"The Milky Way's Most Recent Supernova That Nobody Saw"
But we DID saw it! The same way we see all things...? Some delay (and reflections/"light-echo") exist even for what i see right now in the monitor... am i blind?
The last guy I talked to about this passage had a priest wife who had studied ancient Greek, and both of them had degrees from a seminary. They didn't appear to share your views of that, FWIW.
Most Greeks (usualy the less religious) don't share my views of that either - it is less a matter of language (where non-Greeks have a huge disadvantage because even Greeks can not agree - note that koine Greek is actually our modern Greek, very few differences, the reasons of dispute is other) and more a matter of a) interpretation b)...our own reluctance to admit that we are the "rich" - my Greek Orthodox Christian Church's theology is based on Mount Athos!
Very interesting comment. I must warn you that if you are "political-correct" you should not read my reply.
Our justice system is historically based on the theory of retributive justice. Retributive justice is not the same as vengeance. Retributive justice theory says that the punishment must "fit" the crime, based on its severity. This theory says it's also impersonal; society is not supposed to get pleasure from the act of delivering this type of justice.
We may have a terminology mis-undertanding (most probably my fault - see my sig!), since Vengeance=Revenge, and "revenge" in Greek has an extra meaning inside the compound word "ek-diki-si", of trial-justice, so it is not so negative as it may be in English. Also, as i wrote, one reason that it is only the society (i.e., not the victim itself) that can exercises the victim's right for revenge, is for the reason you wrote: punishment must "fit" the crime - the victim may punish the criminal more severely (or less... also bad for society!).
Of course, this makes no sense. How does inflicting more harm do anything to "solve" the fact that harm has already been inflicted?
And this is where our "ideologic" difference start. If YOU harm MY tooth I want to harm YOUR eye - and it is not any of your business why i want that... i just want it! But i will tell you: because I feel that way for YOU (i am angry), AND/OR I want to help YOU!
This is the logic of a 5-year-old. So utilitarian justifications are tacked on when people grow up and try to figure out what the fuck is going on.
Hmmm... you understand son that i can write to you the same!
These include deterrence, rehabilitation, etc.
And revenge... don't forget that you harmed my tooth boy!
Eventually, as society grows up, this tail will wag the retributive dog more and more until we come to a better system. This will take ages to happen everywhere, though it's already happened in some Nordic countries.
Ha! "Nordic countries"!!! O.K., i accept that, but what about (please don't get upset by the word) cultural "niggers"? Do you think that there is a difference on how a society can handle its criminals based on the CRIMINAL'S culture/personality, or you think every culture/personality is the same?
Retributive justice is probably a self-unaware sublimation of a desire for vengeance. But that's a psychological argument, not a legal one.
We have a mis-undertanding (both to be blamed for this - you because you missed my "spirit" in the other comments -even those not addresses to you-, or did not read them carefully): i base my comments more on psychological arguments (as in a criminology scientific field) and less on legal - you do the opposite.
Again, our legal system recognizes no criminal right of a victim against those who harm him. The victim's recourse is a civil lawsuit, where the principle, incidentally, is that the victim has a right to force the one who harmed him to cure the injury. You don't fulfill a contract, you pay a penalty for my inconvenience. You hit me with your car, you pay for my medical bills and compensate me for the pain I suffered. And so on. It goes all the way to, "if you kill me, you pay my estate the amount of money my life was worth". You may notice this actually makes a lot more sense than retributive "justice", although it's obviously not perfect because no amount of money will bring me back to life; the harm just can't be undone in that case. But that's neither here nor there.
Even if we examine this issue from different point of views, this legal points are interesting.
So there's nothing anywhere saying you have a civil right, or would have a civil right if not for criminal law, or have a civil right that the government is exercising for you. Someone hurts you, you go to court and get comp
if you almost slid off a moon mountain...you might be a redneck
And if you almost slid off a moon mountain...with a stolen lunar buggy... you might be a...! No, that would be so wrong to write, since as a kid (true -and stupid- story), i had stole a (non-lunar) buggy... and slid off a (non-moon) mountain, straight to a poor men's farm house... but i a not a nigger!
Crimes are considered injuries to the state even if they concern an individual victim because they are injuries to the society also (note that society suffers from the criminal because even if an individual victim forgives, the criminal may continue to commit crimes), plus because by that way any crime can be prosecuted even if the victim doesn't want them to be prosecuted (either because the individual victim forgives the criminal -but can not forgive on behalf of the society for the criminal's injury to the state- or because is not able because: a) is dead b) is afraid to ask the criminal's prosecution). One other reason for that is because in a civilized society it is better to have the state exercise the individual victim's "civil right" to vengeance/punishment against the criminal, since else this vengeance/punishment may be excessive in comparison to the crime. But vengeance/punishment remains one of the (at least) 3 purposes of imprisonment: a) Correction of the prisoner (if that is possible), b) Protection of society from the criminal. c) Vengeance/Punishment.
Because i just wrote this comment, i noticed yours. I am "the proud Greek", and i am glad a barbarian (!?) like you understand it. I mention so often that i am Greek not only because i am proud for my ethnicity but also for what you also wrote: "It's something us non-Americans (i.e. Australians, like me) do so we know whose opinion to actually pay attention to.". And i do it out of honesty actually, plus of language AND, most importantly, cultural differences in a mostly American site. By the way, i advised many times this "anonymous" coward(s) complaining (for my right-wing ideology!) to login...
Since you mentioned your english in your signature, I just thought I'd share some wisdom imparted on my by one of my english teachers, because I used to have a similar problem with my formatting.
I do struggle with my self-taught English, but my major problem in both English and Greek is "the art and science of writing", as you noticed and politely advice for, so your wisdom* is welcomed. Although my problem gets even worse because of my bad English, since i can not express myself as "logicaly" as i do it in Greek, this can not be used as an excuse for my bad writing skills and/or habits. Notice the previous "and/or" - in Greek, without any "/" needed, it can be "or and", or even "and or" more unusualy, with both options legit and "logical"... but as i wrote: no excuse! A few days ago some anonymous Slashdoter replied to a comment i made: "Holy (f)uck(ing) p(ar)en(t)he(ses)... (what) t(h)e ((fuck)) is (wr)on(g) wi(t)h (u)?? It's English, not LISP."! Now modded "Score:5, Funny", he surely deserved it!
"He said parenthesis can almost always be eliminated by re-arranging your text, and while it may make it a bit longer, it makes it far more readable. Parenthesis are structure shortcut and should be used sparingly, no more than twice a paragraph if possible. Generally, people try to use parenthesis to indicate conversation pauses or excerpts from the general flow. This can be reformatted with commas, and then once you have the commas part down, you can reduce the number of commas by changing sentence structures.
That is a great advice. The last few months i work on a "master technical design document" that i try to write, and as you guess... it is full with parenthesis! It is in English, but my problem is the structure, not the language. The only thing i want to do now is finnish it and return exclusively to coding, where commas are good, but parenthesis are better!
For example - not perfect and I left one detail out, but you get the picture:
Well, George Haikalis, a Greek-American civil engineer / transportation planner, is apparently influenced by the ideas of Constantinos Doxiadis [wikipedia.org], a now famous architect and city planner most recently noted as master planner of Pakistani city Islamabad. Constantinos proposed closing our old Airport in Athens for decades and relocating further from the city center, and when it finally happened before the 2004 Olympics, with an additional express metro rail link, the result was much more efficient and contributed to our tourism-heavy economy. Many Athenians, if not most, were against the new airport and closing the old one, but now everyone agrees that it was the right thing. Due to its good location, the old airport's area inside Athens is now the biggest free zone for city development in Europe and looks to hopefully contribute a few billion billion Euros, something Greece desparately needs right now! The key was the express metro rail link between the airport and Athens center, something George Haikalis surely used many times - if Athens can do it right, NY can do it better.
My God... writing is both art and science, and natural language is so much harder than coding to master, that makes me so humble when i read a well writen comment as yours! Yes, it may have few things i wrote but this is readable... because even i can't read my own writings!
* An ancient Greek poet, Bacchylides, roughly translated by me, wrote: "each gets his wisdom from the other". Usualy in the "internet" and not only, many or even most people don't try to correct others, but just want to insult them - although even that may be helpful! Since you are the unusual kind of a person, my advice to you: please don't hesitate to correct people. Thank you for your advice my friend.
P.S. NO PARENTHESIS... that was reeeaaalyyy hard... BUT I MADE IT!
The problem is when donations DON'T become services, so no problem with this - i like it when things are that way: donations becoming services (that so many use, and i use also)... and some as hard sitting-around currency, planing for the future! So, good for them, i should chip in some bucks, thanks for reminding it to me...
The problem here is they're awash in money and are paying staff who have no useful purpose (donations DON'T become services at a reasonable rate). Apparently some of the money goes to pay shills like antiperimetaparalogo.
I don't get money from them, i will give them money - the "staff who have no useful purpose" (as you believe, but i don't) is already covered from the donations, so some people (like you) have issues because they have some extra money sitting-around, something that is just fine with me since i know that the future is always unpridictable. By the way, i am religious, my church (some milleniums old...) has some money sitting-around - do you object?
The problem is when donations DON'T become services, so no problem with this - i like it when things are that way: donations becoming services (that so many use, and i use also)... and some as hard sitting-around currency, planing for the future! So, good for them, i should chip in some bucks, thanks for reminding it to me...
Why would anyone choose systemd if it is optional?
Because some people acknowledge its technical qualities, even if they understand the need for the "ideological" debate - but don't believe most of the things you read about it (especially in Slashdot!), since the criticism for its technical qualities (and the need -or not- for it) is usually a reaction caused by the "ideological" debate (so, not a honest -technical- criticism...).
""Society collectively is far away from the Lord's path (yet), so it takes vengeance to the criminal -"
" the further its away from the Lords path, the more civilised society will become. The lords path is to stone people to death, initiate genocide, perform child abuse etc
The Lord's path is written as a good summary in the New Testament as "love each other" - do not accuse the Lord for what the people do, and don't accuse those on the Lord's path for what those not on His path do.
Nowhere in our legal system is there a civil right for "vengeance".
I have no idea where you got that from. Maybe you've dug up something from England in 1200 or something. If so, I assure that precedent is no longer applicable.
Of cource your (and ours, Greek) legal system provides the civil right for "vengeance" - but as i wrote, now society exercise it on behalf of the victim (or victim's family), as a more civilized way.
And exactly who did Jesus say that to? The rich guy.
Yes - but the specific word used in the original Greek for "rich" means someone who possess something, not just "excessively rich". And He said it to this "rich" person, after the young men ask Him what to do to be perfect (since he informed Him that already is a person that keeps the Commandments).
Jesus didn't just hand out platitudes, he gave advice to specific people. Did he ever say something similar to a working man?
Yes, He did said to the same many times to "a working man": e.g., to this "rich" young men (since he was rich, not someone that did not worked), to His own disciples (that were working men in earthy matters until He asked them to join Him in heavenly works), and to many others when He adviced them to stop worrying about tomorrow.
In my opinion it is problematic that because of this passage (which is not so good tranlated and misleadingly quoted only in part) usually people think Christ was against this young rich guy as some kind of a communist when in reality it was an advice to someone already good enough in the eyes of God.
As i wrote I don't know the situation there, you do, well enough, but i have a feeling, and from what you wrote, that the State of California does not want to help in this rail business - i admit that if a state does not want to help (or even worse, if it creates "artificial official barries") neither conventional rail is pragmatic. By the way, i do like hyperloop.
It happens to me often when i read "("/.") religious Atheistic propaganda", but i don't usualy write about it. Thank you for your "Score:4 insightful" (!) comment, an answer to this (currently modded as "Troll") comment (which was an answer to the GP question "if i am dead why would I care what happens?"):
"Two types of websites would be good after you die: The first is obvious-Your website makes a profit, and you want your family members to continue to profit in your absence. This is kinda like how life insurance works. The second type is for spiritual types like me- I believe in an after life, and I want people to have faith in Jesus. I might not meet you personally in this life, but if I helped your faith, it'd be cool to know you later. I'm not one who gets in arguments about what is the minimum for salvation, or what the minimum you need to do to get to Heaven. But I know it stokes God when we follow him, do good, be loving, and help people in their faith. So helping people to find Jesus even when I'm not around will be beneficial. In either regard, if it matters to you for your website to be up after you die, you should probably be sharing the credentials with at least one other trustable person now. [Third type of website is a public service. Maybe you're not making money off it, but people like it. An example of this would be: Capgeek. Its owner got sick and passed away. No one runs it anymore because he put a lot of work into it, and no one could maintain it. If the Internet is full of public service websites, maybe we should try and see them go forward even if we die. This like a mutual favor that people could do.]"
Two types of websites would be good after you die:
The first is obvious-Your website makes a profit, and you want your family members to continue to profit in your absence. This is kinda like how life insurance works.
The second type is for spiritual types like me- I believe in an after life, and I want people to have faith in Jesus. I might not meet you personally in this life, but if I helped your faith, it'd be cool to know you later. I'm not one who gets in arguments about what is the minimum for salvation, or what the minimum you need to do to get to Heaven. But I know it stokes God when we follow him, do good, be loving, and help people in their faith. So helping people to find Jesus even when I'm not around will be beneficial.
In either regard, if it matters to you for your website to be up after you die, you should probably be sharing the credentials with at least one other trustable person now.
[Third type of website is a public service. Maybe you're not making money off it, but people like it. An example of this would be: Capgeek. Its owner got sick and passed away. No one runs it anymore because he put a lot of work into it, and no one could maintain it.
If the Internet is full of public service websites, maybe we should try and see them go forward even if we die. This like a mutual favor that people could do.]-[i added your other, seperated, comment to this one]
You answered (very good in my opinion) the question "if i am dead why would I care what happens?", but instead of mentioning in your second type of websites something about wanting to spread Atheism you choose to mention God and the Good News, so... you are currently modded as a "Troll" (what a surprise for "/."... and i am just a couple of weeks old member!).
know the arguments about the population density from the economic point of view, they are correct, but i think California is a right place for trains.
This solves a problem that has already been solved.
Planes travel between SFO and LAX for around $100-150 each way.
With that factor in mind you may be right Sir.
It takes several hours (all in TSA, waiting, flying, etc), you can work while you wait/fly, and when you arrive at the airport there are dozens of transportation services to get you on to your final destination (buses, light rail, rental cars, etc).
With that i have some issues Sir - (HIGH SPEED) trains are convenient (and cool! seriously cool!!!), ecomomical enough (demanding a HUGE up-front cost, that is true unfortunatly) if propper conditions exist (which i don't know if it is the case in California to be honest, because i am not an expert, my comment was based in comparisons to Europe, and without your newer info about plane's trip cost), plus they are more ecological.
Vengeance to the criminal from society on behalf of the victim or his family so he/they not revenge him, as it's their right but may do it excessively.
Vengeance is no-one's "right".
"Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto the wrath of God: for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord." Romans 12:19.
I agree - you are right. But when i wrote that it's their right i meant it's their "civil right" and must provided to anyone choosing to exercise it (now it is done from society on behalf of the victim - more civilized i think) - someone may choose not to exercise his civil right to vengeance (and he will receive the blessings promised). Society collectively is far away from the Lord's path (yet), so it takes vengeance to the criminal - each person on it's own can choose the right path you just presented to us brother.
The thing about Europe vs. the US. is really freight vs people.
When you write "Europe" i think you are referring mostly to western Europe - not that this "dichotomy" between freight vs people does not exist (in some degree), but: in Europe we have parts where freight is more important than people (e.g., eastern), AND some (few) parts where both are almost balanced in terms of priority (e.g., Greece, my country - althrough we have smaller rail system compared to some other parts of Europe)
People feel good about riding in trains but we move so much more mass so much more efficiently with freight then they do that it boggles the mind. The Economist basically laid it out a few years ago and showed that sacrificing freight for people is just an epic waste. Not that I am not for personal rail but Hyperloop fucking owns.
While i agree freight must be more important than people (most of the times, since for much shorter lines the opposite may be more efficientl), technically both can co-exist, either on the same line or (better) in different -and even better, next to each other- lines. In Greece we use the same line - now we plan to upgrade it (because we want freight trafic from our ports to central Europe - the Chinese and Russian national rail companies -both among the 3 biggest in the world i think- are trying to get the contract).
Condemnation in an era when the railroads don't literally own the government is not going to happen. Plus the cost of DSAY credits any time you cross a stream and the cost of the high speed rail certified crossing barriers it ufcking insane and for what?
I don't know the situation there, so i can't comment - you seem to know enough.
So we can "feel better" about or totally unsustainable choices?
Just by looking a map of USA i can spot some large areas where i think rail can be sustainable enough - but i am not expert, so i base that just by comparisons to Europe.
Hyperloop is awesome, continuous tubing requires way less support than rail, it is lower impact on zoning, farming, fish, people, and basically everything.
Hyperloop is awesome indeed, but... well, more conventional rail is good enough - and a bit more pragmatic?
Yes, trains are cool, Europe (and much of Asia) knows it, and 500 miles for about 100$ is a good deal - i know the arguments about the population density from the economic point of view, they are correct, but i think California is a right place for trains.
That's cute that you think prison is for "reform". Prison is for no such thing.
Ah, but the Department of Corrections sounds soooo much more civilised than "the Department of Brutal Vengeance".
Prisons -should- have 3 main purposes (with all of them equally important):
Correction of the prisoner (if that is possible), so he can return to society as a free men.
Protection of society from the criminal.
Vengeance to the criminal from society on behalf of the victim or his family so he/they not revenge him, as it's their right but may do it excessively.
Many problems are created when only some (instead of all) of the above are served.
Slashdot Mirror
1. Go to zoo.
2. Go in monkey cage.
3. Start grooming monkeys and picking nits off them.
4. GTFO Slashdot forever and stop posting such stupid crap.
Your disappearance would be the greatest contribution you could ever make here.
I can't think how I can "PROFIT" with this business plan fellow Slashdoter? I mean... i am not a charity!
"The Milky Way's Most Recent Supernova That Nobody Saw"
But we DID saw it! The same way we see all things...? Some delay (and reflections/"light-echo") exist even for what i see right now in the monitor... am i blind?
The last guy I talked to about this passage had a priest wife who had studied ancient Greek, and both of them had degrees from a seminary. They didn't appear to share your views of that, FWIW.
Most Greeks (usualy the less religious) don't share my views of that either - it is less a matter of language (where non-Greeks have a huge disadvantage because even Greeks can not agree - note that koine Greek is actually our modern Greek, very few differences, the reasons of dispute is other) and more a matter of a) interpretation b) ...our own reluctance to admit that we are the "rich" - my Greek Orthodox Christian Church's theology is based on Mount Athos!
Our justice system is historically based on the theory of retributive justice. Retributive justice is not the same as vengeance. Retributive justice theory says that the punishment must "fit" the crime, based on its severity. This theory says it's also impersonal; society is not supposed to get pleasure from the act of delivering this type of justice.
We may have a terminology mis-undertanding (most probably my fault - see my sig!), since Vengeance=Revenge, and "revenge" in Greek has an extra meaning inside the compound word "ek-diki-si", of trial-justice, so it is not so negative as it may be in English. Also, as i wrote, one reason that it is only the society (i.e., not the victim itself) that can exercises the victim's right for revenge, is for the reason you wrote: punishment must "fit" the crime - the victim may punish the criminal more severely (or less... also bad for society!).
Of course, this makes no sense. How does inflicting more harm do anything to "solve" the fact that harm has already been inflicted?
And this is where our "ideologic" difference start. If YOU harm MY tooth I want to harm YOUR eye - and it is not any of your business why i want that... i just want it! But i will tell you: because I feel that way for YOU (i am angry), AND/OR I want to help YOU!
This is the logic of a 5-year-old. So utilitarian justifications are tacked on when people grow up and try to figure out what the fuck is going on.
Hmmm... you understand son that i can write to you the same!
These include deterrence, rehabilitation, etc.
And revenge... don't forget that you harmed my tooth boy!
Eventually, as society grows up, this tail will wag the retributive dog more and more until we come to a better system. This will take ages to happen everywhere, though it's already happened in some Nordic countries.
Ha! "Nordic countries"!!! O.K., i accept that, but what about (please don't get upset by the word) cultural "niggers"? Do you think that there is a difference on how a society can handle its criminals based on the CRIMINAL'S culture/personality, or you think every culture/personality is the same?
Retributive justice is probably a self-unaware sublimation of a desire for vengeance. But that's a psychological argument, not a legal one.
We have a mis-undertanding (both to be blamed for this - you because you missed my "spirit" in the other comments -even those not addresses to you-, or did not read them carefully): i base my comments more on psychological arguments (as in a criminology scientific field) and less on legal - you do the opposite.
Again, our legal system recognizes no criminal right of a victim against those who harm him. The victim's recourse is a civil lawsuit, where the principle, incidentally, is that the victim has a right to force the one who harmed him to cure the injury. You don't fulfill a contract, you pay a penalty for my inconvenience. You hit me with your car, you pay for my medical bills and compensate me for the pain I suffered. And so on. It goes all the way to, "if you kill me, you pay my estate the amount of money my life was worth". You may notice this actually makes a lot more sense than retributive "justice", although it's obviously not perfect because no amount of money will bring me back to life; the harm just can't be undone in that case. But that's neither here nor there.
Even if we examine this issue from different point of views, this legal points are interesting.
So there's nothing anywhere saying you have a civil right, or would have a civil right if not for criminal law, or have a civil right that the government is exercising for you. Someone hurts you, you go to court and get comp
if you almost slid off a moon mountain...you might be a redneck
And if you almost slid off a moon mountain...with a stolen lunar buggy... you might be a...! No, that would be so wrong to write, since as a kid (true -and stupid- story), i had stole a (non-lunar) buggy... and slid off a (non-moon) mountain, straight to a poor men's farm house... but i a not a nigger!
Crimes are considered injuries to the state even if they concern an individual victim because they are injuries to the society also (note that society suffers from the criminal because even if an individual victim forgives, the criminal may continue to commit crimes), plus because by that way any crime can be prosecuted even if the victim doesn't want them to be prosecuted (either because the individual victim forgives the criminal -but can not forgive on behalf of the society for the criminal's injury to the state- or because is not able because: a) is dead b) is afraid to ask the criminal's prosecution). One other reason for that is because in a civilized society it is better to have the state exercise the individual victim's "civil right" to vengeance/punishment against the criminal, since else this vengeance/punishment may be excessive in comparison to the crime. But vengeance/punishment remains one of the (at least) 3 purposes of imprisonment: a) Correction of the prisoner (if that is possible), b) Protection of society from the criminal. c) Vengeance/Punishment.
Look. He's just really proud of his nation.
We call that irony.
We Greeks call "irony"... "irony"!
Because i just wrote this comment, i noticed yours. I am "the proud Greek", and i am glad a barbarian (!?) like you understand it. I mention so often that i am Greek not only because i am proud for my ethnicity but also for what you also wrote: "It's something us non-Americans (i.e. Australians, like me) do so we know whose opinion to actually pay attention to.". And i do it out of honesty actually, plus of language AND, most importantly, cultural differences in a mostly American site. By the way, i advised many times this "anonymous" coward(s) complaining (for my right-wing ideology!) to login...
Since you mentioned your english in your signature, I just thought I'd share some wisdom imparted on my by one of my english teachers, because I used to have a similar problem with my formatting.
I do struggle with my self-taught English, but my major problem in both English and Greek is "the art and science of writing", as you noticed and politely advice for, so your wisdom* is welcomed. Although my problem gets even worse because of my bad English, since i can not express myself as "logicaly" as i do it in Greek, this can not be used as an excuse for my bad writing skills and/or habits. Notice the previous "and/or" - in Greek, without any "/" needed, it can be "or and", or even "and or" more unusualy, with both options legit and "logical"... but as i wrote: no excuse! A few days ago some anonymous Slashdoter replied to a comment i made: "Holy (f)uck(ing) p(ar)en(t)he(ses) ... (what) t(h)e ((fuck)) is (wr)on(g) wi(t)h (u)?? It's English, not LISP."! Now modded "Score:5, Funny", he surely deserved it!
"He said parenthesis can almost always be eliminated by re-arranging your text, and while it may make it a bit longer, it makes it far more readable. Parenthesis are structure shortcut and should be used sparingly, no more than twice a paragraph if possible. Generally, people try to use parenthesis to indicate conversation pauses or excerpts from the general flow. This can be reformatted with commas, and then once you have the commas part down, you can reduce the number of commas by changing sentence structures.
That is a great advice. The last few months i work on a "master technical design document" that i try to write, and as you guess... it is full with parenthesis! It is in English, but my problem is the structure, not the language. The only thing i want to do now is finnish it and return exclusively to coding, where commas are good, but parenthesis are better!
For example - not perfect and I left one detail out, but you get the picture:
Well, George Haikalis, a Greek-American civil engineer / transportation planner, is apparently influenced by the ideas of Constantinos Doxiadis [wikipedia.org], a now famous architect and city planner most recently noted as master planner of Pakistani city Islamabad. Constantinos proposed closing our old Airport in Athens for decades and relocating further from the city center, and when it finally happened before the 2004 Olympics, with an additional express metro rail link, the result was much more efficient and contributed to our tourism-heavy economy. Many Athenians, if not most, were against the new airport and closing the old one, but now everyone agrees that it was the right thing. Due to its good location, the old airport's area inside Athens is now the biggest free zone for city development in Europe and looks to hopefully contribute a few billion billion Euros, something Greece desparately needs right now! The key was the express metro rail link between the airport and Athens center, something George Haikalis surely used many times - if Athens can do it right, NY can do it better.
My God... writing is both art and science, and natural language is so much harder than coding to master, that makes me so humble when i read a well writen comment as yours! Yes, it may have few things i wrote but this is readable... because even i can't read my own writings!
* An ancient Greek poet, Bacchylides, roughly translated by me, wrote: "each gets his wisdom from the other". Usualy in the "internet" and not only, many or even most people don't try to correct others, but just want to insult them - although even that may be helpful! Since you are the unusual kind of a person, my advice to you: please don't hesitate to correct people. Thank you for your advice my friend.
P.S. NO PARENTHESIS... that was reeeaaalyyy hard... BUT I MADE IT!
The problem is when donations DON'T become services, so no problem with this - i like it when things are that way: donations becoming services (that so many use, and i use also)... and some as hard sitting-around currency, planing for the future! So, good for them, i should chip in some bucks, thanks for reminding it to me...
The problem here is they're awash in money and are paying staff who have no useful purpose (donations DON'T become services at a reasonable rate). Apparently some of the money goes to pay shills like antiperimetaparalogo.
I don't get money from them, i will give them money - the "staff who have no useful purpose" (as you believe, but i don't) is already covered from the donations, so some people (like you) have issues because they have some extra money sitting-around, something that is just fine with me since i know that the future is always unpridictable. By the way, i am religious, my church (some milleniums old...) has some money sitting-around - do you object?
One might hope they use different CPUs for the texting and the driving.
Hopefully color coded to avoid any mix-ups, e.g., pink for texting and blue for driving.
The problem is when donations DON'T become services, so no problem with this - i like it when things are that way: donations becoming services (that so many use, and i use also)... and some as hard sitting-around currency, planing for the future! So, good for them, i should chip in some bucks, thanks for reminding it to me...
Why would anyone choose systemd if it is optional?
Because some people acknowledge its technical qualities, even if they understand the need for the "ideological" debate - but don't believe most of the things you read about it (especially in Slashdot!), since the criticism for its technical qualities (and the need -or not- for it) is usually a reaction caused by the "ideological" debate (so, not a honest -technical- criticism...).
I may choose systemd for my non-work machine(s).
""Society collectively is far away from the Lord's path (yet), so it takes vengeance to the criminal -"
" the further its away from the Lords path, the more civilised society will become. The lords path is to stone people to death, initiate genocide, perform child abuse etc
The Lord's path is written as a good summary in the New Testament as "love each other" - do not accuse the Lord for what the people do, and don't accuse those on the Lord's path for what those not on His path do.
Nowhere in our legal system is there a civil right for "vengeance".
I have no idea where you got that from. Maybe you've dug up something from England in 1200 or something. If so, I assure that precedent is no longer applicable.
Of cource your (and ours, Greek) legal system provides the civil right for "vengeance" - but as i wrote, now society exercise it on behalf of the victim (or victim's family), as a more civilized way.
And exactly who did Jesus say that to? The rich guy.
Yes - but the specific word used in the original Greek for "rich" means someone who possess something, not just "excessively rich". And He said it to this "rich" person, after the young men ask Him what to do to be perfect (since he informed Him that already is a person that keeps the Commandments).
Jesus didn't just hand out platitudes, he gave advice to specific people. Did he ever say something similar to a working man?
Yes, He did said to the same many times to "a working man": e.g., to this "rich" young men (since he was rich, not someone that did not worked), to His own disciples (that were working men in earthy matters until He asked them to join Him in heavenly works), and to many others when He adviced them to stop worrying about tomorrow.
In my opinion it is problematic that because of this passage (which is not so good tranlated and misleadingly quoted only in part) usually people think Christ was against this young rich guy as some kind of a communist when in reality it was an advice to someone already good enough in the eyes of God.
As i wrote I don't know the situation there, you do, well enough, but i have a feeling, and from what you wrote, that the State of California does not want to help in this rail business - i admit that if a state does not want to help (or even worse, if it creates "artificial official barries") neither conventional rail is pragmatic. By the way, i do like hyperloop.
Slashdot, the place where barf is (4; Insightful).
Great spirits meet one another... as we did!
I just threw up in my mouth a little.
It happens to me often when i read "("/.") religious Atheistic propaganda", but i don't usualy write about it. Thank you for your "Score:4 insightful" (!) comment, an answer to this (currently modded as "Troll") comment (which was an answer to the GP question "if i am dead why would I care what happens?"):
"Two types of websites would be good after you die: The first is obvious-Your website makes a profit, and you want your family members to continue to profit in your absence. This is kinda like how life insurance works. The second type is for spiritual types like me- I believe in an after life, and I want people to have faith in Jesus. I might not meet you personally in this life, but if I helped your faith, it'd be cool to know you later. I'm not one who gets in arguments about what is the minimum for salvation, or what the minimum you need to do to get to Heaven. But I know it stokes God when we follow him, do good, be loving, and help people in their faith. So helping people to find Jesus even when I'm not around will be beneficial. In either regard, if it matters to you for your website to be up after you die, you should probably be sharing the credentials with at least one other trustable person now. [Third type of website is a public service. Maybe you're not making money off it, but people like it. An example of this would be: Capgeek. Its owner got sick and passed away. No one runs it anymore because he put a lot of work into it, and no one could maintain it. If the Internet is full of public service websites, maybe we should try and see them go forward even if we die. This like a mutual favor that people could do.]"
Two types of websites would be good after you die: The first is obvious-Your website makes a profit, and you want your family members to continue to profit in your absence. This is kinda like how life insurance works. The second type is for spiritual types like me- I believe in an after life, and I want people to have faith in Jesus. I might not meet you personally in this life, but if I helped your faith, it'd be cool to know you later. I'm not one who gets in arguments about what is the minimum for salvation, or what the minimum you need to do to get to Heaven. But I know it stokes God when we follow him, do good, be loving, and help people in their faith. So helping people to find Jesus even when I'm not around will be beneficial. In either regard, if it matters to you for your website to be up after you die, you should probably be sharing the credentials with at least one other trustable person now. [Third type of website is a public service. Maybe you're not making money off it, but people like it. An example of this would be: Capgeek. Its owner got sick and passed away. No one runs it anymore because he put a lot of work into it, and no one could maintain it. If the Internet is full of public service websites, maybe we should try and see them go forward even if we die. This like a mutual favor that people could do.]-[i added your other, seperated, comment to this one]
You answered (very good in my opinion) the question "if i am dead why would I care what happens?", but instead of mentioning in your second type of websites something about wanting to spread Atheism you choose to mention God and the Good News, so... you are currently modded as a "Troll" (what a surprise for "/."... and i am just a couple of weeks old member!).
This solves a problem that has already been solved.
Planes travel between SFO and LAX for around $100-150 each way.
With that factor in mind you may be right Sir.
It takes several hours (all in TSA, waiting, flying, etc), you can work while you wait/fly, and when you arrive at the airport there are dozens of transportation services to get you on to your final destination (buses, light rail, rental cars, etc).
With that i have some issues Sir - (HIGH SPEED) trains are convenient (and cool! seriously cool!!!), ecomomical enough (demanding a HUGE up-front cost, that is true unfortunatly) if propper conditions exist (which i don't know if it is the case in California to be honest, because i am not an expert, my comment was based in comparisons to Europe, and without your newer info about plane's trip cost), plus they are more ecological.
Vengeance to the criminal from society on behalf of the victim or his family so he/they not revenge him, as it's their right but may do it excessively.
Vengeance is no-one's "right".
"Avenge not yourselves, beloved, but give place unto the wrath of God: for it is written, Vengeance belongeth unto me; I will recompense, saith the Lord." Romans 12:19.
I agree - you are right. But when i wrote that it's their right i meant it's their "civil right" and must provided to anyone choosing to exercise it (now it is done from society on behalf of the victim - more civilized i think) - someone may choose not to exercise his civil right to vengeance (and he will receive the blessings promised). Society collectively is far away from the Lord's path (yet), so it takes vengeance to the criminal - each person on it's own can choose the right path you just presented to us brother.
The thing about Europe vs. the US. is really freight vs people.
When you write "Europe" i think you are referring mostly to western Europe - not that this "dichotomy" between freight vs people does not exist (in some degree), but: in Europe we have parts where freight is more important than people (e.g., eastern), AND some (few) parts where both are almost balanced in terms of priority (e.g., Greece, my country - althrough we have smaller rail system compared to some other parts of Europe)
People feel good about riding in trains but we move so much more mass so much more efficiently with freight then they do that it boggles the mind. The Economist basically laid it out a few years ago and showed that sacrificing freight for people is just an epic waste. Not that I am not for personal rail but Hyperloop fucking owns.
While i agree freight must be more important than people (most of the times, since for much shorter lines the opposite may be more efficientl), technically both can co-exist, either on the same line or (better) in different -and even better, next to each other- lines. In Greece we use the same line - now we plan to upgrade it (because we want freight trafic from our ports to central Europe - the Chinese and Russian national rail companies -both among the 3 biggest in the world i think- are trying to get the contract).
Condemnation in an era when the railroads don't literally own the government is not going to happen. Plus the cost of DSAY credits any time you cross a stream and the cost of the high speed rail certified crossing barriers it ufcking insane and for what?
I don't know the situation there, so i can't comment - you seem to know enough.
So we can "feel better" about or totally unsustainable choices?
Just by looking a map of USA i can spot some large areas where i think rail can be sustainable enough - but i am not expert, so i base that just by comparisons to Europe.
Hyperloop is awesome, continuous tubing requires way less support than rail, it is lower impact on zoning, farming, fish, people, and basically everything.
Hyperloop is awesome indeed, but... well, more conventional rail is good enough - and a bit more pragmatic?
Yes, trains are cool, Europe (and much of Asia) knows it, and 500 miles for about 100$ is a good deal - i know the arguments about the population density from the economic point of view, they are correct, but i think California is a right place for trains.
That's cute that you think prison is for "reform". Prison is for no such thing.
Ah, but the Department of Corrections sounds soooo much more civilised than "the Department of Brutal Vengeance".
Prisons -should- have 3 main purposes (with all of them equally important):
Many problems are created when only some (instead of all) of the above are served.