Where is the world's law of "don't contaminate/pollute the environment"? - Some folks call it karma, and it's there, it's just slower moving, and carries a far heavier hand than any man-made court. Reminds me of George Carlin's take on environmental issues. Paraphrased: The world will be fine, it's the people that are F@#@%d!:)
I was just kidding, but I agree, met a few women camping over the years. Wouldn't want to spend a week in backwoods country and try, but a day of roughing it can be an eye opener.
Maybe not, but (and I'm totally freakin' guessing here...), it might be possible for people to attune their senses to a particular gender. Most people would be attuned to pheromones from members of the opposite sex, but if someone had a strong desire for someone of the same sex, it would seem natural for them to hone their skills in selecting one with a stronger sexual "signature". This is, of course, as long as some sensors for both sets of pheromones exist exist in both sexes, which is likely, considering most other animals tend to figure out which is the alpha male/female" with only a small portion of top members challenging for that role. You only get one or two animals in a pack of dogs that challenge each other, others tend to fight over lesser roles, as if they just kind of know, pheromones being a possible explanation for this.
The couple of same-sex folks I've known tend to ignore members of the opposite sex, like they've trained themselves to overlook what might be stronger pheromones from the opposite sex. But, like I said, I'm just guessing, but it makes sense, considering people are constantly retraining their brains after accidents and so on. Mix in a flush of sexual hormones, and I'm guessing the brain would be eager to adapt to the new paradigm.
Hmmm, I was just thinking that cute little teddy bear from the sci-fi movie Screamers (1995). Then again, if I were wounded, I'm not sure I'd want some big, obvious "lifesaving" robotic bear lifting me up anyway. Sometimes being dragged painfully along the ground by guys who know how to hide, and when to duck is a better option, IMO. Sure, the guy controlling the bear wants you to make it back safely, but I think that another person out there has a lot more invested in (both of) your safety.
And then there's a question of sniper traps, which these are supposedly going to help with. From the sniper's point of view, if you see the bear, you might as well just shoot the soldier, right? Punish the soldier for the rescue, then try and damage the bear, and scram. On the other hand, if you think that wounded soldier might still lure others into range, you're more likely to sit it out. If you're the soldier lying on the ground, you might want them to string the sniper along a little, till your buddies can pinpoint him and deal with him properly.
Like anything, sounds nice, but real life is probably going to relegate these things to niche situations, or more likely, to civilian duty. Then again, there's somethign to be said for the army of angry looking robotic teddy bears coming at you. But they gotta look like REAL teddy bears to have the maximum effect.:)
>>>"That said, it is pretty obvious from psychological studies that what we call a "sixth sense" is the brain making sense out of input that is below the conscious "noise" threshold. Your brain doesn't raise the vast majority of your neural input to a conscious level. If it did you couldn't consciously filter all the sounds, visual stimulation, tactile experience, balance sensation from your inner ear, etc. It would just be far too much to handle."
Speak for yourself, human. Besides, how wonderful is a brain that will occupy itself with American idol, radio, gossip, etc., but ignore items such as that large chunk of rock that you're about to break your neck tripping over?:)
I'm sorry, but the reality is that Linux pales in comparison to Windows with regards to user friendliness. --Okay, I'm a little grumpy this morning (it's early), so sorry folks...
How is using Wine simpler than just using windows? --Because it's a lot easier and cheaper to spend a few minute setting up wine than buying and installing windows onto another partition to run a couple old windows programs that somebody wants me to use.
Why bother emulating it when it comes standard on most pre-built systems that the majority of computer illiterate will be purchasing? --Because my system isn't pre-built, and I'm not computer illiterate.
Its pointless for those kinds of people. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see ANY OS properly compete with Windows, but I don't see it happening. What will the computer illiterates do with their computer? --The same as they're doing today. Not much. The "choice" of OS and GUI have no bearing on someone who doesn't care. They managed (when they were forced to) with DOS, they'll be in the same boat with any future OS.
I'm willing to bet its gaming, word processing (possibly some other apps that come in Office), surfing and chatting, and playing media. --I'm willing to bet it's probably not even that. True computer phobics will go to familiar programs, have other people set up things and show them how to activate them. As long as someone is there to help and show them how to do the handful of things they need, they'll use any OS. I'd hazard a guess that Linux's myriad of configuration options might offer such people a better experience. Instead of trying to force people into MS's view of user interaction, Linux will work as configured, and won't scare them with "your subscription is about to expire!", "your anti-virus is out of date!", etc.
Yeah its wonderful that Linux is a very secure OS, but its too bad it doesnt play any games. --You mean games, as in the popular ones that lots of people buy that are typically ported to Linux? Or do you mean the kind of games MS plays with their users?
Games for Windows, no matter how much I despise it, will bring make it even more simple for those who want to game on a PC but have trouble setting up in the current PC gaming world. Windows is on top and it is folly to think its up top without a reason. --It's folly to base your opinion on one aspect of anything. You're obviously a gamer, and some of your choice games aren't made for Linux. Personally, I'm not into running on the gaming treadmill. I'd like to know a game is good before I spend my cash on it. A key to this decision is to see that gamers like it enough to request a Linux version.
--As you can see, this is all subjective. MS Windows works for you, Linux works for me. Blanket statements either way are useless. However, my choice is a lot cheaper to implement...leaving me with more money for games.:)
I've seen a similar thing in parking lots. A wasp or similar gets stuck in a car, and it flys around a little, as the car heats up. Then it starts buzzing around in what's best described as a mad attempt to escape. Then, it lands/falls, curls up, and dies. I've seen it happen a couple times over the course of my life, and my guess is the insect is overheated beyond repair when it starts doing the crazy buzzing, it just still has some ability to fly around a bit, on reflexes alone.
BTW, I'm not totally cold hearted about watching this happen. These days, when i see something struggling to get out of a hot car (bugs, pets, old people), I'll usually smash one or two of the windows so it can escape.;)
Not to be, uh, yeah, what the heck. Aside from the fact that (as a previous poster said) most folks wouldn't know Reiser from raisins, why would the name hurt the project? I could see where it might actually help.
Admin: "And it's using the Reiser filesystem."
User: "Oh, that's nice."
A: "Reiser killed his wife, but people liked the filesystem so much, they kept it going when he went to jail."
U: "Wow, it must be good! Reiser, huh?"
The user then shares this tiny twig of information with his friends, who share it with their friends, because all of them want to feel like they have a clue about computers, and the IT world.
>>> As soon as the main characters are forced to kill a cop, they open up with everything they have--they're already in as deep as it gets, past that point not getting caught is all that matters.
Your last point is pretty much where I was trying to head. It's not so much about dealing with people once the deed is done, it's dealing with them before they put them in that situation. Not whether they're thinking about facing life when they rob the bank, but the options they might be thinking about before they even start planning the crime.
A more finely grained system of punishment, at the "high end", might deter folks who would otherwise face one of two punishments, neither of which approaches the damage they might do to society by their actions. Sitting around or dying aren't punishments, they are just part of life. In the example, you'd have robbers telling themselves, "Well, I'll rob the bank, I'll even use the gun, but if it comes to killing a cop, I'm not killing more than one." Not good for the one cop, might save the life of the others.
Being in acute misery for a long, long time might cause someone to take up a hobby to keep themselves from following through with their nutty fantasies. Or better, perhaps seek some sort of help.
Well, maybe two steps, but "in defense" of my argument, removing the limbs makes it easier to transport. It takes an extra level of coldness to do it, but killing an almost due pregnant woman is a whole different deal. Most psychos would simply wait, as the childbirth might do her in. Besides, what better defense than standing there crying with a newborn in your arms?
But that's just me speaking...I mean, a thought that crossed my mind.:)
>>> If it was a clinical murder, something that was rationally acted on, no way I'd let someone like that program my OS!
I don't know. I mean, if he's properly handled the, um, error, and manages to get out of it despite considerable evidence that he's guilty, I'd be more inclined to use his skills. I mean, the guy obviously knows how to approach every angle!
>>> While I can attach the idea of naming an unborn child, even a dead one, for 'emotive connection' reasons, perhaps it's because, at least to me, "son" implies a relationship beyond "inhabitant of womb".
Go spend some time around a woman about to give birth. Sure, she's not holding the kid in her arms, but she's likely had/planning a baby shower, has a house full of baby stuff, and has spent a lot of time thinking about being a parent. And depending on how she died, you can bet one of her last thoughts was about that inhabitant in her womb.
While I agree with you to a point, I don't necessarily disagree with that kind of usage. It takes a particularly cold-blooded type of person to murder a pregnant woman. Most "regular" murderers wouldn't do it. As such, the usage is acceptable, because it shows that he was a step beyond his peers in this regard. That's the risk he took when he killed his pregnant wife, and you know it must have crossed his mind in some way, at some point in time long before he committed the act.
In other words, I have no particular sympathy that his actions are used against him to their full effect.
>>> Can you bring someone back to life 8 years later when you find out that the killer was really the neighbors 12 year old asocial nutcase kid rather than the husband?
Yes we can, but the damn things keep chewing on people's brains.
1. Of, relating to, or dependent on circumstances. ----> Includes every situation. It's all dependant on the crime, for instance.
2. Of no primary significance; incidental. ----> Especially if there's a video with good audio.
3. Complete and particular; full of detail: a circumstantial report about the debate. ----> Unless the witness possesses a normal memory, which tends to alter details on it's own.
4. Full of ceremonial display. ----> An average courtroom.
>>> All the evidence suggests that the severity of punishments have little to NO impact on the number of those crimes perpetrated.
All the evidence? As stated, the "severity of punishments" can be explained by the realization that the punishments aren't typically punishments to those involved. As countering evidence, most people don't recommit minor crimes, one night in a cell block is good enough for them. Also, how many of us might have thought about committing violence against someone at some point, but didn't, because we don't want to be in prison or on death row? That a fairly small portion of criminals don't see severe punishment as a deterrent doesn't mean it is ineffective.
>>> So why do you want to do this again? Revenge? An eye for an eye? Is that it?
Deterrence. As long as society isn't willing to educate, employ, or provide for all it's members, you're going to need some means of dealing with the folks that put themselves into situations where violent crime is a viable means to an end. Happy, satisfied people don't commit violent crimes. To deter the extremely depressed, scared, and others whose emotions have dropped to a primitive level, you need a threat that catches their attention. Something that threatens to make their existance worse. It won't work for everyone, but not using it at all, because it makes us feel bad, means we're not using all the tools we have to deal with the problem. Currently, it's like we have a $20 set of tools, and we're trying to use them to fix every problem.
Simply knowing that the punishment is available, even if it's rarely used, is a good thing, if it stops one violent crime. Unfortunately, we'll probably never know exactly how many crimes ARE NOT committed because of the threat of a certain punishment. Which it why it's more important to have a variety of them available, even if we almost never use them. The more we have, the more people will likely find one that convinces them it's not worth it.
Besides, we're not talking about shoplifters, we're talking about people who take the life of another human. You don't just wake up a murderer, there's a whole lot of things that lead up to the situation, and that means a whole lot of time to convince such people to avoid this behavior. We're simply not convincing enough, currently.
Which is why many countries have the concept of a jury...because a single person is often too far one way or the other, while a (small!) group will tend to moderate it's own judgement.
Slashdot Mirror
Where is the world's law of "don't contaminate/pollute the environment"? :)
-
Some folks call it karma, and it's there, it's just slower moving, and carries a far heavier hand than any man-made court. Reminds me of George Carlin's take on environmental issues. Paraphrased: The world will be fine, it's the people that are F@#@%d!
I was just kidding, but I agree, met a few women camping over the years. Wouldn't want to spend a week in backwoods country and try, but a day of roughing it can be an eye opener.
Maybe not, but (and I'm totally freakin' guessing here...), it might be possible for people to attune their senses to a particular gender. Most people would be attuned to pheromones from members of the opposite sex, but if someone had a strong desire for someone of the same sex, it would seem natural for them to hone their skills in selecting one with a stronger sexual "signature". This is, of course, as long as some sensors for both sets of pheromones exist exist in both sexes, which is likely, considering most other animals tend to figure out which is the alpha male/female" with only a small portion of top members challenging for that role. You only get one or two animals in a pack of dogs that challenge each other, others tend to fight over lesser roles, as if they just kind of know, pheromones being a possible explanation for this.
The couple of same-sex folks I've known tend to ignore members of the opposite sex, like they've trained themselves to overlook what might be stronger pheromones from the opposite sex. But, like I said, I'm just guessing, but it makes sense, considering people are constantly retraining their brains after accidents and so on. Mix in a flush of sexual hormones, and I'm guessing the brain would be eager to adapt to the new paradigm.
He says as he sits at home alone typing... :)
>>It could also be a wave motion cannon.
:P
Oh goody, like the wave maker at the pool??!!
Hmmm, I was just thinking that cute little teddy bear from the sci-fi movie Screamers (1995). Then again, if I were wounded, I'm not sure I'd want some big, obvious "lifesaving" robotic bear lifting me up anyway. Sometimes being dragged painfully along the ground by guys who know how to hide, and when to duck is a better option, IMO. Sure, the guy controlling the bear wants you to make it back safely, but I think that another person out there has a lot more invested in (both of) your safety.
:)
And then there's a question of sniper traps, which these are supposedly going to help with. From the sniper's point of view, if you see the bear, you might as well just shoot the soldier, right? Punish the soldier for the rescue, then try and damage the bear, and scram. On the other hand, if you think that wounded soldier might still lure others into range, you're more likely to sit it out. If you're the soldier lying on the ground, you might want them to string the sniper along a little, till your buddies can pinpoint him and deal with him properly.
Like anything, sounds nice, but real life is probably going to relegate these things to niche situations, or more likely, to civilian duty. Then again, there's somethign to be said for the army of angry looking robotic teddy bears coming at you. But they gotta look like REAL teddy bears to have the maximum effect.
>>>"That said, it is pretty obvious from psychological studies that what we call a "sixth sense" is the brain making sense out of input that is below the conscious "noise" threshold. Your brain doesn't raise the vast majority of your neural input to a conscious level. If it did you couldn't consciously filter all the sounds, visual stimulation, tactile experience, balance sensation from your inner ear, etc. It would just be far too much to handle."
:)
Speak for yourself, human. Besides, how wonderful is a brain that will occupy itself with American idol, radio, gossip, etc., but ignore items such as that large chunk of rock that you're about to break your neck tripping over?
I'm sorry, but the reality is that Linux pales in comparison to Windows with regards to user friendliness.
:)
--Okay, I'm a little grumpy this morning (it's early), so sorry folks...
How is using Wine simpler than just using windows?
--Because it's a lot easier and cheaper to spend a few minute setting up wine than buying and installing windows onto another partition to run a couple old windows programs that somebody wants me to use.
Why bother emulating it when it comes standard on most pre-built systems that the majority of computer illiterate will be purchasing?
--Because my system isn't pre-built, and I'm not computer illiterate.
Its pointless for those kinds of people. Don't get me wrong, I would love to see ANY OS properly compete with Windows, but I don't see it happening. What will the computer illiterates do with their computer?
--The same as they're doing today. Not much. The "choice" of OS and GUI have no bearing on someone who doesn't care. They managed (when they were forced to) with DOS, they'll be in the same boat with any future OS.
I'm willing to bet its gaming, word processing (possibly some other apps that come in Office), surfing and chatting, and playing media.
--I'm willing to bet it's probably not even that. True computer phobics will go to familiar programs, have other people set up things and show them how to activate them. As long as someone is there to help and show them how to do the handful of things they need, they'll use any OS. I'd hazard a guess that Linux's myriad of configuration options might offer such people a better experience. Instead of trying to force people into MS's view of user interaction, Linux will work as configured, and won't scare them with "your subscription is about to expire!", "your anti-virus is out of date!", etc.
Yeah its wonderful that Linux is a very secure OS, but its too bad it doesnt play any games.
--You mean games, as in the popular ones that lots of people buy that are typically ported to Linux? Or do you mean the kind of games MS plays with their users?
Games for Windows, no matter how much I despise it, will bring make it even more simple for those who want to game on a PC but have trouble setting up in the current PC gaming world. Windows is on top and it is folly to think its up top without a reason.
--It's folly to base your opinion on one aspect of anything. You're obviously a gamer, and some of your choice games aren't made for Linux. Personally, I'm not into running on the gaming treadmill. I'd like to know a game is good before I spend my cash on it. A key to this decision is to see that gamers like it enough to request a Linux version.
--As you can see, this is all subjective. MS Windows works for you, Linux works for me. Blanket statements either way are useless. However, my choice is a lot cheaper to implement...leaving me with more money for games.
Which means the result will be a little of both, and utterly worthless in the long run, right? :)
I've seen a similar thing in parking lots. A wasp or similar gets stuck in a car, and it flys around a little, as the car heats up. Then it starts buzzing around in what's best described as a mad attempt to escape. Then, it lands/falls, curls up, and dies. I've seen it happen a couple times over the course of my life, and my guess is the insect is overheated beyond repair when it starts doing the crazy buzzing, it just still has some ability to fly around a bit, on reflexes alone.
;)
BTW, I'm not totally cold hearted about watching this happen. These days, when i see something struggling to get out of a hot car (bugs, pets, old people), I'll usually smash one or two of the windows so it can escape.
You forgot the rest of the story:
If yes:
Normal person=>What, where, when, why?
Geek=>Oh. Well, who's leading the project now?
If no:
Normal person=>Who else might have done it?
Geek=>That's good, that backlog is really building.
Hmmm, maybe it wasn't Hans at all...what do we know about these kids, anyway?
Not to be, uh, yeah, what the heck. Aside from the fact that (as a previous poster said) most folks wouldn't know Reiser from raisins, why would the name hurt the project? I could see where it might actually help.
Admin: "And it's using the Reiser filesystem."
User: "Oh, that's nice."
A: "Reiser killed his wife, but people liked the filesystem so much, they kept it going when he went to jail."
U: "Wow, it must be good! Reiser, huh?"
The user then shares this tiny twig of information with his friends, who share it with their friends, because all of them want to feel like they have a clue about computers, and the IT world.
>>> As soon as the main characters are forced to kill a cop, they open up with everything they have--they're already in as deep as it gets, past that point not getting caught is all that matters.
Your last point is pretty much where I was trying to head. It's not so much about dealing with people once the deed is done, it's dealing with them before they put them in that situation. Not whether they're thinking about facing life when they rob the bank, but the options they might be thinking about before they even start planning the crime.
A more finely grained system of punishment, at the "high end", might deter folks who would otherwise face one of two punishments, neither of which approaches the damage they might do to society by their actions. Sitting around or dying aren't punishments, they are just part of life. In the example, you'd have robbers telling themselves, "Well, I'll rob the bank, I'll even use the gun, but if it comes to killing a cop, I'm not killing more than one." Not good for the one cop, might save the life of the others.
Being in acute misery for a long, long time might cause someone to take up a hobby to keep themselves from following through with their nutty fantasies. Or better, perhaps seek some sort of help.
Well, maybe two steps, but "in defense" of my argument, removing the limbs makes it easier to transport. It takes an extra level of coldness to do it, but killing an almost due pregnant woman is a whole different deal. Most psychos would simply wait, as the childbirth might do her in. Besides, what better defense than standing there crying with a newborn in your arms?
:)
But that's just me speaking...I mean, a thought that crossed my mind.
>>> Is their a reason why he can't continue working on this project from jail?
Er, it might be a little difficult to type when you're bent over the keyboard?
>>> If it was a clinical murder, something that was rationally acted on, no way I'd let someone like that program my OS!
I don't know. I mean, if he's properly handled the, um, error, and manages to get out of it despite considerable evidence that he's guilty, I'd be more inclined to use his skills. I mean, the guy obviously knows how to approach every angle!
Perhaps as a warning to any country that is thinking of implementing an internet-based jury system? That happens, I'm never even speeding again. :)
LMAO! I have this image of one cop nudging another and saying, "Hey Jim, when I said bring a dog over to smell the scene..."
>>> While I can attach the idea of naming an unborn child, even a dead one, for 'emotive connection' reasons, perhaps it's because, at least to me, "son" implies a relationship beyond "inhabitant of womb".
Go spend some time around a woman about to give birth. Sure, she's not holding the kid in her arms, but she's likely had/planning a baby shower, has a house full of baby stuff, and has spent a lot of time thinking about being a parent. And depending on how she died, you can bet one of her last thoughts was about that inhabitant in her womb.
While I agree with you to a point, I don't necessarily disagree with that kind of usage. It takes a particularly cold-blooded type of person to murder a pregnant woman. Most "regular" murderers wouldn't do it. As such, the usage is acceptable, because it shows that he was a step beyond his peers in this regard. That's the risk he took when he killed his pregnant wife, and you know it must have crossed his mind in some way, at some point in time long before he committed the act.
In other words, I have no particular sympathy that his actions are used against him to their full effect.
>>> Can you bring someone back to life 8 years later when you find out that the killer was really the neighbors 12 year old asocial nutcase kid rather than the husband?
Yes we can, but the damn things keep chewing on people's brains.
>>> That's incorrect -- eyewitness testimony isn't circumstantial.
Circumstantial:
1. Of, relating to, or dependent on circumstances.
----> Includes every situation. It's all dependant on the crime, for instance.
2. Of no primary significance; incidental.
----> Especially if there's a video with good audio.
3. Complete and particular; full of detail: a circumstantial report about the debate.
----> Unless the witness possesses a normal memory, which tends to alter details on it's own.
4. Full of ceremonial display.
----> An average courtroom.
I agree. After all, he was truly a gentleman to take care of his kids the same weekend he killed his wife.
Ah, crap. I'm no good with this tact thing...
>>> All the evidence suggests that the severity of punishments have little to NO impact on the number of those crimes perpetrated.
All the evidence? As stated, the "severity of punishments" can be explained by the realization that the punishments aren't typically punishments to those involved. As countering evidence, most people don't recommit minor crimes, one night in a cell block is good enough for them. Also, how many of us might have thought about committing violence against someone at some point, but didn't, because we don't want to be in prison or on death row? That a fairly small portion of criminals don't see severe punishment as a deterrent doesn't mean it is ineffective.
>>> So why do you want to do this again? Revenge? An eye for an eye? Is that it?
Deterrence. As long as society isn't willing to educate, employ, or provide for all it's members, you're going to need some means of dealing with the folks that put themselves into situations where violent crime is a viable means to an end. Happy, satisfied people don't commit violent crimes. To deter the extremely depressed, scared, and others whose emotions have dropped to a primitive level, you need a threat that catches their attention. Something that threatens to make their existance worse. It won't work for everyone, but not using it at all, because it makes us feel bad, means we're not using all the tools we have to deal with the problem. Currently, it's like we have a $20 set of tools, and we're trying to use them to fix every problem.
Simply knowing that the punishment is available, even if it's rarely used, is a good thing, if it stops one violent crime. Unfortunately, we'll probably never know exactly how many crimes ARE NOT committed because of the threat of a certain punishment. Which it why it's more important to have a variety of them available, even if we almost never use them. The more we have, the more people will likely find one that convinces them it's not worth it.
Besides, we're not talking about shoplifters, we're talking about people who take the life of another human. You don't just wake up a murderer, there's a whole lot of things that lead up to the situation, and that means a whole lot of time to convince such people to avoid this behavior. We're simply not convincing enough, currently.
Which is why many countries have the concept of a jury...because a single person is often too far one way or the other, while a (small!) group will tend to moderate it's own judgement.