if they are wrong. And the "crime" wasn't a "crime" in quotes, it was an actual crime of which most everyone here seems to agree with. They don't agree with the degree of punishment nor the bias intimidation accusation (and neither do I), but they tend to agree that Ravi did indeed commit a crime by turning on the webcam and publishing another citizen's private, intimate moments.
it has been proved that bad sleep is a killer by itself
Citation needed
Totally disagree that a citation is needed. You should already know this. You wouldn't have asked for a citation if the quote was "it has been proved that obesity is a killer by itself".
If you are under enough stress, or have some other problem keeping you awake, its as likely those issues are to blame as the use of these drugs. The headlines could just as well have been "Trouble Sleeping may be Killing you".
+1
OK, fair enough. But what would you do about the case of a burning cross or an effigy of a hanging man in a black family's yard in a mixed neighborhood?
In reality, such an offence is a paltry collection of property violations: illegal trespassing and slight destruction of a part of the yard. Nobody was hurt, yet the horror and repercussions of the crime is obviously much more than the simple property violations. In reality, such a crime would cause terror throughout the entire neighborhood. The black families would live in fear. And likely some of the white families would learn to think less of the black families, when such actions can be taken with such insignificant repercussions, and be more likely to do things against the black families whereas before they wouldn't.
Now, like I said elsewhere, I don't believe the case against Ravi constitutes a hate crime. But to say all hate crime laws should not exist, then what should the law do about the above scenario?
Oh I see, there were two plea bargains. The first was for 3-5 years, the second one was with no jail time.
1. There is supposed to be proof that the defendant intended to cause harm to a group of people. The jury decides if the proof is good enough.
2. As for most of your other questions, I supposed these questions are decided by the laws written by legislators, and the judges who have to interpret them.