What is it worth? It's worth the bother, and the cost.
To whom is it worth it? The democratic majority, apparently, considering the American democratic majority continues to support the death penalty.
What do we get out of it? We get justice, of course.
Let me ask you a similar question. What useful thing do you get out of imprisoning someone for longer than it would take to be sure they wouldn't recommit? Why don't we let out all prisoners who become decrepit and disabled? Because we feel that dying in prison is part of the justice, that's why. Similarly we feel that hastening the death is appropriate justice in some cases.
You make a fair point but in this case the Supreme Court has ruled on the question. If we take their interpretation to be the controlling interpretation, and I do, then the "and" means "and".
And her opinion on the 8th amendment matters why exactly?
Because that's how justice is served, of course. Constitution schmonstitution, we are all humans and we know what justice is. If a person did something horrible, then yes it's justice to do it back to them. Through the slow process of law we round off a lot of sharp corners, but the nugget of justice is still there: if you fuck with other people, we'll fuck with you back. The lesson is, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, because that's what we're going to do if we catch you.
Yes, but the standard is "cruel and unusual" not "cruel or unusual". If a death method is cruel but common, that's fine. If the method is not cruel, but novel, that's also fine. The whole point is to stop executioners from thinking up new ways to torture people to death.
I agree with you. In my opinion the most humane form of execution is to stop the brain in a short time, which in the past was a guillotine and today would be a fast-moving smashing of his head, perhaps with a shotgun blast or a fast-moving hydraulic press. We could certainly splatter brains faster than the brain would realize what was happening. If pain is what we are trying to avoid, then that would be zero pain.
Done. Next question.
(I'm not opposed to the death penalty but I think America should use it less. Murder isn't enough. I think mass-murder is where the death penalty should begin to be considered.)
Fair enough. I am an asshole. I'm not wrong though. The null hypothesis is the assumption that two phenomena are unrelated and what I said is that the null hypothesis doesn't need special protection. That is right.
Are you really suggesting that you think it is reasonable to say that every chemical in marijuana has zero effect on schizophrenia, and that we are so confident we don't even need to check?
Nope, this is what I'm saying, quoth:
But in science we don't protect a hypothesis, when it is contraindicated by the evidence, by inventing unknown unrecorded unexplained confounding factors.
If you study two things, and there is no measurable correlation between them, then it is only reasonable to conclude that there is no link between them. Although it is technically slimly possible that the two things are linked, but some confounding factor precisely counteracts the link such that the measured correlation is zero, that cannot be reasonably proposed without some evidence. Speculation isn't good enough, which is what you did when you said this:
It could be that marijuana increase schizophrenia, and some other factor decreases schizophrenia fore than marijuana increases it.
That's all I'm saying. Anyway I don't feel combative about this issue so I don't want to harp on it. It's a minor point.
In my opinion the threshold for patentability should be higher than average in the skill of the art. I mean, average ideas are unremarkable and shouldn't have special monopoly status. To get that special status you should have to come up with something truly clever, something an average-skilled practitioner couldn't come up with.
So if you take two average schlubs and they both come up with your idea, then in my opinion yeah that's not a valid patent.
But what the hell does my opinion matter? I know the legal threshold is quite a bit lower than that.
Exactly! we don't protect a hypothesis like "Marijuana doesn't cause schizophrenia". We attack it to see if it can withstand scrutiny. Just like we attack the hypothesis that "Marijuana does cause schizophrenia". Neither hypothesis gets a free pass.
Good try, but the null hypothesis doesn't need protection. It is the default assumption. Bone up on your Science 101 and come back to argue another time.
We also don't need to protect the hypotheses that space aliens didn't cause me to fail a math test, or that lion roars don't cause earthquakes. To posit a causation requires evidence; to posit no causation is just the starting position.
Impaired implies a lower level of execution. The evidence suggests that marijuana does not lower the level of driving execution, therefore marijuana is not a driving impairment under laws which generically describe driving while impaired.
To make driving under the influence of marijuana illegal a legislature would have to pass a specific law, and many have done that.
"Whats happening here is the pot smokers are succumbing earlier."
Look carefully and you will se that this is circular reasoning. Try this rephrasing: "what's happening here is that those who succumb earlier were smoking pot". That reverses the causality.
So which one is it? I don't know but a properly crafted study could find out.
I'm familiar with that claim and it seems overwrought. Wouldn't it be easier to say that those suffering from psychosis tend to do more poorly in life, end up hanging out with the dredges of society, where drug use is more common?
Sure maybe. Maybe Jesus cast his magic powers to make it seem like marijuana is safe even though it's not. But in science we don't protect a hypothesis, when it is contraindicated by the evidence, by inventing unknown unrecorded unexplained confounding factors. That is the opposite of how reason works.
If you were a tautologist you might even say that legal guns are never used in a crime, not ever, not once. But then that would be meaningless wouldn't it? Because the same tautologist would tell you that 100% of guns used in crimes started out as legal guns.
Probably for the same reason that we think keeping suitcase nukes out of the hands of terrorists reduces the number of suitcase nukes used in terrorist attacks.
The Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to purchase arms. It only guarantees the right to keep and bare arms. If the State can successfully prevent a citizen from obtaining a gun, the Constitution is silent on that.
Oh, what? huh? suddenly the "strict constructionists" and "textualists" don't like the plain meaning of the actual text of the Amendment? Suddenly you want to expand the text with emanations and penumbras? Huh, okay then.
He didn't try to refute your argument because you didn't make an argument. You simply made a false statement. In the debate between a false factual claim and an ad hominem attack, both sides lose.
Agreed. I've read Slashdot for a long time, since before the Hellmouth days, and I've seen some poorly edited articles, but I think this one is the very worst.
Slashdot Mirror
What is it worth? It's worth the bother, and the cost.
To whom is it worth it? The democratic majority, apparently, considering the American democratic majority continues to support the death penalty.
What do we get out of it? We get justice, of course.
Let me ask you a similar question. What useful thing do you get out of imprisoning someone for longer than it would take to be sure they wouldn't recommit? Why don't we let out all prisoners who become decrepit and disabled? Because we feel that dying in prison is part of the justice, that's why. Similarly we feel that hastening the death is appropriate justice in some cases.
You make a fair point but in this case the Supreme Court has ruled on the question. If we take their interpretation to be the controlling interpretation, and I do, then the "and" means "and".
If you think a little harder you'll realize that's wrong. Many laws are specific to people in specific jobs.
Justice is essentially an emotional exercise so is it a fallacy to appeal to emotion when seeking justice?
That's correct. We don't execute criminals to save money. We execute criminal because it's WORTH IT.
That depends, is it a reasonable demand? Do we agree with it? If so, then yes we do that.
In this case, I'm on the side of crucifixion. Fuck that guy. We couldn't even think of things bad enough to do to that guy.
And her opinion on the 8th amendment matters why exactly?
Because that's how justice is served, of course. Constitution schmonstitution, we are all humans and we know what justice is. If a person did something horrible, then yes it's justice to do it back to them. Through the slow process of law we round off a lot of sharp corners, but the nugget of justice is still there: if you fuck with other people, we'll fuck with you back. The lesson is, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, because that's what we're going to do if we catch you.
Yes, but the standard is "cruel and unusual" not "cruel or unusual". If a death method is cruel but common, that's fine. If the method is not cruel, but novel, that's also fine. The whole point is to stop executioners from thinking up new ways to torture people to death.
I agree with you. In my opinion the most humane form of execution is to stop the brain in a short time, which in the past was a guillotine and today would be a fast-moving smashing of his head, perhaps with a shotgun blast or a fast-moving hydraulic press. We could certainly splatter brains faster than the brain would realize what was happening. If pain is what we are trying to avoid, then that would be zero pain.
Done. Next question.
(I'm not opposed to the death penalty but I think America should use it less. Murder isn't enough. I think mass-murder is where the death penalty should begin to be considered.)
Fair enough. I am an asshole. I'm not wrong though. The null hypothesis is the assumption that two phenomena are unrelated and what I said is that the null hypothesis doesn't need special protection. That is right.
Are you really suggesting that you think it is reasonable to say that every chemical in marijuana has zero effect on schizophrenia, and that we are so confident we don't even need to check?
Nope, this is what I'm saying, quoth:
But in science we don't protect a hypothesis, when it is contraindicated by the evidence, by inventing unknown unrecorded unexplained confounding factors.
If you study two things, and there is no measurable correlation between them, then it is only reasonable to conclude that there is no link between them. Although it is technically slimly possible that the two things are linked, but some confounding factor precisely counteracts the link such that the measured correlation is zero, that cannot be reasonably proposed without some evidence. Speculation isn't good enough, which is what you did when you said this:
It could be that marijuana increase schizophrenia, and some other factor decreases schizophrenia fore than marijuana increases it.
That's all I'm saying. Anyway I don't feel combative about this issue so I don't want to harp on it. It's a minor point.
In my opinion the threshold for patentability should be higher than average in the skill of the art. I mean, average ideas are unremarkable and shouldn't have special monopoly status. To get that special status you should have to come up with something truly clever, something an average-skilled practitioner couldn't come up with.
So if you take two average schlubs and they both come up with your idea, then in my opinion yeah that's not a valid patent.
But what the hell does my opinion matter? I know the legal threshold is quite a bit lower than that.
Exactly! we don't protect a hypothesis like "Marijuana doesn't cause schizophrenia". We attack it to see if it can withstand scrutiny. Just like we attack the hypothesis that "Marijuana does cause schizophrenia". Neither hypothesis gets a free pass.
Good try, but the null hypothesis doesn't need protection. It is the default assumption. Bone up on your Science 101 and come back to argue another time.
We also don't need to protect the hypotheses that space aliens didn't cause me to fail a math test, or that lion roars don't cause earthquakes. To posit a causation requires evidence; to posit no causation is just the starting position.
Impaired implies a lower level of execution. The evidence suggests that marijuana does not lower the level of driving execution, therefore marijuana is not a driving impairment under laws which generically describe driving while impaired.
To make driving under the influence of marijuana illegal a legislature would have to pass a specific law, and many have done that.
"Whats happening here is the pot smokers are succumbing earlier."
Look carefully and you will se that this is circular reasoning. Try this rephrasing: "what's happening here is that those who succumb earlier were smoking pot". That reverses the causality.
So which one is it? I don't know but a properly crafted study could find out.
I'm familiar with that claim and it seems overwrought. Wouldn't it be easier to say that those suffering from psychosis tend to do more poorly in life, end up hanging out with the dredges of society, where drug use is more common?
Sure maybe. Maybe Jesus cast his magic powers to make it seem like marijuana is safe even though it's not. But in science we don't protect a hypothesis, when it is contraindicated by the evidence, by inventing unknown unrecorded unexplained confounding factors. That is the opposite of how reason works.
If you were a tautologist you might even say that legal guns are never used in a crime, not ever, not once. But then that would be meaningless wouldn't it? Because the same tautologist would tell you that 100% of guns used in crimes started out as legal guns.
Probably for the same reason that we think keeping suitcase nukes out of the hands of terrorists reduces the number of suitcase nukes used in terrorist attacks.
The Constitution doesn't guarantee the right to purchase arms. It only guarantees the right to keep and bare arms. If the State can successfully prevent a citizen from obtaining a gun, the Constitution is silent on that.
Oh, what? huh? suddenly the "strict constructionists" and "textualists" don't like the plain meaning of the actual text of the Amendment? Suddenly you want to expand the text with emanations and penumbras? Huh, okay then.
I mostly agree with you but are you saying Bitcoin is a fiat currency? It is not a fiat currency.
He didn't try to refute your argument because you didn't make an argument. You simply made a false statement. In the debate between a false factual claim and an ad hominem attack, both sides lose.
I'm not a set theorist but I don't think those are the only two types.
Yeah, that loser Asimov probably thought they would have buttons. What a stooge.
Agreed. I've read Slashdot for a long time, since before the Hellmouth days, and I've seen some poorly edited articles, but I think this one is the very worst.