You forget that Martin is black, and Zimmerman is white.
Therefore, according to the rules of racial and cultural Marxism as defined by Antonio Gramsci, Zimmerman is GUILTY.
Not just of MURDERING Martin, but of any and all bad things that ever happened to him or anyone else in his entire family.
Zimmerman is guilty, and Martin innocent, not because of what either of them did or did not do, but because of the tribal groups they belong to. People with paler complexions have, at various times and places, done bad things to people with darker complexions. Therefore the darker complected people alive today are granted moral superiority over lighter complected people. It does not matter that neither the paler nor the darker people alive today have anything to do with these past wrongs. It does not matter that none of them are victims and none of them are perpetrators. A skin-deep resemblance to past victims or past perpetrators is sufficient to cast one in the role of victim or perpetrator, with penalties or compensation doled out accordingly.
Zimmerman will go to prison for the crime of defending himself against a member of a group he was not allowed to protect himself from. White people in the antebellum south were allowed to beat black people and smash their heads into the ground. Therefore black people are allowed to do the same thing to white people today. White people who resist will be treated the same way a black person would have been in the past. This is Social Justice.
I just realized something. I'm wasting my time talking to someone whose opinion of my mental state is about as informed as my understanding of Swahili.
You're not qualified to evaluate my mental state. You're a coder, not a psychologist, not a shrink.
The Stanford prison experiment is interesting, but it is also irrelevant. Prisons aren't filled with individuals chosen at random from the larger society and arbitrarily assigned roles as guards and convicts. Prisons are filled with CRIMINALS. Bad people who have done bad things, usually repeatedly before they were finally caught, and who would still be out there doing more of those same bad things if they were not locked up.
I want black hats locked up. If Bubba gives them a welcoming party while there.....maybe they'll think twice before pulling that kind of crap again. If not, Bubba will still be there for their second visit.
Smoking joints is proof of profound stupidity. I've no sympathy for someone stupid enough to violate a law whose consequences are known to all. Get caught with a joint, go to jail. The only winning move is to stay away from such drugs. I do believe that the laws and money spent on such things are unneccesary, but then so are the joints themselves. Illicit Drugs aren't useful or helpful. They're damaging. A real pass/fail IQ test all around. Fuck drug users. If they're stupid enough to do drugs and get caught then I'm not going to cry cause they're having to face the consequences.
As for the kiddy porn argument, that's specious nonsense. No one has ever been convicted of traffiking child pornography on that basis. There have been sexual predators who have tried to pretend that the tens of thousands of images of children being sexually abused found on their computer were somehow put there by others. Such arguments don't stand up in court and Chester the Child Molester gets locked up, as he should be.
The vast majority of convicts are guilty. Very few are innocent. Spend some time around corrections officers sometime and you'll learn all about the wonderful people under their charge, and just how depraved and vicious most of them are.
I want black hats punished. I want them punished severely. I want them punished in such a way that other would-be black hats are discouraged. This is how our criminal justice system is supposed to work. I also want that punishment to be cost effective. Life in prison costs 2 million plus. A year costs less than 50 thousand.
If that makes me a sociopath, then so is every other person who has ever been victimized by a criminal. In case you haven't noticed, politicians get a lot of mileage out of promising to be tough on crime, of locking criminals up under harsh conditions. I guess that means we're living in a nation full of sociopaths. You could always move to Norway where the mass murderer of 77 innocent people has been sentenced to a mere 21 years in prison.
I'm clearly sociopathic eh? You are clearly prone to name calling and making gratuitous accusations towards people with whom you disagree.
Prison is where criminals are kept. Criminals victimize people. So naturally they victimize each other in prison. This is why anyone accused of a crime is so fearful of spending time behind bars. It isn't the confinement that inspires such fear, it is the people they are locked up with. Shows like Beyond Scared Straight use this to full effect.
There are prisons where this doesn't happen. They are called SuperMax facilities. Convicts are under 24 hour lock-down in isolated cells. They don't get to interact with each other.
Interestingly enough, these facilities are commonly attacked as inhumane and cruel.
A flat tax on CONSUMPTION (other than food and other necessities) is a much better way to go.
Of course all discussions of tax reform are futile without a constitutional requirement that the federal government actually balance its books. As long as politicians continue to steal money from future generations (public debt) in order to purchase votes through "entitlements" and other such schemes, the government will always find a way to WASTE and squander whatever tax revenues are generated, regardless of how they are collected.
Pass a balanced budget amendment, then we can talk about who gets to pay what though which means. Till then, it's all bullshit.
I'm a hell of a lot more concerned about government SPENDING.
If the US federal government were constitutionally required to balance its books instead of stealing money from future generations in the form of public debt, taxes would be LOW and spending would be constrained to the revenue on hand, preventing most of the socially destructive expenditures of the past 50 years.
Australia is of course another country, but the principle remains valid.
Giving money to the government should not be seen as a civil virtue, but as a destructive activity. It empowers bureaucrats, rent seekers, and other such parasites while simultaneously reducing the wealth that can be re-invested into productive activities.
Those who thirst for your tax dollars do so because they are unable or unwilling to actually produce something of value themselves. Without coercive extraction of wealth by the state, which they maneuver into position to dip into, they'd starve.
Given the choice between giving 1 dollar to the state, and burning 2 dollars in an open pit, I'd choose the latter every single time.
Calling me names is such a persuasive argument. How can I possibly argue with someone who emotes rather than thinks?
So life in prison is better for those who are innocent? Dying of old age in a cage a half century from now is better than a year behind bars? Exactly where do you think these innocents are being incarcerated? In the prison where only nice people are kept?
This guy, if actually guilty of the charges against him, is a scumbag. I've no real qualms about the punishment he receives, provided it represents a real deterrent to others and is cost effective. Life in prison is a good deterrent, but one that is going to cost the taxpayers 2 MILLION dollars or more. Meanwhile there are violent criminals who could be locked up instead. There has to be a better way.
I'm proposing that he get the same punishment that Hans Reiser has received, quality time within that special place known as San Quentin. Hans has learned the hard way that murdering the mother of your children is not a great way to solve a marital spat.
Whether that qualifies as torture or not doesn't trouble me. If you say it is torture, so be it, doesn't matter to me. What does trouble me is the idea of the American people having to shell out 2 MILLION dollars, or more, to keep this guy under armed lock and key for the next half century. Total waste of money.
Far too often in this country, criminal penalties cost society more than the actual crime for which that person is being punished. Not sustainable in a nation that is 16 TRILLION dollars in debt, and growing by BILLIONS more each day.
I'm quite serious. Cases like this one reveal a severe flaw in our criminal justice system. The cost/benefit ratio of locking this guy up for the rest of his life just does not compute. It costs tens of thousands of dollars each year to keep someone locked up. Multiply that over the course of 4 or 5 decades and the price tag just isn't worth it. We're 16 TRILLION in the hole, and counting. We quite simply can't afford to give life sentences to every asshole who comes along. There are people who need to be kept in a cage till the day they die. Rapists murderers, child molesters, etc, etc. This guy isn't one of them. Yet at the same time a slap on the wrist simply encourages others out there like him to do the same thing he did.
Seems the best solution is one that severely punishes him, and IS SEEN TO BE SEVERELY PUNISHING, but doesn't cost a whole lot. A year with Bubba is a good cheap alternative.
Had this happened in the old Soviet Union he would have gotten life in prison as well. A short life, punctuated by a bullet to the back of the head.
But because this is America, my tax dollars are going to spent keeping him alive for the next several decades. Either kill him, or deliver a cost-effective but brutal punishment such as will discourage anyone else from pulling the same crap he did.
Seems to me that the best punishment would be a year or so in prison with the most violent and vicious criminals our society has to offer. If that doesn't discourage him from his black-hat activities then nothing will. A few before and after pictures (of both his face and anus) posted online should do the trick.
Other than the differences between elevators and lifts, hoods and bonnets, trunks and boots, trucks and lorries, station wagons and estate cars, shopping carts and trollies, and of course fish sticks and fish fingers, I'm not sure why US english would be difficult for UK speakers to deal with. Spellings can be different also of course, color vs colour, defense vs defence, etc, etc. But people still know what the words mean.
My ex is british and I spent a fair bit of time over there. I saw almost as much American programming on the TV (or telly) as I did native brit programming.
Your professor was silly to apologize as Brits are far more familiar with US English than we yanks are with UK English here across the pond.
When conservatives and libertarians zig, they say we should have zagged. When we zag, they say we should have zigged. When one of their own follows in our footsteps and continues our policies, all criticism stops because that criticism was nothing but a cynical ploy in the first place. Scandals involving us are evidence of moral failure and a matter of national importance. Scandals involving them are a distraction and an attempt at divisiveness.
If called on their dishonesty and hypocrisy, they scream and rant and say we're all racists.
It is so nice to see a post from someone who lives in the real world. So many among the slashdot community suffer from ideological inebriation, if not outright delusional thinking. What the hell do techies know about politics, war, economics or anything for that matter? About as much as anyone else who isn't an expert in those fields.
It is very easy to take an intractable and unsolvable problem, of which our world offers up many examples, and standing at a distance from the problem, oversimplify it in order to come up with a supposed solution that would do nothing to address the issue, and would often create far larger problems if ever implemented. Leftists and Social Conservatives are both infamous for this.
Life is hard, but it is harder when you are stupid, and the irony is that intelligence makes one capable of greater levels of stupidity because such a person can rationalize unworkable ideas that a less intelligent person would give up on, especially when that person lacks the direct experience that would serve to disabuse them of their fantasies.
Or as George Orwell once said, "Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them."
Without experience and feet-on-the-ground interaction and grappling with the problem at hand, even the most intellectually advanced notions about the nature of the problem and its solutions are nothing more than daydreams.
Adam Smith described people like Comsky as "wise in their conceit." The fact that a person is profoundly talented and knowledgeable in one area says nothing about their talents or understanding of unrelated fields. As Richard Feynman put it: "I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.” An artist looking at non-artistic problems is just as dumb. A writer looking at non-verbal problems is also just as dumb. Competence and skill are not generalize-able, but specific. Bobby Fischer was one of the greatest chess players of all time, but his general life skills were totally lacking.
I have a serious problem with the idea of governments rubber stamping religions as "official" as this goes against the principle that church and state are separate.
Why should we as a society waste time trying to teach these concepts to people who will never understand them?
Vocational schools and other types of training were once offered for those who were not college material.
Today the unspoken and unexamined assumption that every kid is college material is part of why our public schools are so laughably corrupt and dysfunctional.
Slashdot Mirror
We don't use wireless here. We use power line network adapters.
They are faster than wireless, cheap, and avoid the problems you're describing.
Beyond that, find out who is doing this and confront them. If they don't stop....make them wish they had.
You forget that Martin is black, and Zimmerman is white.
Therefore, according to the rules of racial and cultural Marxism as defined by Antonio Gramsci, Zimmerman is GUILTY.
Not just of MURDERING Martin, but of any and all bad things that ever happened to him or anyone else in his entire family.
Zimmerman is guilty, and Martin innocent, not because of what either of them did or did not do, but because of the tribal groups they belong to. People with paler complexions have, at various times and places, done bad things to people with darker complexions. Therefore the darker complected people alive today are granted moral superiority over lighter complected people. It does not matter that neither the paler nor the darker people alive today have anything to do with these past wrongs. It does not matter that none of them are victims and none of them are perpetrators. A skin-deep resemblance to past victims or past perpetrators is sufficient to cast one in the role of victim or perpetrator, with penalties or compensation doled out accordingly.
Zimmerman will go to prison for the crime of defending himself against a member of a group he was not allowed to protect himself from. White people in the antebellum south were allowed to beat black people and smash their heads into the ground. Therefore black people are allowed to do the same thing to white people today. White people who resist will be treated the same way a black person would have been in the past. This is Social Justice.
I just realized something. I'm wasting my time talking to someone whose opinion of my mental state is about as informed as my understanding of Swahili.
You're not qualified to evaluate my mental state. You're a coder, not a psychologist, not a shrink.
The Stanford prison experiment is interesting, but it is also irrelevant. Prisons aren't filled with individuals chosen at random from the larger society and arbitrarily assigned roles as guards and convicts. Prisons are filled with CRIMINALS. Bad people who have done bad things, usually repeatedly before they were finally caught, and who would still be out there doing more of those same bad things if they were not locked up.
I want black hats locked up. If Bubba gives them a welcoming party while there.....maybe they'll think twice before pulling that kind of crap again. If not, Bubba will still be there for their second visit.
Smoking joints is proof of profound stupidity. I've no sympathy for someone stupid enough to violate a law whose consequences are known to all. Get caught with a joint, go to jail. The only winning move is to stay away from such drugs. I do believe that the laws and money spent on such things are unneccesary, but then so are the joints themselves. Illicit Drugs aren't useful or helpful. They're damaging. A real pass/fail IQ test all around. Fuck drug users. If they're stupid enough to do drugs and get caught then I'm not going to cry cause they're having to face the consequences.
As for the kiddy porn argument, that's specious nonsense. No one has ever been convicted of traffiking child pornography on that basis. There have been sexual predators who have tried to pretend that the tens of thousands of images of children being sexually abused found on their computer were somehow put there by others. Such arguments don't stand up in court and Chester the Child Molester gets locked up, as he should be.
The vast majority of convicts are guilty. Very few are innocent. Spend some time around corrections officers sometime and you'll learn all about the wonderful people under their charge, and just how depraved and vicious most of them are.
I want black hats punished. I want them punished severely. I want them punished in such a way that other would-be black hats are discouraged. This is how our criminal justice system is supposed to work. I also want that punishment to be cost effective. Life in prison costs 2 million plus. A year costs less than 50 thousand.
If that makes me a sociopath, then so is every other person who has ever been victimized by a criminal. In case you haven't noticed, politicians get a lot of mileage out of promising to be tough on crime, of locking criminals up under harsh conditions. I guess that means we're living in a nation full of sociopaths. You could always move to Norway where the mass murderer of 77 innocent people has been sentenced to a mere 21 years in prison.
I'm clearly sociopathic eh? You are clearly prone to name calling and making gratuitous accusations towards people with whom you disagree.
Prison is where criminals are kept. Criminals victimize people. So naturally they victimize each other in prison. This is why anyone accused of a crime is so fearful of spending time behind bars. It isn't the confinement that inspires such fear, it is the people they are locked up with. Shows like Beyond Scared Straight use this to full effect.
There are prisons where this doesn't happen. They are called SuperMax facilities. Convicts are under 24 hour lock-down in isolated cells. They don't get to interact with each other.
Interestingly enough, these facilities are commonly attacked as inhumane and cruel.
The taxation of INCOME is the problem.
A flat tax on CONSUMPTION (other than food and other necessities) is a much better way to go.
Of course all discussions of tax reform are futile without a constitutional requirement that the federal government actually balance its books. As long as politicians continue to steal money from future generations (public debt) in order to purchase votes through "entitlements" and other such schemes, the government will always find a way to WASTE and squander whatever tax revenues are generated, regardless of how they are collected.
Pass a balanced budget amendment, then we can talk about who gets to pay what though which means. Till then, it's all bullshit.
I'm a hell of a lot more concerned about government SPENDING.
If the US federal government were constitutionally required to balance its books instead of stealing money from future generations in the form of public debt, taxes would be LOW and spending would be constrained to the revenue on hand, preventing most of the socially destructive expenditures of the past 50 years.
Australia is of course another country, but the principle remains valid.
Giving money to the government should not be seen as a civil virtue, but as a destructive activity. It empowers bureaucrats, rent seekers, and other such parasites while simultaneously reducing the wealth that can be re-invested into productive activities.
Those who thirst for your tax dollars do so because they are unable or unwilling to actually produce something of value themselves. Without coercive extraction of wealth by the state, which they maneuver into position to dip into, they'd starve.
Given the choice between giving 1 dollar to the state, and burning 2 dollars in an open pit, I'd choose the latter every single time.
Murderers, rapists, etc, etc, get DECADES in prison, or at least they should.
I'm recommending a year precisely because his offence doesn't warrant the same sort of punishment.
Life in prison should be reserved for those who truly deserve it.
As for your other accusations, they are purely gratuitous.
Calling me names is such a persuasive argument. How can I possibly argue with someone who emotes rather than thinks?
So life in prison is better for those who are innocent? Dying of old age in a cage a half century from now is better than a year behind bars? Exactly where do you think these innocents are being incarcerated? In the prison where only nice people are kept?
Exactly
This guy, if actually guilty of the charges against him, is a scumbag. I've no real qualms about the punishment he receives, provided it represents a real deterrent to others and is cost effective. Life in prison is a good deterrent, but one that is going to cost the taxpayers 2 MILLION dollars or more. Meanwhile there are violent criminals who could be locked up instead. There has to be a better way.
I'm proposing that he get the same punishment that Hans Reiser has received, quality time within that special place known as San Quentin. Hans has learned the hard way that murdering the mother of your children is not a great way to solve a marital spat.
Whether that qualifies as torture or not doesn't trouble me. If you say it is torture, so be it, doesn't matter to me. What does trouble me is the idea of the American people having to shell out 2 MILLION dollars, or more, to keep this guy under armed lock and key for the next half century. Total waste of money.
Far too often in this country, criminal penalties cost society more than the actual crime for which that person is being punished. Not sustainable in a nation that is 16 TRILLION dollars in debt, and growing by BILLIONS more each day.
They're not capable of learning.
You don't end up in San Quintin for armed robbery because you are intelligent, insightful and calculating.
If I were a sadist, would I be troubled by you calling me one?
I'm quite serious. Cases like this one reveal a severe flaw in our criminal justice system. The cost/benefit ratio of locking this guy up for the rest of his life just does not compute. It costs tens of thousands of dollars each year to keep someone locked up. Multiply that over the course of 4 or 5 decades and the price tag just isn't worth it. We're 16 TRILLION in the hole, and counting. We quite simply can't afford to give life sentences to every asshole who comes along. There are people who need to be kept in a cage till the day they die. Rapists murderers, child molesters, etc, etc. This guy isn't one of them. Yet at the same time a slap on the wrist simply encourages others out there like him to do the same thing he did.
Seems the best solution is one that severely punishes him, and IS SEEN TO BE SEVERELY PUNISHING, but doesn't cost a whole lot. A year with Bubba is a good cheap alternative.
Had this happened in the old Soviet Union he would have gotten life in prison as well. A short life, punctuated by a bullet to the back of the head.
But because this is America, my tax dollars are going to spent keeping him alive for the next several decades. Either kill him, or deliver a cost-effective but brutal punishment such as will discourage anyone else from pulling the same crap he did.
Seems to me that the best punishment would be a year or so in prison with the most violent and vicious criminals our society has to offer. If that doesn't discourage him from his black-hat activities then nothing will. A few before and after pictures (of both his face and anus) posted online should do the trick.
Are you kidding? The Blaze is awesome!
Other than the differences between elevators and lifts, hoods and bonnets, trunks and boots, trucks and lorries, station wagons and estate cars, shopping carts and trollies, and of course fish sticks and fish fingers, I'm not sure why US english would be difficult for UK speakers to deal with. Spellings can be different also of course, color vs colour, defense vs defence, etc, etc. But people still know what the words mean.
My ex is british and I spent a fair bit of time over there. I saw almost as much American programming on the TV (or telly) as I did native brit programming.
Your professor was silly to apologize as Brits are far more familiar with US English than we yanks are with UK English here across the pond.
What it must be like to be a leftist....
When conservatives and libertarians zig, they say we should have zagged. When we zag, they say we should have zigged. When one of their own follows in our footsteps and continues our policies, all criticism stops because that criticism was nothing but a cynical ploy in the first place. Scandals involving us are evidence of moral failure and a matter of national importance. Scandals involving them are a distraction and an attempt at divisiveness.
If called on their dishonesty and hypocrisy, they scream and rant and say we're all racists.
Thank you!
It is so nice to see a post from someone who lives in the real world. So many among the slashdot community suffer from ideological inebriation, if not outright delusional thinking. What the hell do techies know about politics, war, economics or anything for that matter? About as much as anyone else who isn't an expert in those fields.
It is very easy to take an intractable and unsolvable problem, of which our world offers up many examples, and standing at a distance from the problem, oversimplify it in order to come up with a supposed solution that would do nothing to address the issue, and would often create far larger problems if ever implemented. Leftists and Social Conservatives are both infamous for this.
Life is hard, but it is harder when you are stupid, and the irony is that intelligence makes one capable of greater levels of stupidity because such a person can rationalize unworkable ideas that a less intelligent person would give up on, especially when that person lacks the direct experience that would serve to disabuse them of their fantasies.
Or as George Orwell once said, "Some ideas are so stupid only an intellectual could believe them."
Without experience and feet-on-the-ground interaction and grappling with the problem at hand, even the most intellectually advanced notions about the nature of the problem and its solutions are nothing more than daydreams.
Adam Smith described people like Comsky as "wise in their conceit." The fact that a person is profoundly talented and knowledgeable in one area says nothing about their talents or understanding of unrelated fields. As Richard Feynman put it: "I believe that a scientist looking at nonscientific problems is just as dumb as the next guy.” An artist looking at non-artistic problems is just as dumb. A writer looking at non-verbal problems is also just as dumb. Competence and skill are not generalize-able, but specific. Bobby Fischer was one of the greatest chess players of all time, but his general life skills were totally lacking.
FreeDOS is, like every other open source project, a labor of love produced by those who are intrinsically motivated to do so.
YOU are not really part of their plan.
They do it for themselves so that they can have a better toy to play with.
If you're not interested in sharing the joy of playing with this new and improved toy.... it really doesn't matter.
It is unfortunate that FreeDOS couldn't have been created sometime around 1985.
I have a serious problem with the idea of governments rubber stamping religions as "official" as this goes against the principle that church and state are separate.
Anything that undermines the power of teachers' unions is a good thing.
This threatens that power by threatening their continued illusion of relevance to the education of the young.
Carol Marcus?
I'd much rather take her daughter, Samantha Mathis:
http://celebritynet.cz/photos/0/b/5/0b54be45ee551a354ab31998d2f1a689.jpg
http://www.moviespad.com/photos/samantha-mathis-lost-b6bc2.jpg
http://www.allcelebspics.com/wp-content/gallery/samantha-mathis/Samantha%20Mathis_1295188973516939.jpg
Why should we as a society waste time trying to teach these concepts to people who will never understand them?
Vocational schools and other types of training were once offered for those who were not college material.
Today the unspoken and unexamined assumption that every kid is college material is part of why our public schools are so laughably corrupt and dysfunctional.