Consider a law that says any person who kills another person shall be sentenced to death. Now consider Joe accidentally kill Bill. Under such a law, Joe is clearly guilty. No, that doesn't convict Joe. What that says that if Joe kills Bill, he shall be sentenced to death. It does not state under what circumstances Joe's guilt is established. If Joe did kill Bill and it is an accident, he will not be guilty of the crime and will not face the punishment. Joe has to be charged with the crime of muder, proven guilty, and then will face "a law that says any person who kills another person shall be sentenced to death".
My original point is that a parent several generations removed stated that the jury makes the law, and that is not the case. You do bring up a good point that the jury may find a law unjust and not convict because of that, but in no way do juries make laws.
First, you're trolling by bringing race into the issue and I'm not going to bother to respond to that.
Second, there is a legal (ie, in the law) distinction between murder and accidental death. In cases of murder, the death penalty may be required. In cases of involuntary manslaughter (accidents), the death penalty is not an option. If the legal system is working properly, the your example case would be a charge against involuntary manslaughter, not murder. In cases where the person is deemed guilty against the wrong law, the appeals process is designed to provide relief. Standard clause -- the system is not perfect, etc, etc..
Consider a law that says any person who kills another person shall be sentenced to death. Now consider Joe accidentally kill Bill. Under such a law, Joe is clearly guilty. However, a jury could look at the law and decide Joe doesn't deserve to be convicted and refuse to render a guilty verdict. Exactly. The jury process is working. The fact that Joe accidentally killed Bill would be brought out in court and the jury would weight that. Your argument is flawed, you're confusing the punishment and the crime -- "any person who kills another person shall be sentenced to death". If Joe is not found guilty of killing Bill, he won't suffer the punishment.
You create the law if you're on a jury. Aren't you supposed to interpret the law when you're on a jury? During the trial, facts are established, the laws relevant to the case are explained, and the jury debates the facts vs. the laws to decide guilty or not guilty.
Creating laws falls under the Legislative branch of the government, and the trial system is part of the Judicial branch.
The sole determining factor of the crime the the contents of the sender's mind. That is thought crime. No. If this had stayed in the criminal's mind, there would be no crime. Thought was translated into action the moment he clicked send. No action, no crime.
In these cases we have the novel situation where all the object of the sting actually did was transmit objectionable material to an adult, posing to be a child. And the difference of buying drugs from a cop pretending to be a dealer is? It's not like they get to keep the drugs they buy from the undercover cops.
Calling this a thought crime is a joke. How many times did this person actually commit the crime before he was caught? This was thought translated into action. When he thinks about committing the crime and is arrested, then we've got problems.
Apathy is no excuse. Your local paper (or the corresponding website) will have a nice tidy summary of all the issues and the candidates. Take an hour or two and do some reading.
Our system may not be perfect, but it sure beats having no voice at all.
The best I could figure is that I'd have to buy a whole lot of Mindstorms to get enough gears, shafts, and standard bricks to build anything really nifty.
And your problem is...? It sounds like you're saying buying a whole lot of Lego is a bad thing.
Trust me, all of my old Lego works quite nicely with my NXT sets. For that matter, all of the Lego that I've bought after buying my NXT sets works quite nicely with my NXT sets.
I have never understood the appeal of those portable DVD players They are invaluable for long car trips with children. Listening to Spongebob for 6 hours is better than listening to "are we there yet" for 6 hours.
I can't agree with you more on the Kinesis Keyboard. Very comfortable and well worth the money. Only took a day or two to get used to typing on it.
The big difference about the Kinesis is the shape of the thing. It just feels quite natural and you never have to stretch or twist your finger to hit a key.
Alright, everyone, repeat after me: "Shit happens." Yes, it does. Getting a flat tire on the way to work is shit. Having school kids gunned down by their classmates is not shit. It's fucking nuts.
There had to have been some influences on the lives of the shooters to get them into a mental state where they could be capable of committing this horrible act. I'm not saying it's the parent's fault, but I'm not holding them innocent either. A complex combination of factors caused this, and it is important to at least gain an idea of what they were. If parents become involved in their children's lives because of this, at least some positive has come out of this whole thing.
It's entirely possible that even the best parents in the world could have evil, maladjusted, sociopathic children. Yeah, okay, but can you name one? It's possible, but not very likely.
We're all the result of our upbringings. Our parents, involved or not, contribute a great deal to how we develop on both a physical and emotional level. There is a strong correlation between the behavior of the child and the behavior of the parents. Positive parenting will most likely result in reasonably well adjusted children, while negative parenting will most likely result in maladjusted children. Very rarely do you see a person who grew up with very loving and non-violent parents become a wife beater.
And they should call it...
on
Lunar Lasers
·
· Score: -1, Offtopic
Am I the only one to think that an Open Source project is not the best way to learn programming? I sure hope so. Most people learn to program by studying and then modifying the works of others. Open Source is ideal for this.
Programming is not only difficult, it requires a particular kind of thinking. For the record, programming is not difficult. But you are very correct in that is does require a particular kind of thinking. Being able to think in the way needed for programming is difficult. It's like calculus -- taking the derivative is the easy part. The algebra leading up to that step is where most of the people make their mistakes. Anybody can program. Very few people can think properly.
I forget who said it, but it's something about "standing on the shoulders of giants". Without having other programs to read and learn from, very few programmers would be programmers today. Open Source is a great way to learn about programs and programming. It is far too daunting for the beginning programmer to maintain an Open Source program, but they can still learn from it. Even experienced programmers can still learn from Open Source. It's just good all around.
Many moons ago in Omni magazine, I remember reading a fictional story about nanotech.
A guy built a robot that was supposed to build a single copy of itself at one tenth the size. He made an error in the program, and each robot built ten copies of itself at one tenth the size. The robots eventually got so small the would duplicate at a very high rate. The guys house was eventually destroyed, and the only thing that saved the day was a rainstorm that rusted the robots to death.
Anybody remember this one? Anybody got a link to it?
I think this is when my childhood dream of being an astronaut died. Glad to know I'm not the only one.
I still can't watch the replay of the explosion. It still tears at me every time I see the start of it. I have to leave the room or change the channel on the TV. My heart goes out to those poor kids who saw their teacher die on TV. What a piece of baggage to carry for life.
To be sure, different parts of software have different needs. If you're designed space shuttle guidance software, go ahead and engineer for five nines (99.999% uptime). A script that pages you when you get an e-mail from your girlfriend is probably a lot less mission-critical. But the point here is that you want both of them to work. I would argue that from a personal perspective, knowing that your SO e-mailed you is more important than the space shuttle. But, the point is, both should work.
How reliable should the software be? I don't understand that one. I never want to sit in front of my computer and hope it works this time.
Fragmenting software engineering would have a very poor effect on the development of these base strategies Fragmenting can't happen until the base strategies are in place. Lanier is arguging that we haven't yet reached the level of having base strategies in place. I would agree with him. The discipline of design has not been hammered into our collective heads yet. The computer makes the leap from thought to code too easy. UML and various OO strategies help to slow down the leap to the computer and give people a chance to think designs over for a bit, which is what is needed. I really view UML as a process of thinking things over rather than software design. It gives you something to do while you think. The end result is a stack of documentation that makes coding easier and has the side benfit of showing that you at least thought about your design long enough to draw some pictures.
I think that what he was trying to get at is that software design and coding need to become more fragmented. A robotics engineer and a civil engineer are both engineers, but I really don't think the two could switch jobs that easily. They use many of the same methods to design things, but the end results are much different.
How many centuries did it take for engineering to develop? Modern software design is only about 50 years old.
Skyscrapers are built in a few years. How many years of planning go into those few years of construction? How many thousands of people are involved? Compare to your typical software project. Large programs are written in 18 months (yeah right). How many years of planning go into those 18 months? How many thousands of people are involoved?
I would argue that software is not yet a repeatable process. It can be, but Lanier is right. Humanity does not "get" software design. It will eventually "get" it, and we will all be better off.
Back in my younger days, my father and I built a great number of heathkit kits. We built a vacuum tube volt-ohm meter, a digital circuit trainer (still works), and took some basic digital electronic self study courses. Not only were they a great way to do some father son stuff, but I (and he) learned a great deal from all of it.
I don't know if they still have all the kits and whatnot, but here's a link.
Slashdot Mirror
Consider a law that says any person who kills another person shall be sentenced to death. Now consider Joe accidentally kill Bill. Under such a law, Joe is clearly guilty.
No, that doesn't convict Joe. What that says that if Joe kills Bill, he shall be sentenced to death. It does not state under what circumstances Joe's guilt is established. If Joe did kill Bill and it is an accident, he will not be guilty of the crime and will not face the punishment. Joe has to be charged with the crime of muder, proven guilty, and then will face "a law that says any person who kills another person shall be sentenced to death".
My original point is that a parent several generations removed stated that the jury makes the law, and that is not the case. You do bring up a good point that the jury may find a law unjust and not convict because of that, but in no way do juries make laws.
First, you're trolling by bringing race into the issue and I'm not going to bother to respond to that.
Second, there is a legal (ie, in the law) distinction between murder and accidental death. In cases of murder, the death penalty may be required. In cases of involuntary manslaughter (accidents), the death penalty is not an option. If the legal system is working properly, the your example case would be a charge against involuntary manslaughter, not murder. In cases where the person is deemed guilty against the wrong law, the appeals process is designed to provide relief. Standard clause -- the system is not perfect, etc, etc..
Consider a law that says any person who kills another person shall be sentenced to death. Now consider Joe accidentally kill Bill. Under such a law, Joe is clearly guilty. However, a jury could look at the law and decide Joe doesn't deserve to be convicted and refuse to render a guilty verdict.
Exactly. The jury process is working. The fact that Joe accidentally killed Bill would be brought out in court and the jury would weight that. Your argument is flawed, you're confusing the punishment and the crime -- "any person who kills another person shall be sentenced to death". If Joe is not found guilty of killing Bill, he won't suffer the punishment.
You create the law if you're on a jury.
Aren't you supposed to interpret the law when you're on a jury? During the trial, facts are established, the laws relevant to the case are explained, and the jury debates the facts vs. the laws to decide guilty or not guilty.
Creating laws falls under the Legislative branch of the government, and the trial system is part of the Judicial branch.
The sole determining factor of the crime the the contents of the sender's mind. That is thought crime.
No. If this had stayed in the criminal's mind, there would be no crime. Thought was translated into action the moment he clicked send. No action, no crime.
In these cases we have the novel situation where all the object of the sting actually did was transmit objectionable material to an adult, posing to be a child.
And the difference of buying drugs from a cop pretending to be a dealer is? It's not like they get to keep the drugs they buy from the undercover cops.
Calling this a thought crime is a joke. How many times did this person actually commit the crime before he was caught? This was thought translated into action. When he thinks about committing the crime and is arrested, then we've got problems.
Apathy is no excuse. Your local paper (or the corresponding website) will have a nice tidy summary of all the issues and the candidates. Take an hour or two and do some reading.
Our system may not be perfect, but it sure beats having no voice at all.
The best I could figure is that I'd have to buy a whole lot of Mindstorms to get enough gears, shafts, and standard bricks to build anything really nifty.
And your problem is...? It sounds like you're saying buying a whole lot of Lego is a bad thing.
Trust me, all of my old Lego works quite nicely with my NXT sets. For that matter, all of the Lego that I've bought after buying my NXT sets works quite nicely with my NXT sets.
invaluable - invaluable - adj - Of inestimable value; priceless: invaluable paintings; invaluable help.
inflammable - inflammable - adj - Easily ignited and capable of burning rapidly; flammable.
Sometimes it is best to keep your mouth shut and let people think you are an idiot rather than open it and let them know.
I have never understood the appeal of those portable DVD players
They are invaluable for long car trips with children. Listening to Spongebob for 6 hours is better than listening to "are we there yet" for 6 hours.
I thought this was a Star Trek story at first look. I was hoping for a good spinoff series where the Gorn conquer the Federation.
True. Not the prettiest thing, but surgical scars are much less attractive to me.
I can't agree with you more on the Kinesis Keyboard. Very comfortable and well worth the money. Only took a day or two to get used to typing on it.
The big difference about the Kinesis is the shape of the thing. It just feels quite natural and you never have to stretch or twist your finger to hit a key.
Alright, everyone, repeat after me: "Shit happens."
Yes, it does. Getting a flat tire on the way to work is shit. Having school kids gunned down by their classmates is not shit. It's fucking nuts.
There had to have been some influences on the lives of the shooters to get them into a mental state where they could be capable of committing this horrible act. I'm not saying it's the parent's fault, but I'm not holding them innocent either. A complex combination of factors caused this, and it is important to at least gain an idea of what they were. If parents become involved in their children's lives because of this, at least some positive has come out of this whole thing.
It's entirely possible that even the best parents in the world could have evil, maladjusted, sociopathic children.
Yeah, okay, but can you name one? It's possible, but not very likely.
We're all the result of our upbringings. Our parents, involved or not, contribute a great deal to how we develop on both a physical and emotional level. There is a strong correlation between the behavior of the child and the behavior of the parents. Positive parenting will most likely result in reasonably well adjusted children, while negative parenting will most likely result in maladjusted children. Very rarely do you see a person who grew up with very loving and non-violent parents become a wife beater.
...The Alan Parsons Project!
Am I the only one to think that an Open Source project is not the best way to learn programming?
I sure hope so. Most people learn to program by studying and then modifying the works of others. Open Source is ideal for this.
Programming is not only difficult, it requires a particular kind of thinking.
For the record, programming is not difficult. But you are very correct in that is does require a particular kind of thinking. Being able to think in the way needed for programming is difficult. It's like calculus -- taking the derivative is the easy part. The algebra leading up to that step is where most of the people make their mistakes. Anybody can program. Very few people can think properly.
I forget who said it, but it's something about "standing on the shoulders of giants". Without having other programs to read and learn from, very few programmers would be programmers today. Open Source is a great way to learn about programs and programming. It is far too daunting for the beginning programmer to maintain an Open Source program, but they can still learn from it. Even experienced programmers can still learn from Open Source. It's just good all around.
Isn't this what 486's and the Linux Router Project are for?
Oddly enough, the story took place in the UK.
Many moons ago in Omni magazine, I remember reading a fictional story about nanotech.
A guy built a robot that was supposed to build a single copy of itself at one tenth the size. He made an error in the program, and each robot built ten copies of itself at one tenth the size. The robots eventually got so small the would duplicate at a very high rate. The guys house was eventually destroyed, and the only thing that saved the day was a rainstorm that rusted the robots to death.
Anybody remember this one? Anybody got a link to it?
I think this is when my childhood dream of being an astronaut died.
Glad to know I'm not the only one.
I still can't watch the replay of the explosion. It still tears at me every time I see the start of it. I have to leave the room or change the channel on the TV. My heart goes out to those poor kids who saw their teacher die on TV. What a piece of baggage to carry for life.
Okay, who's been couting? Have we had more Napster or Iridium stories?
Holy Hell, Iridium is up and down more than an 18 year old in a whorehouse!
Yeah, that's what I was trying to say.
To be sure, different parts of software have different needs. If you're designed space shuttle guidance software, go ahead and engineer for five nines (99.999% uptime). A script that pages you when you get an e-mail from your girlfriend is probably a lot less mission-critical.
But the point here is that you want both of them to work. I would argue that from a personal perspective, knowing that your SO e-mailed you is more important than the space shuttle. But, the point is, both should work.
How reliable should the software be?
I don't understand that one. I never want to sit in front of my computer and hope it works this time.
Fragmenting software engineering would have a very poor effect on the development of these base strategies
Fragmenting can't happen until the base strategies are in place. Lanier is arguging that we haven't yet reached the level of having base strategies in place. I would agree with him. The discipline of design has not been hammered into our collective heads yet. The computer makes the leap from thought to code too easy. UML and various OO strategies help to slow down the leap to the computer and give people a chance to think designs over for a bit, which is what is needed. I really view UML as a process of thinking things over rather than software design. It gives you something to do while you think. The end result is a stack of documentation that makes coding easier and has the side benfit of showing that you at least thought about your design long enough to draw some pictures.
I think that what he was trying to get at is that software design and coding need to become more fragmented. A robotics engineer and a civil engineer are both engineers, but I really don't think the two could switch jobs that easily. They use many of the same methods to design things, but the end results are much different.
How many centuries did it take for engineering to develop? Modern software design is only about 50 years old.
Skyscrapers are built in a few years. How many years of planning go into those few years of construction? How many thousands of people are involved? Compare to your typical software project. Large programs are written in 18 months (yeah right). How many years of planning go into those 18 months? How many thousands of people are involoved?
I would argue that software is not yet a repeatable process. It can be, but Lanier is right. Humanity does not "get" software design. It will eventually "get" it, and we will all be better off.
Back in my younger days, my father and I built a great number of heathkit kits. We built a vacuum tube volt-ohm meter, a digital circuit trainer (still works), and took some basic digital electronic self study courses. Not only were they a great way to do some father son stuff, but I (and he) learned a great deal from all of it.
I don't know if they still have all the kits and whatnot, but here's a link.
It did end weak, but at least it did not rain!