The reason why we have clouds of molecular gas in our galaxy today is a rather amazing one which no one originally anticipated. Besides gas, there are also small, solid dust grains belched out from winds from cool red giant stars in their final phases of evolution. Atoms collide and freeze out onto the surfaces of these grains, where they can remain for a very long time, migrating very slowly along the surface via Brownian processes. Every once in a while, it will bump into another or molecule frozen out in a similar fashion, thereby creating a more complex molecule. The dust grains catalyze the generation of molecules -- without them, we wouldn't have such an abundance of molecular gas in the galaxy today. Indeed, astronomers believe star formation in the early universe was substantially different from that which occurs today because such dust grains would have been completely absent.
I think this result is particularly surprising since one might expect that any winds or shocks thrown off by a star capable of boiling away a comet might also tend to powerful enough to destroy the molecules generated. If that really is the mechanism involved, it is a remarkable coincidence that the winds are just powerful enough to ablate the comets, but not so powerful as to destroy the molecules present.
Hey wait a second. If complex molecules are created on the backs of dust particles, what are dust particles made of? I'd presume thay they are complex molecules. Doesn't this sound just a bit like the chicken before the egg?
Is anyon, or has anyone heard of any areas in Sacramento, CA? Down the road a bit I'm thinking of starting a bit of a movement here with the aim of setting up a web site that shows easy ways to connect to a free wireless network for the Sacramento area, much like the ones we are seeing crop up in the UK and Seattle.
I just don't have the time or extra $$$ to do it now.
Just remember that vitamin C has been proven to be good for you by many scientific studies.
There is currently no evidence that shows that "theraputic touch" provides medical benefits, and there is evidence that it doesn't provide medical benefits. Therefore any claims that "theraputic touch" provides medical benefits are extraordinary.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Re:I think we'd have more important problems
on
Rebooting The World?
·
· Score: 1
Ooooh boy. Ease off the guns there, cowboy. You might need to adjust your view of geeks a bit. I think you don't really understand what it takes to be a survivor. Sure hunting and gathering are important. But, you might be surprised at how easy it is to gather food. There are a lot of things more important than barehanded hunting and gathering.
Tool making is more important. Try hunting with your bare hands. Hoe you like lots of lizards, grubs, and bugs mmmmmmmm (actually, prepared correctly, I dig grubs, they are like popcorn, just don't eat the heads). But if you are going to hunt something that moves quickly, you need tools. You need tools to make a good shelter; you need tools to prepare and eat food; you need tools to store and filter water; you need tools to make better tools. I know the processes involved in designing and making tools.
Problem solving is more important. Dealing with a disaster involves quick thinking to solve your problems. What do you do when your main water supply is contaminated? What do you do when a smaller disaster takes out your shelter? I know how to break down big problems into tasks and problem solve.
Communities are more important. Communication between groups of people and cooperation can get you back on your feet faster than if you do it alone. I know how to lead; I know how to follow. I'm a good communicator and know how to ask questions with out an ego in my way; I know how to convey my thoughts and explain them to others.
SO, being a geek isn't all that bad in a survival situation. That and I think most of the geeks I know are outdoors types of people, in spite of what others think. Funny how stereotypes can be the opposite of what the group is really like. I think geeks are from all walks of life, they just have the ability to make tools, problem solve, create communities and communicate openly. These things all would be helpful in a disaster.
I have to agree with most people posting on this, it is neat to get something to that size, but what market were they thinking of? It's not a PDA, it's not a notebook, it's not a PC.
Just another expensive item that has no handle on it, so when you loose your grip you have to drop another grand to replace it.
Althought I undertand where you are coming from, I'd bet that the comments are placed there more to get us talking here. Some might even be a "devils advocate" position in slight ways...
No Shit! It's supposed to. It's supposed to teach him that by doing the crime, he's going to have to pay, and therefore he shouldn't commit such a crime again. He's not going to learn that lesson if we coddle him, or fine him a small sum of money that he can make back by spamming millions of people. He broke the law and seven years (which he probably won't receive) is just.
Maybe I should have phrased that:
THIS PLACE STILL SUCKS, AND IT AIN'T WORKIN' FOLKS!
Is being in prison supposed to suck as badly as it does? Is harsh treatment the best, least expensive way to teach a lesson? I agree that the idea behind incarceration is that it will reduce crime, but I don't think it is working, and a new approach is needed.
Many would agree, that there are certain folk who are so poor at getting along with others, that for the sake of the people they would continue to assault (mental or physical), they should be locked up until they can prove they will behave. There are others whose victims are harmed monetarily, with no intention of assault, and little real anguish involved. Lastly, and unjustly dealt with, are victimless crimes, where the only harm that might be done is to the "criminal" (drug use, for example).
I won't deal with victimless crimes in my propaganda, because they should not be punished by society, as they are not a crime to society, and are inherently an individual liberty. To avoid arguments from those who will say that drugs cause damage to society, I will preemptively strike now with alcohol, which has greater potential for personal damage than the most popular illegal substances, yet I doubt most would argue against your right to free beer!
So there are two types of people involved. There are criminals who are violent, and egocentric, and possibly a degree of criminally insane, and there are those who have screwed up on a more limited basis, possibly a first time.
So, as a society it is our job to bring these folks back in to the fold. Some may never be able to live with others, and will get compiled, long-term sentences, in prison. There are others who we want and need to bring back to live with the rest of us (if only to make them productive, instead of a fiscal drain). They "owe" us something for the crimes the commit, so why would we let them "pay" us back by doing time in a prison?
It is a ridiculous idea to lock up first time and non-recurring criminals! It harms them, possibly enough that they find it even more difficult to reintegrate with "normal" people, and doesn't "pay" us anything. As for punishments of this type "teaching" a lesson, I think we should look at the studies being made on this. I see not evidence that more prisons reduces crime rate.
I believe we are using a very outdated technology to punish our guilty. Don't you get the feeling that this is a legacy system that needs to be put down for something that works better?
Judgement proof means the spammer technically has no assets. There are many ways to do this, some of which are more effective at avoiding judgements than others,
Is it legal for the courts to impose on someone to make payments over a period of time, so any money they make will be garneshed? This seems logical to me. If they don't pay in cash, they could pay in jail time, the choice could be up to them that way.
What you fail to realize is that 7 years in any prison is a lot rougher to do than you think.
In addition, it's forgery that he can get up to 7 years for. If he's brought up on charges and convicted of theft and fraud, that would be even more time in prison.
But, in this case of computer forgery, 7 years is not a just amount of time to serve in a prison.
Maliciously assaulting a person might get you 7 years, or less. So, how can this compare?
In fact, the sympathetic response by many of those on Slashdot suggests to me that maybe punishments need to be made stronger in order to firmly establish that breaking into someone's computer is NO DIFFERENT from breaking into someone's house.
It is different, if you think about it. I'd rather you broke in to my computer, for instance. I use cryptography for my privacy and backups to prevent things from going missing on my computer. My house requires expensive insurance and my rates might go up.
I live in my house, and don't want to be disturbed by un-invited guests. I don't like un-invited guests on my computer either, but I certainly don't freak out about hackers like I do if someone breaks down my house door.
And, my defense of each might be just a little bit different too.
I don't think we need to firmly establish that breaking in to a computer is the same as breaking in to someone's home or business.
And we certaily should not punish a first timer in such a crime with a year in prison, or even 7 years in prison.
You are right, you should be punished "dependent on the nature of your crime". In this case it is just a tad over the line, don't you think?
In effect he stole and committed forgery. In effect he e-mailed a bunch of folks, and pointed the finger to someone else when it came to who sent the e-mail.
Assault? Not a chance.
Does this all add up to something that is "maddening and sickening"? To decide if you, I, and the rest of e-mail users are really mad and sick of this, go visit a prison and compare sitting in there, and deleting 30 e-mail.
I don't like deleting spam, but mad and sick? Not a chance.
I have, and I doubt you have now that you mention it in the way you have. I also know two people who work in prisons, one of them works for a minimum security, good behaviour prison, which is a step above regular minimum security.
The prison he works at is for folks who have been good for their stay in "regular" prison, and only have 2 years left in the "system". If they screw up in the slightest way they get sent back to the real prisons.
THIS PLACE STILL SUCKS.
The people who are in the joint for hard crimes are pretty screwed in the head. I don't think we want to mix them up with folks who are sending out spam, or even cracking/hacking/compromising/whatever-it-is-this- week. It is a waste of money. In addition, we are only bound to make some of these minor criminals into fulltime criminals.
Do you think after 7 years of prison you would come out with a "fresh, learned-my-lesson, ready for a new life attitude"? You would be scorned, jobless, and hopeless, with a head full of ideas for new crimes given to you by your experiences in the last 7 years.
The punishment should fit the crime. Don't make more criminals.
I'm stumped by what you meant about being "judgement proof". How can they dodge the court system? Doesn't it usually end in jail time (not prison time) if they do?
I think it might be easier to penalize the "company", but then the culprit would be free to start again. This might be a pain in the arse for our criminal, however, and he/she might just stop.
Still has to be better ways than 7 years in prison! Gads.
>This is evidence of a judicial system that is more about revenge than correction.
>>It's also abouot deterrents, and cash penalties have proven so far to be of limited effect against spammers.
Could you post those figures that show that monetary penalties are of limited effect? I'm curious because I wonder why they don't just increase the penalty with subsequent offences, instead of pushing people in jail.
I know there are plenty of studies that show that prison time deters criminal activity... so I won't bother backing up that claim.
This to me seems like a reasonable comparison. How much time would a person serve for this? They would be fined and serve some time, but not 7 years in prison!
I think those who are voting for prison time in this case should go visit a prison. PRISON SUCKS HARD. This is a place for our toughest criminals. It should be reserved for criminals that have intentionally harmed people with physical and mental brutality.
Prison certainly is not a place for drug users, people who evade taxes, or computer criminals who have not harmed others, execpt in a monetary fasion.
Since there was no death involved with the spamming or compromising of systems in this case. I'd leave guns and tractor deaths out of all analogies. Especially since I think that if you leave your door unlocked and a child get's a hold of your gun, the gun owner might just be in trouble.
That all asside, if you left your door unlocked, and I went inside your house with no intention of commiting a crime, say to sleep, would I be committing a crime? Not in some states, believe it or not!
I wonder if I go in to your house and use your desk and mailbox to send out hundreds of adds, is that a crime? Perhaps.
Certainly not a crime that gives us the right to put the criminal in prison for 7 years, especially if the criminal did not harm anyone. (Monetary damages asside, which should be paid by the criminal.)
Although I hate deleting spam as much as the next guy, this is ridiculous. Considering other all other crimes, 7 years is a ludicrous amount of time for anyone to spend in prison for a crime that causes little harm.
I see that the Legislature and "Justice" departments are at it again, they are trying to set punishments so the first people to be punished are examples for those to come.
I detest this bombastic view that has been done in many computer crimes, and when compared to other crimes, the amount of prison time, and monetary punishments just don't jive with other crimes.
It seems that computer crimes are becoming the drug crimes of their time. This is a just another example of a misunderstood boogie monster crime that must exaggerated in media coverage and criminal punishments. All this does in the end is fill our prisons with over punished people. This costs us too much money and causes us to have more criminals in the end.
I think 1-12 months in a county jail would do the trick, don't you? If not subsequent violations could result in a few years of prison, but really, I'd rather delete a few extra e-mail a day then pay more in taxes for prisons, and cause the creation of more criminals.
Slashdot Mirror
"Great! You're quoting lines from Star FUCKING Wars and think that it's applicable to the current situation...."
Wow, Dude.
It is an applicable quote, and quotes remind people of situations they have seen, real or imagined, drawing them into the conversation.
Reflection might help in this obviouly troubled time, try thinking.
Think on this: "Don't you quote anything imagined in your real life? Do you quote anything real in your imagined life?"
heh.
Aren't you now giving people an irrational fear of teenagers?
By far, the vast majority of teenagers are honest, but confused, people.
Out of all the teenagers I know, none are gangsters.
I think this result is particularly surprising since one might expect that any winds or shocks thrown off by a star capable of boiling away a comet might also tend to powerful enough to destroy the molecules generated. If that really is the mechanism involved, it is a remarkable coincidence that the winds are just powerful enough to ablate the comets, but not so powerful as to destroy the molecules present.
Hey wait a second. If complex molecules are created on the backs of dust particles, what are dust particles made of? I'd presume thay they are complex molecules. Doesn't this sound just a bit like the chicken before the egg?
Is anyon, or has anyone heard of any areas in Sacramento, CA? Down the road a bit I'm thinking of starting a bit of a movement here with the aim of setting up a web site that shows easy ways to connect to a free wireless network for the Sacramento area, much like the ones we are seeing crop up in the UK and Seattle.
I just don't have the time or extra $$$ to do it now.
Just remember that vitamin C has been proven to be good for you by many scientific studies.
There is currently no evidence that shows that "theraputic touch" provides medical benefits, and there is evidence that it doesn't provide medical benefits. Therefore any claims that "theraputic touch" provides medical benefits are extraordinary.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.
Ooooh boy. Ease off the guns there, cowboy. You might need to adjust your view of geeks a bit. I think you don't really understand what it takes to be a survivor. Sure hunting and gathering are important. But, you might be surprised at how easy it is to gather food. There are a lot of things more important than barehanded hunting and gathering.
Tool making is more important. Try hunting with your bare hands. Hoe you like lots of lizards, grubs, and bugs mmmmmmmm (actually, prepared correctly, I dig grubs, they are like popcorn, just don't eat the heads). But if you are going to hunt something that moves quickly, you need tools. You need tools to make a good shelter; you need tools to prepare and eat food; you need tools to store and filter water; you need tools to make better tools. I know the processes involved in designing and making tools.
Problem solving is more important. Dealing with a disaster involves quick thinking to solve your problems. What do you do when your main water supply is contaminated? What do you do when a smaller disaster takes out your shelter? I know how to break down big problems into tasks and problem solve.
Communities are more important. Communication between groups of people and cooperation can get you back on your feet faster than if you do it alone. I know how to lead; I know how to follow. I'm a good communicator and know how to ask questions with out an ego in my way; I know how to convey my thoughts and explain them to others.
SO, being a geek isn't all that bad in a survival situation. That and I think most of the geeks I know are outdoors types of people, in spite of what others think. Funny how stereotypes can be the opposite of what the group is really like. I think geeks are from all walks of life, they just have the ability to make tools, problem solve, create communities and communicate openly. These things all would be helpful in a disaster.
-Old Eagle Scout, Troop 55
Even closer still is:
I point to something, "It is over there". Information, pure and simple.
Going there should not be illegal either, unless you download illegal things there.
I'm free to attend public sales, but I should not buy things there that I believe are stolen, because that is illegal.
-The finger that points to the moon is not the moon...
Why would I buy this again?
I have to agree with most people posting on this, it is neat to get something to that size, but what market were they thinking of? It's not a PDA, it's not a notebook, it's not a PC.
Just another expensive item that has no handle on it, so when you loose your grip you have to drop another grand to replace it.
-G --Veritas Prevalibit
Cars that are the size of motorcycles would be a compromise here, eh?
But, the masses don't think beyond the need to look like they have the longest penis.
-G
Preview... must preview...
:-D
THIS PLACE STILL SUCKS.
No Shit! It's supposed to. It's supposed to teach him that by doing the crime, he's going to have to pay, and therefore he shouldn't commit such a crime again. He's not going to learn that lesson if we coddle him, or fine him a small sum of money that he can make back by spamming millions of people. He broke the law and seven years (which he probably won't receive) is just.
Maybe I should have phrased that:
THIS PLACE STILL SUCKS, AND IT AIN'T WORKIN' FOLKS!
Is being in prison supposed to suck as badly as it does? Is harsh treatment the best, least expensive way to teach a lesson? I agree that the idea behind incarceration is that it will reduce crime, but I don't think it is working, and a new approach is needed.
Many would agree, that there are certain folk who are so poor at getting along with others, that for the sake of the people they would continue to assault (mental or physical), they should be locked up until they can prove they will behave. There are others whose victims are harmed monetarily, with no intention of assault, and little real anguish involved. Lastly, and unjustly dealt with, are victimless crimes, where the only harm that might be done is to the "criminal" (drug use, for example).
I won't deal with victimless crimes in my propaganda, because they should not be punished by society, as they are not a crime to society, and are inherently an individual liberty. To avoid arguments from those who will say that drugs cause damage to society, I will preemptively strike now with alcohol, which has greater potential for personal damage than the most popular illegal substances, yet I doubt most would argue against your right to free beer!
So there are two types of people involved. There are criminals who are violent, and egocentric, and possibly a degree of criminally insane, and there are those who have screwed up on a more limited basis, possibly a first time.
So, as a society it is our job to bring these folks back in to the fold. Some may never be able to live with others, and will get compiled, long-term sentences, in prison. There are others who we want and need to bring back to live with the rest of us (if only to make them productive, instead of a fiscal drain). They "owe" us something for the crimes the commit, so why would we let them "pay" us back by doing time in a prison?
It is a ridiculous idea to lock up first time and non-recurring criminals! It harms them, possibly enough that they find it even more difficult to reintegrate with "normal" people, and doesn't "pay" us anything. As for punishments of this type "teaching" a lesson, I think we should look at the studies being made on this. I see not evidence that more prisons reduces crime rate.
I believe we are using a very outdated technology to punish our guilty. Don't you get the feeling that this is a legacy system that needs to be put down for something that works better?
-Gando
Judgement proof means the spammer technically has no assets. There are many ways to do this, some of which are more effective at avoiding judgements than others,
Is it legal for the courts to impose on someone to make payments over a period of time, so any money they make will be garneshed? This seems logical to me. If they don't pay in cash, they could pay in jail time, the choice could be up to them that way.
-Gando
It's hard to argue with that kind of logic.
-Gando
In effect he stole and committed forgery.
Stole time and money from millions of people. Committed forgery millions of times...
That is not the crime he is being punished for. Forgery is the crime he is being punished for.
What you fail to realize is that 7 years in any prison is a lot rougher to do than you think.
In addition, it's forgery that he can get up to 7 years for. If he's brought up on charges and convicted of theft and fraud, that would be even more time in prison.
But, in this case of computer forgery, 7 years is not a just amount of time to serve in a prison.
Maliciously assaulting a person might get you 7 years, or less. So, how can this compare?
In fact, the sympathetic response by many of those on Slashdot suggests to me that maybe punishments need to be made stronger in order to firmly establish that breaking into someone's computer is NO DIFFERENT from breaking into someone's house.
It is different, if you think about it. I'd rather you broke in to my computer, for instance. I use cryptography for my privacy and backups to prevent things from going missing on my computer. My house requires expensive insurance and my rates might go up.
I live in my house, and don't want to be disturbed by un-invited guests. I don't like un-invited guests on my computer either, but I certainly don't freak out about hackers like I do if someone breaks down my house door.
And, my defense of each might be just a little bit different too.
I don't think we need to firmly establish that breaking in to a computer is the same as breaking in to someone's home or business.
And we certaily should not punish a first timer in such a crime with a year in prison, or even 7 years in prison.
Go visit a prison for proof of this.
You are right, you should be punished "dependent on the nature of your crime". In this case it is just a tad over the line, don't you think?
In effect he stole and committed forgery. In effect he e-mailed a bunch of folks, and pointed the finger to someone else when it came to who sent the e-mail.
Assault? Not a chance.
Does this all add up to something that is "maddening and sickening"? To decide if you, I, and the rest of e-mail users are really mad and sick of this, go visit a prison and compare sitting in there, and deleting 30 e-mail.
I don't like deleting spam, but mad and sick? Not a chance.
I have, and I doubt you have now that you mention it in the way you have. I also know two people who work in prisons, one of them works for a minimum security, good behaviour prison, which is a step above regular minimum security.
- week. It is a waste of money. In addition, we are only bound to make some of these minor criminals into fulltime criminals.
The prison he works at is for folks who have been good for their stay in "regular" prison, and only have 2 years left in the "system". If they screw up in the slightest way they get sent back to the real prisons.
THIS PLACE STILL SUCKS.
The people who are in the joint for hard crimes are pretty screwed in the head. I don't think we want to mix them up with folks who are sending out spam, or even cracking/hacking/compromising/whatever-it-is-this
Do you think after 7 years of prison you would come out with a "fresh, learned-my-lesson, ready for a new life attitude"? You would be scorned, jobless, and hopeless, with a head full of ideas for new crimes given to you by your experiences in the last 7 years.
The punishment should fit the crime. Don't make more criminals.
Thanks!
I'm stumped by what you meant about being "judgement proof". How can they dodge the court system? Doesn't it usually end in jail time (not prison time) if they do?
I think it might be easier to penalize the "company", but then the culprit would be free to start again. This might be a pain in the arse for our criminal, however, and he/she might just stop.
Still has to be better ways than 7 years in prison! Gads.
>This is evidence of a judicial system that is more about revenge than correction.
>>It's also abouot deterrents, and cash penalties have proven so far to be of limited effect against spammers.
Could you post those figures that show that monetary penalties are of limited effect? I'm curious because I wonder why they don't just increase the penalty with subsequent offences, instead of pushing people in jail.
I know there are plenty of studies that show that prison time deters criminal activity... so I won't bother backing up that claim.
Thanks!
This to me seems like a reasonable comparison. How much time would a person serve for this? They would be fined and serve some time, but not 7 years in prison!
I think those who are voting for prison time in this case should go visit a prison. PRISON SUCKS HARD. This is a place for our toughest criminals. It should be reserved for criminals that have intentionally harmed people with physical and mental brutality.
Prison certainly is not a place for drug users, people who evade taxes, or computer criminals who have not harmed others, execpt in a monetary fasion.
There are better punishments for these crimes.
More than my $0.02
Since there was no death involved with the spamming or compromising of systems in this case. I'd leave guns and tractor deaths out of all analogies. Especially since I think that if you leave your door unlocked and a child get's a hold of your gun, the gun owner might just be in trouble.
That all asside, if you left your door unlocked, and I went inside your house with no intention of commiting a crime, say to sleep, would I be committing a crime? Not in some states, believe it or not!
I wonder if I go in to your house and use your desk and mailbox to send out hundreds of adds, is that a crime? Perhaps.
Certainly not a crime that gives us the right to put the criminal in prison for 7 years, especially if the criminal did not harm anyone. (Monetary damages asside, which should be paid by the criminal.)
ok ok, my $0.03
Although I hate deleting spam as much as the next guy, this is ridiculous. Considering other all other crimes, 7 years is a ludicrous amount of time for anyone to spend in prison for a crime that causes little harm.
I see that the Legislature and "Justice" departments are at it again, they are trying to set punishments so the first people to be punished are examples for those to come.
I detest this bombastic view that has been done in many computer crimes, and when compared to other crimes, the amount of prison time, and monetary punishments just don't jive with other crimes.
It seems that computer crimes are becoming the drug crimes of their time. This is a just another example of a misunderstood boogie monster crime that must exaggerated in media coverage and criminal punishments. All this does in the end is fill our prisons with over punished people. This costs us too much money and causes us to have more criminals in the end.
I think 1-12 months in a county jail would do the trick, don't you? If not subsequent violations could result in a few years of prison, but really, I'd rather delete a few extra e-mail a day then pay more in taxes for prisons, and cause the creation of more criminals.
-My $0.02