This, ladies and gentlemen, is the essence of a paternalistic (and condescending) view, that's especially unwelcome (and dangerous), when shared by members of the government.
Shoo, shoo, shoo. Go away from whence you came and let the grown ups make their own decisions.
Well, this is another argument from you towards complete abolition of punishment — for anything...
Modern forensics can provide a solid chain of evidence tying someone to a crime.
Well, a) such evidence is not always available; and b) even when it is, there may be doubts. O.J. Simpson is free, in part, because his lawyers persuaded the jury with simple Math: this evidence links our client to the crime with 99.8 percent certainty (not sure about the exact figure). Well, that means, there are about twenty thousand people (in the 10 million Los Angeles), who could've been the real perpetrators!
And then, of course, there is always the real threat to justices — dishonest prosecutors and incompetent forensic "experts". So, no, there is no way to be absolutely sure, a convict is guilty (and this, BTW, is the only rational argument against an irreversible punishment like death penalty). Your "infinity + 1" remains a lunacy.
In your family's case, if I understand it right, the problem was not that they were innocent (they weren't!), but that their guilt (belonging to a certain race) was absurd.
I say infinite + 1.
Well, that means nobody can ever be punished, because there is always a chance, that they are innocent. Always...
Are you suggesting, we abolish all penal institutions? Because if you don't, your view is self-inconsistent and thus automatically wrong...
There is — or ought to be — a threshold in everybody's mind. All societies try to avoid punishing the innocent, but different ones are willing to go to different lengths to do so. Ancient Romans, for example, had some legal mechanisms for citizens inside the City (and 1.5 miles outside of it), but any further an executive's power was absolute — it was deemed acceptable to occasionally have an innocent suffer the executive's injustice so as not to burden the executive's power. Modern developed societies are nearly opposite — the executive's power was just trimmed even over non-citizens captured (very) far away.
The answer today is almost universally "yes". But what if the stakes are different — not 10:1, but 100:1?..
The idea is to set up a system with enough checks and balances to ensure that no one is punished unless they're pretty damn sure
This is a meaningless answer. All of the "checks and balances" impede prosecution. We still need them exactly for the reasons you state: to protect against accidentally punishing an innocent. And every time someone like O.J. Simpson is acquitted, we start thinking, whether there are too many impediments to prosecution — and too many guilty ones end up free.
So, what's your threshold?
The biggest problem right now is [...]
Yada-yada, yackity-yack. I asked to avoid changing the subject to "what we are"... Can't resist?
We are a free society — perhaps, the freest in today's world, even if may be hard to believe for someone, who has only ever experienced the American lifestyle.
But let's not change the subject to "what we are". The question was, what do people consider acceptable. How about you? How many guilty are you willing to leave unpunished to avoid accidentally hurting 1 innocent? 100? 1000? Infinite?
I don't think anybody should need a PI license. It — like most "licenses" — was invented by the Executive branch in order to be able to harass people without pesky troubles like going to court (and winning).
At least, in the case of "Maltese Falcon" type of an investigator, one might consider it. But for unarmed engineers, who do all their investigations from a computer?.. Crap, I may be guilty myself — I've already ran whois on the IP, which was trying to break into my server!..
Maybe not, but "MediaSentry" — and others trying to track down theft of purely intellectual property — certainly do, even if they don't set foot to Texas during their investigations. Much to Slashdot's approval...
Yes, they do investigations. No, they are not "shady" (armed) individuals lurking in the dark valleys...
Which law do you suppose either method violates? Contractual obligations, perhaps? But contracts have anti-P2P provisions already in them — it is the file-sharing customers, who are doing "illegal" things, if anybody...
It's not like you have any real choice in the cartel they formed.
Don't know about your neck of the woods, but here in NYC I can switch between two different DSL-providers and a cable-company. Plus the T-Mobile's recent announcement of offering wireless static Internet service.
But I did not start talking about (not) switching — the gp did...
Are you stating that even if an activity is illegal it should be condoned if it does not cause any harm?
No — all I'm saying is, punishment ought to be lighter for some crimes than others.
Investigating without a license is a far lighter crime (it should not be a crime at all, in my opinion), than stealing — however little is stolen, be it a few songs or a piece of bread. That's all.
I never suggested any government is Evil or Good. I merely asked you the definition of Evil
It was and remains patently obvious from your response, that your contempt for America's Government is far stronger than that for the Chinese. This makes you an idiot to anyone with my background immediately: there is no evil, that America has done in the last 100 years, that is not matched with aplomb (by orders of magnitude, that is) by something China has done in the last 60.
Don't argue — I'm not going to continue, as I'm tired of wasting pearls on swine. Just ask yourself, what would've happened to a Chinese michael moore (long ago)...
Slashdot Mirror
You forgot to list people wanting to:
This, ladies and gentlemen, is the essence of a paternalistic (and condescending) view, that's especially unwelcome (and dangerous), when shared by members of the government.
Shoo, shoo, shoo. Go away from whence you came and let the grown ups make their own decisions.
Well, this is another argument from you towards complete abolition of punishment — for anything...
Well, a) such evidence is not always available; and b) even when it is, there may be doubts. O.J. Simpson is free, in part, because his lawyers persuaded the jury with simple Math: this evidence links our client to the crime with 99.8 percent certainty (not sure about the exact figure). Well, that means, there are about twenty thousand people (in the 10 million Los Angeles), who could've been the real perpetrators!
And then, of course, there is always the real threat to justices — dishonest prosecutors and incompetent forensic "experts". So, no, there is no way to be absolutely sure, a convict is guilty (and this, BTW, is the only rational argument against an irreversible punishment like death penalty). Your "infinity + 1" remains a lunacy.
Try again...
In your family's case, if I understand it right, the problem was not that they were innocent (they weren't!), but that their guilt (belonging to a certain race) was absurd.
Well, that means nobody can ever be punished, because there is always a chance, that they are innocent. Always...
Are you suggesting, we abolish all penal institutions? Because if you don't, your view is self-inconsistent and thus automatically wrong...
There is — or ought to be — a threshold in everybody's mind. All societies try to avoid punishing the innocent, but different ones are willing to go to different lengths to do so. Ancient Romans, for example, had some legal mechanisms for citizens inside the City (and 1.5 miles outside of it), but any further an executive's power was absolute — it was deemed acceptable to occasionally have an innocent suffer the executive's injustice so as not to burden the executive's power. Modern developed societies are nearly opposite — the executive's power was just trimmed even over non-citizens captured (very) far away.
It is all about balancing the swiftness and efficiency of just prosecution against the dangers of punishing the innocent. And it all boils down to the original question (asked centuries ago): Is it better that ten guilty persons go free than that one innocent person be convicted?.
The answer today is almost universally "yes". But what if the stakes are different — not 10:1, but 100:1?..
This is a meaningless answer. All of the "checks and balances" impede prosecution. We still need them exactly for the reasons you state: to protect against accidentally punishing an innocent. And every time someone like O.J. Simpson is acquitted, we start thinking, whether there are too many impediments to prosecution — and too many guilty ones end up free.
So, what's your threshold?
Yada-yada, yackity-yack. I asked to avoid changing the subject to "what we are"... Can't resist?
We are a free society — perhaps, the freest in today's world, even if may be hard to believe for someone, who has only ever experienced the American lifestyle.
But let's not change the subject to "what we are". The question was, what do people consider acceptable. How about you? How many guilty are you willing to leave unpunished to avoid accidentally hurting 1 innocent? 100? 1000? Infinite?
Pre-built binaries are for wussies — real women and men build from source.
Right? Right.
What about a 100 guilty? A 1000? Does it stop anywhere?.. Are we willing to risk 1 innocent over any number of the guilty?
Wake me up, when credible evidence of agreement to increase or keep high the prices pops up...
You know, the kind, which trade union-members openly engage in with support from both lawmakers and public opinion...
Over what, exactly? Over charging your customers, whatever you want?
The elements are not "destroyed" by being put into electronics — or anything else, that does not leave the planet. They don't disappear from Earth.
I don't think anybody should need a PI license. It — like most "licenses" — was invented by the Executive branch in order to be able to harass people without pesky troubles like going to court (and winning).
At least, in the case of "Maltese Falcon" type of an investigator, one might consider it. But for unarmed engineers, who do all their investigations from a computer?.. Crap, I may be guilty myself — I've already ran whois on the IP, which was trying to break into my server!..
Maybe not, but "MediaSentry" — and others trying to track down theft of purely intellectual property — certainly do, even if they don't set foot to Texas during their investigations. Much to Slashdot's approval...
Yes, they do investigations. No, they are not "shady" (armed) individuals lurking in the dark valleys...
Which law do you suppose either method violates? Contractual obligations, perhaps? But contracts have anti-P2P provisions already in them — it is the file-sharing customers, who are doing "illegal" things, if anybody...
Not a solution to defeat ISPs attempts to control, what's going through their network.
Subtle changes in wording change the bias dramatically, don't they?
What makes you think, I would suggest such a book to a fellow slashdotter?!..
Well, if you redefine "zero" as "three", it all falls into place. Thank you.
[Citation needed]
Meanwhile, may I recommend the If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans?
Or are you also a book-hater?
The beginning of your post, where you listed three choices, contradicts the above-quoted ending...
Your best bet is to "vote the bums out". To continue buying into "natural monopoly" and other arguments against competition is an outrage...
Don't know about your neck of the woods, but here in NYC I can switch between two different DSL-providers and a cable-company. Plus the T-Mobile's recent announcement of offering wireless static Internet service.
But I did not start talking about (not) switching — the gp did...
Most people would not switch over "traffic shaping" either — not even most slashdotters.
Ultimately this comes down to whether ISPs are free to control their network, if it annoys customers...
No — all I'm saying is, punishment ought to be lighter for some crimes than others.
Investigating without a license is a far lighter crime (it should not be a crime at all, in my opinion), than stealing — however little is stolen, be it a few songs or a piece of bread. That's all.
It was and remains patently obvious from your response, that your contempt for America's Government is far stronger than that for the Chinese. This makes you an idiot to anyone with my background immediately: there is no evil, that America has done in the last 100 years, that is not matched with aplomb (by orders of magnitude, that is) by something China has done in the last 60.
Don't argue — I'm not going to continue, as I'm tired of wasting pearls on swine. Just ask yourself, what would've happened to a Chinese michael moore (long ago)...
I guess, we had no hope for 11 months already...
If I had a dime for every function, that says: "There is 0 foo", when it really means: "I don't know, how much foo there is", I'd be millionaire...