Do we know yet exactly what we are getting with win 10?
I mean, I don't think I'm going to trade in my win-whatever if it means I get a shiny new os....that I have to pay monthly (or whatever) or they remotely kill it.
I understand the point you're making, and while I agree basically, I think the relationship is a little more subtle.
The human brain is fundamentally a language machine. While this certainly ossifies with age as the system prunes neural circuits that it believes it no longer needs, I think the ability to learn multiple languages is in fact hard wired into h. sapiens from birth.
It's this plasticity that makes languages easily learnt, but the APPLICATION of learning - the actual deformation/reformation of conceptual paradigms foundational to a language family - is what grants a person the alternate perspectives that are gained by learning other methods of communication.*
*not, by any means should this be limited to literal languages; math, music, and a number of creative media likewise (I believe) are mind-opening communication alternatives
During the McCarthy hearings, this was a primary bone of contention between McCarthy and Eisenhower (who, despite both being Republicans, personally despised one another). Ike insisted that the president's records, and those of the executive branch, could NOT be subpoena'd for McCarthy's hearings. When the courts tended toward finding that the PRESIDENT's correspondence and files were sacrosanct by the separation of powers rules*, this didn't apply to the State Dept records, so Ike had the State Dept file cabinets physically moved to the Oval Office. McCarthy, hinting that the President was doing this because he might have something embarrassing in the files, had finally crossed the line by maligning a figure of such public reverence that the public couldn't tolerate it. Logically, he was perfectly correct; it seems unreasonable that Ike would have gone to such lengths to simply defend a presidential prerogative on principle alone, but then again his personal enmity for McCarthy likely played a role as well.
*final curious appendix to this story: one of the Junior Congressmen working for McCarthy, who saw how the courts went to the mat to defend the IRONCLAD sanctity of Ike's files from Congressional snooping would later find that such precedents were little defense in protecting his own files, Mr Richard Nixon.
Phil Plait is a very, very smart man. In fact I agree with misty of his positions on the space program, etc.
However, I don't recall him issuing a 1000 word screed about how "politics is hurting NASA" when Bolden announced that NASA's foremost mission was Muslim outreach? And unfortunately that's where Mr Plait apparently decides to trade his science credibility (which is very high) to make overly political points. He's certainly entitled to do so, but when people maunder about how science skepticism is born, there's your example.
Now that a Republican is in charge, it's "politics" ruining Nasa? Really?
NASA chief Charles Bolden: "When I became the NASA administrator, (President Obama) charged me with three things: One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering."
I'm going to go on record as saying that Nasa has been pretty much fucked by politics since, well, forever.
If you object to the multiplier, simply drive the speed limit?
I'm comfortably-incomed (in about the 85-90% percentile of US incomes, about 75% for overall wealth) and I'd be *perfectly* fine with this.
Since the goal of this is solely punitive, and not meant to be a wealth-generator, I'd say that we take the money into a pool for the local community, and then either give it entirely back to the citizens on a straight "everyone gets 1 share" basis, or, in each election allow the population to vote about what % goes back to taxpayers, and what % goes to local charities in each 2 year cycle.
On the contrary, for me it's *very much* about the humanity.
However, I treat people as intelligent beings worthy of respect and able to make choices for themselves.
First, let's tack down those shifting goalposts and remember that we're talking about executing "people" who have: - been convicted in a court of law, AND - had that conviction reviewed (appeal) for procedural, bias, etc errors and still found guilty.
There's just two possibilities at this point. 1) the person actually did it. 2) the person didn't do it and has been wrongly convicted.
In the former case, my goal is in no way punitive. I frankly don't believe that for the most hearty sociopaths, psychopaths, etc that commit the crimes that warrant capital punishment, that 'punitive' measures even reach them (much less any sort of rehabilitation). I don't frankly care. My point is utilitarian: these "people" (as you call them) have willfully made a choice to set aside their humanity and act in as inhumane a way as we can conceive, for some sort of benefit. As rational actors*, they did this but they have to live with the consequences of that choice. The rational thing for society to do in return is to remove this dangerous thing, and prevent it from hurting anyone else.
In the latter case - and I note that in this long, long thread of personal attacks, there has not been provided a single, concrete, contrary example to my original assertion: the cops don't just drive up and grab John Q Public off the street, and charge him with a capital offense. The individuals "innocently" executed are, by ANY standard, the absolute dregs of society, causing harm, misery, and untold pain to the people around them in many cases for DECADES. For every crime that they have on their arm's length rap sheet, there are probably at least a dozen others for which they were never caught. So yes, I'm saying again, as rational* actors they've made that choice, and while they may have been innocent of that particular charge, I'm willing to accept that they were worthless scum that we can simply be better off rid of.
*rational: some people will assert that these individuals are crazy, and thus not responsible for their actions. OK, but that seems to beg the question. If you have an unstable explosive that could harm people around at any moment, do you save it, give it therapy, maybe some counseling in case hopefully it can be useful? No, you dispose of it because it's simply freaking dangerous to everyone, and there's no desperate shortage of explosive that we can't find some later if we need it. There are 7 billion people on this earth. If you have 7 billion of something, you can lose a few and not even notice.
Look, I'm all for removing subsidies from ALL energy industries, and letting the fair market have her way with them - not just the renewables, but absolutely the petro-firms.* *this includes not just direct subsidies, but indirect: tax breaks, increment financing, free use of public lands and waters for exploration, etc, etc.
But I think you (and the "divestor" movement) have it backwards. The public funding that comes from stocks raises capital, sure, but that's hardly their primary sources of revenue. I'd point to the fact that our modern economy runs on petroleum as the first point. Until that changes, they're not going to lack for profits, ever. Wave your hippy cred all over the place, and get governments to 'divest' as a sign of your rage, but the fact is that where there's a demand, there's a market. Where there's a market, there's profit. Pablo Escobar wouldn't care if anyone bought his stock. I'd submit that neither would Exxon. Let's also recall that Standard Oil wasn't built on public shares/trading, it was built on good old-fashioned cut-throat industrialism.
How do you infer that I suggest due process is a "bad idea"? I'm absolutely not against trials. I explicitly state that even after a guilty verdict, if there is a flaw in process, method, law, or circumstance, they get an appeal. I do not believe in an infinite chain of appeals based on the serial presentation of trivial disputes delayed as much as possible as a procedural method of commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment. In fact, I'd argue that is in itself inhumane, the constant dangling of appeals to hope, rather than the swift exaction of the legally-determined sentence.
In fact, it's opponents of capital punishment that want to throw the baby out with the bathwater: by asserting that since there are *some* flaws in the system, it should never employ the ultimate punishment. If anyone's denying the value of due process, it's them.
Of course, as all these firms divest themselves of the oil industry and demand drops, the price for oil will drop as well, making it even more attractive to those needing to save a buck.
Yes, a language is a dynamic thing. The rules are constantly changing, and what was 'unacceptable' to purists is okay for casual use, and what was casual use only ten years ago might be perfectly acceptable even in rigorous settings today.
Further, English is a very agglomerative language; it's turned out to be astonishingly tolerant of loan words, adoptions, etc from other languages freely. Thus, at least in American English particularly, there's a tolerance (largely, I suspect, due to our immigrant past) for odd phrasings, word orders, or odd usage that eventually may become common parlance.
NEVERTHELESS, as much as it's getting down into the weeds of linguistic OCD to insist (or not) on the Oxford comma, or avoiding prepositional endings, or on specific adjectival orders (there's a rabbit hole if you want to see grammarians duking it out), that doesn't mean that there aren't rules of usage that are common for understanding, or that "there are no real rules at all" as this article seems to claim.
Yes, it's very intellectual to assert there are no rules, but a normal person recognized that's stupid: of COURSE there are rules. Are they regularly ignored? Sure. Should they be? It depends on context; if you're talking with your friends "u" is probably a perfectly acceptable replacement for "you". If you're writing a business letter, it will simply make you look like a moron.
If someone points it out to you, Insisting with sophomoric sincerity that "well there really are no rules in English anyway" will simply certify their opinion.
1. It's pointless. It's not an effective deterrent, at least not for all people, otherwise you'd never need to use it. A: we have never executed more than 1/1000 of the men on death row. I would say the failure-to-deter is more a matter of inconsistent and weak application.
2. It's prohibitively expensive. Most of the costs involve legal wrangling, after all, but that's still part of the cost. A: Bullshit. It's giving them repeated, desperate options that is expensive. You're convicted? You get one appeal. Fail? You're done. NOT expensive.
3. It is irreversible. If you figure out you got the wrong person, you can't fix it. A: So what? I mean, sure, it's regrettable. But personally I support a woman's right to choose to abort; ergo, to be logically consistent if I'm allowing a woman to kill what may be an innocent, healthy baby who's done nothing wrong except to be inconvenient, I can certainly accept killing someone who's PROBABLY guilty (or if innocent of THAT particular crime, is guilty of tons of others as well as generally making life for others around them miserable for years).
4. Even if you have the right person, it's not actually punishing HIM (or her,) since death is the ultimate fate of all living organisms. A: I don't care it it's punitive. I'm utilitarian: there are no recidivists from the death penalty. None.
The person you would execute is receiving the exact same thing your own beloved child is doomed to get the day you conceive him or her. A: So? Seriously, you're overrating death. As far as I'm concerned, it's throwing out a non-contributing part.
5. If you think you're getting the person being executed an earlier start on his/her eternal punishment, consider that eternity is the exact same duration, A: Strawman, now you're *really* stretching.
6. In as much as there IS no eternal punishment, in the place many people believe their imaginary friend consigns "bad" people when they die, as it turns out. A: Still just a strawman, there is 0% way you know this is true, in any case.
7. The people you punish are the friends and family of the people you kill, who often had nothing to do with the crime, even when you DO have the right person. A: then they should have worked harder to provide that person with a social safety net, to maybe help them be a human being than someone society is better off without.
8. If you DO have the right person, consider the very real possibility that he or she is performing suicide-by-court-system and that you are playing right into a would-be suicides hands, by allowing, condoning, or supporting this stupid, counterproductive, barbaric practice. A: I'm fine with that. Happy to help.
9. The executioner is morally and ethically no better than the person being executed; A: that's ENTIRELY your assertion. I look at it as taking out the garbage; a stinky, but necessary job.
10. The idea that it's a punishment of the guilty having been thoroughly debunked, now let's briefly examine vengeance. A: again, not punishment, not vengeance. If I find a sharp piece of glass on the floor, I don't throw it away to 'punish' it or 'pay it back' for cutting me. It is what it is. And the best thing I can do is dispose of it before it hurts someone.
11. It's a cowardly act to execute someone using someone else's hand. A: I'll do it for everyone else. Again, the world needs garbagemen. My idea is to simply put them in a 100' silo with a stairway to the top. They don't HAVE to commit suicide by jumping, they could just starve. Either way, it's nearly cost-free, and actually "green" - crows need to eat too.
12. Restitution becomes impossible after the person dies, A: every single case of "innocent" being executed, the individual may be innocent of THAT case, but is a horrible, worthless person who has committed numerous other crimes harming people around them for decades. They're worth getting rid of. (Shrug)
Not a single thing you said made me doubt my feelings on capital punishment one whit. Thanks, tho, for allowing me a nice list to comment on.
Every example I've seen of someone executed "who was innocent" has been scum otherwise. Certainly, they may have been innocent of that specific crime, but they've generally been worthless wastes of human flesh causing misery to the people around them for their entire lives.
And even IF they were perfectly innocent people, so what, really? This world is infested with 7 billion people. They're not precious snowflakes, they're utterly, completely, expendable. We cheerfully will cut out healthy tissue to excise a tumor; if we occasionally sweep up a non-scum person, really, so what as long as the bulk of bad guys are correctly executed.
Oh, and to the original point? Gravity's free. Put them in a cement 100' silo with a stair to the top. Either they starve to death, or jump off the top. Either way, it's toxin-free, zero-cost, energy-efficient, and afterwards crows get to eat, so it's green too.
Not to mention (from TFA): "...While the majority of the transmission is 3D printed, there are some smaller parts which can not be printed on a desktop 3D printer, such as the 3mm rod, (18) 623zz bearings, (20) 3mm washers, and a few other small odds and ends like screws and bolts...."
"Even though it is made up almost entirely of plastic, he says that it could function as a replacement for the real thing." How the hell does the summarizer make such an assertion? As far as I can tell from TFA he *never* asserts it could be a replacement for the real thing - he says "it's completely functional" which is a fuckton away from "can be a replacement for the real thing".
It is pretty cool though. Transmissions are one of those things on my "figure out how it works" list that I've never quite gotten to...
So your answer is, in sum: - it's mainly because Republicans overreact - contrive a strawman from utterly nothing - congratulate the Clintons on the efficacy of their strawman
I really really hope you're not that naive. I get it: a lot of people feel that guns are scary. I understand. I'd love to see the link to someone actually campaigning for 'irresponsible gun ownership' - could you provide one? ("Irresponsible" according to general definitions, not your personal one.)
It IS frightful to concede to some bureaucrat somewhere the power to say "that dangerous such-and-such should be locked up* if it's in your house". *according, certainly, to some 50-page government rulebook about what "locking up" is deemed legally sufficient
Chainsaws are dangerous, should we lock them up too? Knives: people have been killing themselves with knives for centuries, we need to get them put away "for the children". Glass, hell, anything glass could be used like a knife, we should ban that. You don't see the potential here? One of my parents' best friends was killed by a man who - as far as anyone can tell - decided to commit suicide by deliberately turning his steeringwheel about 10 degrees to the left. We should probably prohibit driving? How is operating a 2000kg vehicle driving 120kph even *faintly* less dangerous or potentially/impulsively self-destructive than a firearm sitting in a locker?
Some people are ignorant, some people are self-destructive, some people are careless. As much as you might like, you're not going to be able to legislate that away.
Be as patronizing as you want, but yes, sensible people will object to your drive to empower government just because you have a immature desire to cover your whole fucking life with safety nets and bubble wrap.
"The world cannot be made suicide-proof, of course. But, these researchers argue, if the walkway over a bridge is fenced off, a struggling college freshman cannot throw herself over the side. "
So in short they ARE trying to suicide- proof the world. Good luck with that.
Well, no, I take that back, since I can almost guarantee that they're going to use my ever increasing taxes to pay for stringing safety nets everywhere.
Of course, they're also the largest fraternity organization, so logically they should lead raw stats, no?
I'm pretty ashamed of my SAE brothers there, but I've taken great that in the last year SAE has been recognized nationally for taking some pretty bold steps to try to combat this sort of behavior, for example being the first national fraternity to effectively ban the pledge quarter because it was the circumstance of too much abuse.
American Universities and faculty: 1) spend the last 50 years attacking, contravening, and destroying every norm, convention, and social more. 2) get upset when their social mores are violated.
As usual, academia's response when confronted by the ultimate result of their own mores: reflexively play jackbooted fascists. "How can we stop this? How can we control this?"
Free speech is free for everyone, including assholes. That is ALSO including racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. You don't get to define what speech is free.
Look, I personally DON'T believe in unfettered free speech. However, I'm sincerely amused by watching the Academic Left that has stridently insisted for 50 years that pretty much *everything* must be allowed, deeply discomforted when confronted by (human) nature, red in tooth and claw.
Slashdot Mirror
Do we know yet exactly what we are getting with win 10?
I mean, I don't think I'm going to trade in my win-whatever if it means I get a shiny new os....that I have to pay monthly (or whatever) or they remotely kill it.
I understand the point you're making, and while I agree basically, I think the relationship is a little more subtle.
The human brain is fundamentally a language machine. While this certainly ossifies with age as the system prunes neural circuits that it believes it no longer needs, I think the ability to learn multiple languages is in fact hard wired into h. sapiens from birth.
It's this plasticity that makes languages easily learnt, but the APPLICATION of learning - the actual deformation/reformation of conceptual paradigms foundational to a language family - is what grants a person the alternate perspectives that are gained by learning other methods of communication.*
*not, by any means should this be limited to literal languages; math, music, and a number of creative media likewise (I believe) are mind-opening communication alternatives
Plus, paradox has a stellar record of ongoing support for their titles for years, kind of the opposite of ea there, too.
During the McCarthy hearings, this was a primary bone of contention between McCarthy and Eisenhower (who, despite both being Republicans, personally despised one another). Ike insisted that the president's records, and those of the executive branch, could NOT be subpoena'd for McCarthy's hearings.
When the courts tended toward finding that the PRESIDENT's correspondence and files were sacrosanct by the separation of powers rules*, this didn't apply to the State Dept records, so Ike had the State Dept file cabinets physically moved to the Oval Office.
McCarthy, hinting that the President was doing this because he might have something embarrassing in the files, had finally crossed the line by maligning a figure of such public reverence that the public couldn't tolerate it. Logically, he was perfectly correct; it seems unreasonable that Ike would have gone to such lengths to simply defend a presidential prerogative on principle alone, but then again his personal enmity for McCarthy likely played a role as well.
*final curious appendix to this story: one of the Junior Congressmen working for McCarthy, who saw how the courts went to the mat to defend the IRONCLAD sanctity of Ike's files from Congressional snooping would later find that such precedents were little defense in protecting his own files, Mr Richard Nixon.
Phil Plait is a very, very smart man. In fact I agree with misty of his positions on the space program, etc.
However, I don't recall him issuing a 1000 word screed about how "politics is hurting NASA" when Bolden announced that NASA's foremost mission was Muslim outreach? And unfortunately that's where Mr Plait apparently decides to trade his science credibility (which is very high) to make overly political points. He's certainly entitled to do so, but when people maunder about how science skepticism is born, there's your example.
Now that a Republican is in charge, it's "politics" ruining Nasa? Really?
NASA chief Charles Bolden:
"When I became the NASA administrator, (President Obama) charged me with three things: One, he wanted me to help re-inspire children to want to get into science and math; he wanted me to expand our international relationships; and third, and perhaps foremost, he wanted me to find a way to reach out to the Muslim world and engage much more with dominantly Muslim nations to help them feel good about their historic contribution to science, math and engineering."
I'm going to go on record as saying that Nasa has been pretty much fucked by politics since, well, forever.
If you object to the multiplier, simply drive the speed limit?
I'm comfortably-incomed (in about the 85-90% percentile of US incomes, about 75% for overall wealth) and I'd be *perfectly* fine with this.
Since the goal of this is solely punitive, and not meant to be a wealth-generator, I'd say that we take the money into a pool for the local community, and then either give it entirely back to the citizens on a straight "everyone gets 1 share" basis, or, in each election allow the population to vote about what % goes back to taxpayers, and what % goes to local charities in each 2 year cycle.
On the contrary, for me it's *very much* about the humanity.
However, I treat people as intelligent beings worthy of respect and able to make choices for themselves.
First, let's tack down those shifting goalposts and remember that we're talking about executing "people" who have:
- been convicted in a court of law, AND
- had that conviction reviewed (appeal) for procedural, bias, etc errors and still found guilty.
There's just two possibilities at this point.
1) the person actually did it.
2) the person didn't do it and has been wrongly convicted.
In the former case, my goal is in no way punitive. I frankly don't believe that for the most hearty sociopaths, psychopaths, etc that commit the crimes that warrant capital punishment, that 'punitive' measures even reach them (much less any sort of rehabilitation). I don't frankly care. My point is utilitarian: these "people" (as you call them) have willfully made a choice to set aside their humanity and act in as inhumane a way as we can conceive, for some sort of benefit. As rational actors*, they did this but they have to live with the consequences of that choice. The rational thing for society to do in return is to remove this dangerous thing, and prevent it from hurting anyone else.
In the latter case - and I note that in this long, long thread of personal attacks, there has not been provided a single, concrete, contrary example to my original assertion: the cops don't just drive up and grab John Q Public off the street, and charge him with a capital offense. The individuals "innocently" executed are, by ANY standard, the absolute dregs of society, causing harm, misery, and untold pain to the people around them in many cases for DECADES. For every crime that they have on their arm's length rap sheet, there are probably at least a dozen others for which they were never caught. So yes, I'm saying again, as rational* actors they've made that choice, and while they may have been innocent of that particular charge, I'm willing to accept that they were worthless scum that we can simply be better off rid of.
*rational: some people will assert that these individuals are crazy, and thus not responsible for their actions. OK, but that seems to beg the question. If you have an unstable explosive that could harm people around at any moment, do you save it, give it therapy, maybe some counseling in case hopefully it can be useful? No, you dispose of it because it's simply freaking dangerous to everyone, and there's no desperate shortage of explosive that we can't find some later if we need it. There are 7 billion people on this earth. If you have 7 billion of something, you can lose a few and not even notice.
Look, I'm all for removing subsidies from ALL energy industries, and letting the fair market have her way with them - not just the renewables, but absolutely the petro-firms.*
*this includes not just direct subsidies, but indirect: tax breaks, increment financing, free use of public lands and waters for exploration, etc, etc.
But I think you (and the "divestor" movement) have it backwards. The public funding that comes from stocks raises capital, sure, but that's hardly their primary sources of revenue. I'd point to the fact that our modern economy runs on petroleum as the first point. Until that changes, they're not going to lack for profits, ever.
Wave your hippy cred all over the place, and get governments to 'divest' as a sign of your rage, but the fact is that where there's a demand, there's a market. Where there's a market, there's profit. Pablo Escobar wouldn't care if anyone bought his stock. I'd submit that neither would Exxon.
Let's also recall that Standard Oil wasn't built on public shares/trading, it was built on good old-fashioned cut-throat industrialism.
How do you infer that I suggest due process is a "bad idea"?
I'm absolutely not against trials.
I explicitly state that even after a guilty verdict, if there is a flaw in process, method, law, or circumstance, they get an appeal.
I do not believe in an infinite chain of appeals based on the serial presentation of trivial disputes delayed as much as possible as a procedural method of commuting a death sentence to life imprisonment. In fact, I'd argue that is in itself inhumane, the constant dangling of appeals to hope, rather than the swift exaction of the legally-determined sentence.
In fact, it's opponents of capital punishment that want to throw the baby out with the bathwater: by asserting that since there are *some* flaws in the system, it should never employ the ultimate punishment.
If anyone's denying the value of due process, it's them.
Of course, as all these firms divest themselves of the oil industry and demand drops, the price for oil will drop as well, making it even more attractive to those needing to save a buck.
Yes, a language is a dynamic thing. The rules are constantly changing, and what was 'unacceptable' to purists is okay for casual use, and what was casual use only ten years ago might be perfectly acceptable even in rigorous settings today.
Further, English is a very agglomerative language; it's turned out to be astonishingly tolerant of loan words, adoptions, etc from other languages freely. Thus, at least in American English particularly, there's a tolerance (largely, I suspect, due to our immigrant past) for odd phrasings, word orders, or odd usage that eventually may become common parlance.
NEVERTHELESS, as much as it's getting down into the weeds of linguistic OCD to insist (or not) on the Oxford comma, or avoiding prepositional endings, or on specific adjectival orders (there's a rabbit hole if you want to see grammarians duking it out), that doesn't mean that there aren't rules of usage that are common for understanding, or that "there are no real rules at all" as this article seems to claim.
Yes, it's very intellectual to assert there are no rules, but a normal person recognized that's stupid: of COURSE there are rules. Are they regularly ignored? Sure. Should they be? It depends on context; if you're talking with your friends "u" is probably a perfectly acceptable replacement for "you". If you're writing a business letter, it will simply make you look like a moron.
If someone points it out to you, Insisting with sophomoric sincerity that "well there really are no rules in English anyway" will simply certify their opinion.
1. It's pointless. It's not an effective deterrent, at least not for all people, otherwise you'd never need to use it.
A: we have never executed more than 1/1000 of the men on death row. I would say the failure-to-deter is more a matter of inconsistent and weak application.
2. It's prohibitively expensive. Most of the costs involve legal wrangling, after all, but that's still part of the cost.
A: Bullshit. It's giving them repeated, desperate options that is expensive. You're convicted? You get one appeal. Fail? You're done. NOT expensive.
3. It is irreversible. If you figure out you got the wrong person, you can't fix it.
A: So what? I mean, sure, it's regrettable. But personally I support a woman's right to choose to abort; ergo, to be logically consistent if I'm allowing a woman to kill what may be an innocent, healthy baby who's done nothing wrong except to be inconvenient, I can certainly accept killing someone who's PROBABLY guilty (or if innocent of THAT particular crime, is guilty of tons of others as well as generally making life for others around them miserable for years).
4. Even if you have the right person, it's not actually punishing HIM (or her,) since death is the ultimate fate of all living organisms.
A: I don't care it it's punitive. I'm utilitarian: there are no recidivists from the death penalty. None.
The person you would execute is receiving the exact same thing your own beloved child is doomed to get the day you conceive him or her.
A: So? Seriously, you're overrating death. As far as I'm concerned, it's throwing out a non-contributing part.
5. If you think you're getting the person being executed an earlier start on his/her eternal punishment, consider that eternity is the exact same duration,
A: Strawman, now you're *really* stretching.
6. In as much as there IS no eternal punishment, in the place many people believe their imaginary friend consigns "bad" people when they die, as it turns out.
A: Still just a strawman, there is 0% way you know this is true, in any case.
7. The people you punish are the friends and family of the people you kill, who often had nothing to do with the crime, even when you DO have the right person.
A: then they should have worked harder to provide that person with a social safety net, to maybe help them be a human being than someone society is better off without.
8. If you DO have the right person, consider the very real possibility that he or she is performing suicide-by-court-system and that you are playing right into a would-be suicides hands, by allowing, condoning, or supporting this stupid, counterproductive, barbaric practice.
A: I'm fine with that. Happy to help.
9. The executioner is morally and ethically no better than the person being executed;
A: that's ENTIRELY your assertion. I look at it as taking out the garbage; a stinky, but necessary job.
10. The idea that it's a punishment of the guilty having been thoroughly debunked, now let's briefly examine vengeance.
A: again, not punishment, not vengeance. If I find a sharp piece of glass on the floor, I don't throw it away to 'punish' it or 'pay it back' for cutting me. It is what it is. And the best thing I can do is dispose of it before it hurts someone.
11. It's a cowardly act to execute someone using someone else's hand.
A: I'll do it for everyone else. Again, the world needs garbagemen. My idea is to simply put them in a 100' silo with a stairway to the top. They don't HAVE to commit suicide by jumping, they could just starve. Either way, it's nearly cost-free, and actually "green" - crows need to eat too.
12. Restitution becomes impossible after the person dies,
A: every single case of "innocent" being executed, the individual may be innocent of THAT case, but is a horrible, worthless person who has committed numerous other crimes harming people around them for decades. They're worth getting rid of. (Shrug)
Not a single thing you said made me doubt my feelings on capital punishment one whit. Thanks, tho, for allowing me a nice list to comment on.
Every example I've seen of someone executed "who was innocent" has been scum otherwise. Certainly, they may have been innocent of that specific crime, but they've generally been worthless wastes of human flesh causing misery to the people around them for their entire lives.
And even IF they were perfectly innocent people, so what, really? This world is infested with 7 billion people. They're not precious snowflakes, they're utterly, completely, expendable. We cheerfully will cut out healthy tissue to excise a tumor; if we occasionally sweep up a non-scum person, really, so what as long as the bulk of bad guys are correctly executed.
Oh, and to the original point? Gravity's free. Put them in a cement 100' silo with a stair to the top. Either they starve to death, or jump off the top. Either way, it's toxin-free, zero-cost, energy-efficient, and afterwards crows get to eat, so it's green too.
Agreed.
Not to mention (from TFA): "...While the majority of the transmission is 3D printed, there are some smaller parts which can not be printed on a desktop 3D printer, such as the 3mm rod, (18) 623zz bearings, (20) 3mm washers, and a few other small odds and ends like screws and bolts. ..."
"Even though it is made up almost entirely of plastic, he says that it could function as a replacement for the real thing." How the hell does the summarizer make such an assertion?
As far as I can tell from TFA he *never* asserts it could be a replacement for the real thing - he says "it's completely functional" which is a fuckton away from "can be a replacement for the real thing".
It is pretty cool though. Transmissions are one of those things on my "figure out how it works" list that I've never quite gotten to...
"And where do you draw the line?"
Anything by Kid Rock. Seriously.
So your answer is, in sum:
- it's mainly because Republicans overreact
- contrive a strawman from utterly nothing
- congratulate the Clintons on the efficacy of their strawman
Seriously, WTF are you smoking?
Just FYI I think it's an asshole American who responds to China's landing a rover on the moon with "so what, we were there already, nyah, nyah"
Your response, and my reaction to you: pretty much the same in both ways.
"Rules are for other people. Nothing happened. Why is the vast Right Wing Conspiracy so worked up over this?"
I really really hope you're not that naive.
I get it: a lot of people feel that guns are scary. I understand. I'd love to see the link to someone actually campaigning for 'irresponsible gun ownership' - could you provide one? ("Irresponsible" according to general definitions, not your personal one.)
It IS frightful to concede to some bureaucrat somewhere the power to say "that dangerous such-and-such should be locked up* if it's in your house".
*according, certainly, to some 50-page government rulebook about what "locking up" is deemed legally sufficient
Chainsaws are dangerous, should we lock them up too?
Knives: people have been killing themselves with knives for centuries, we need to get them put away "for the children".
Glass, hell, anything glass could be used like a knife, we should ban that.
You don't see the potential here?
One of my parents' best friends was killed by a man who - as far as anyone can tell - decided to commit suicide by deliberately turning his steeringwheel about 10 degrees to the left. We should probably prohibit driving? How is operating a 2000kg vehicle driving 120kph even *faintly* less dangerous or potentially/impulsively self-destructive than a firearm sitting in a locker?
Some people are ignorant, some people are self-destructive, some people are careless. As much as you might like, you're not going to be able to legislate that away.
Be as patronizing as you want, but yes, sensible people will object to your drive to empower government just because you have a immature desire to cover your whole fucking life with safety nets and bubble wrap.
"The world cannot be made suicide-proof, of course. But, these researchers argue, if the walkway over a bridge is fenced off, a struggling college freshman cannot throw herself over the side. "
So in short they ARE trying to suicide- proof the world. Good luck with that.
Well, no, I take that back, since I can almost guarantee that they're going to use my ever increasing taxes to pay for stringing safety nets everywhere.
Of course, they're also the largest fraternity organization, so logically they should lead raw stats, no?
I'm pretty ashamed of my SAE brothers there, but I've taken great that in the last year SAE has been recognized nationally for taking some pretty bold steps to try to combat this sort of behavior, for example being the first national fraternity to effectively ban the pledge quarter because it was the circumstance of too much abuse.
American Universities and faculty:
1) spend the last 50 years attacking, contravening, and destroying every norm, convention, and social more.
2) get upset when their social mores are violated.
What ISN'T tied to climate change?
A List Of Things Caused By Global Warming
http://whatreallyhappened.com/...
Acne , agricultural land increase , Afghan poppies destroyed , Africa devastated, Africa in conflict, African aid threatened, African summer frost , aggressive weeds , air pressure changes , airport malaria , Agulhas current , Alaska reshaped, moves , allergy season longer , alligators in the Thames , Alps melting , Amazon a desert , American dream end , amphibians breeding earlier (or not) , anaphylactic reactions to bee stings , ancient forests dramatically changed , animals head for the hills, animals shrink , Antarctic grass flourishes , Antarctic ice grows , Antarctic ice shrinks , Antarctic sea life at risk, anxiety treatment , algal blooms , archaeological sites threatened , Arab Spring , Arctic bogs melt , Arctic in bloom , Arctic ice free , Arctic ice melt faster , Arctic lakes disappear , Arctic tundra to burn , Arctic warming (not), Atlantic less salty , Atlantic more salty, atmospheric circulation modified , attack of the killer jellyfish , avalanches reduced , avalanches increased , Baghdad snow , Bahrain under water , bananas grow , barbarisation , beer shortage , beetle infestation , bet for $10,000, better beer, big melt faster, billion dollar research projects , billion homeless , billions face risk , billions of deaths , bird distributions change , bird loss accelerating , birds shrinking , bird strikes , bird visitors drop , birds confused , birds decline (Wales) , birds driven north , birds return early , bittern boom ends , blackbirds stop singing , blackbirds threatened , Black Hawk down , blood contaminated , blue mussels return , bluetongue , brain eating amoebae , brains shrink , bridge collapse (Minneapolis), Britain one big city , Britain Siberian , brothels struggle , brown Ireland , bubonic plague , budget increases , Buddhist temple threatened , building collapse , building season extension , bushfires , business opportunities , business risks, butterflies move north, camel deaths , cancer deaths in England,cannibalism, cannibalism again , caterpillar biomass shift, cave paintings threatened , childhood insomnia, Cholera , circumcision in decline , cirrus disappearance , civil unrest , cloud increase , coast beauty spots lost , cockroach migration, coffee threatened , cold climate creatures survive , cold spells (Australia) , cold wave (India) , computer models , conferences , conflict , conflict with Russia , consumers foot the bill , coral bleaching, coral fish suffer , coral reefs dying , coral reefs grow, coral reefs shrink , coral reefs twilight, Cabbage Shortage , cost of trillions , cougar attacks, crabgrass menace, cradle of civilisation threatened , creatures move uphill, crime increase , crocodile sex, crops devastated , crumbling roads, buildings and sewage systems , curriculum change , cyclones (Australia), danger to kid's health , Darfur , Dartford Warbler plague , death rate increase (US) , deaths to reach 6 million, Dengue hemorrhagic fever , depression , desert advance , desert retreat , destruction of the environment , disappearance of coastal cities, disasters , diseases move from animals to humans , diseases move north , dog disease , Dolomites collapse , dozen deadly diseases , drought, ducks and geese decline , dust bowl in the corn belt , early marriages , early spring , earlier pollen season , Earth biodiversity crisis , Earth dying , Earth even hotter , Earth light dimming , Earth lopsided, Earth melting , Earth morbid fever , Earth on fast track , Earth past point of no return , Earth slowing down , Earth spins faster, Earth to explode,Earth's poles shift, earth upside down , earthquakes , earthquakes redux , earthquakes redux 2 , Egypt revolt , El Niño intensification , end of the world as we know it , erosion , emerging infections, encephalitis, English villages lost , equality threatened , Europe simultaneously baking and freezing, eutrop
As usual, academia's response when confronted by the ultimate result of their own mores: reflexively play jackbooted fascists. "How can we stop this? How can we control this?"
Free speech is free for everyone, including assholes. That is ALSO including racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. You don't get to define what speech is free.
Look, I personally DON'T believe in unfettered free speech. However, I'm sincerely amused by watching the Academic Left that has stridently insisted for 50 years that pretty much *everything* must be allowed, deeply discomforted when confronted by (human) nature, red in tooth and claw.