GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that there were going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
See, Bush is a good-natured guy and likes to joke around by all acounts. Clearly, he was kidding when he said he'll disagree with some members of his cabinet. Context, once again, is everything. Congratulations for falling prety to radical left-wing idiots frothing at the mouth thinking that Bush wants to be dictator and this is the PROOF!
Read what I said above that: I'm not decided either way. I merely pointed out that bin Laden calling Saddam an infidel is hardly conclusive proof that they aren't allies.
I'll probably get modded down for this, but oh well...
I'm still undecided about a possible Al-Qaeda/Iraq relationship. They share(d) similar goals, and they might have been working together on some level. But it probably can't be proved either way at this point.
However, you can't conclude that they weren't working together simply because bin Laden said so. I'm always amused by the anti-USA people who rant and rave about how the government lies and come up with all kinds of theories, but because bin Laden said this, why, it obviously PROVES al-Qaeda and Hussein weren't allies!
And no, I'm not implying that you're definitely one of those people.
By Pennsylvania law, you're required to have a fence around your pool. Otherwise, if someone decides to trespass and use your pool, you're responsible if they drown.
It's meant as a joke. You know, like when people say "look, im obviously not stupid, I have a doctorate" even if the topic at hand has nothing to do with their field.
Wasn't there a piracy report not-too-long-ago that screamed some ridiculous number like $500 quadrillion dollars lost due to piracy, but upon investigating their methods, it turned out the number was based on "Number companies expected to sell" - "Number actually sold"?
When this kind of awful estimation becomes common in court, like the DirecTV guy who has to pay $500/month for the rest of his life, it will set precedent to allow this kind of crap to continue unchecked.
You think you get smug with good "IANAL, but" responses? Imagine having to hold back on typing "Look, IAMAFDOJL" (I am a fucking Department of Justice lawyer) when someone tells you you're wrong!
I was thinking the same thing. I honestly don't know, so I'm asking: Are the alleged infringers the RIAA is targeting charged with one count per each song? IANAL, but it seems like that'd be the case, and that's obviously ridiculous.
What's worse is when you try this tactic--and who doesn't--and an ugly slob takes over the till before you get there.
At my local supermarket, one of the guys there is about 40, and talks to me all the time about videogames ever since he heard me talking about PS2 or something to one of my friends while waiting in line once. He wears Pokemon badges on his vest, and about pees his pants when talking about how far he's gotten in the newest RPG. Oh really, you picture your imaginary dwarf in your imaginary world looks like Lucky from my box of Lucky Charms? That's fantastic!
Good point, but for the changes detailed to occur in the next half-century, the quality of education is going to have to rise. I worry that the education given to students is insufficient for this to happen so soon (including me, since I'm still in college.) BTW, I'm aware there are other countries in the world, but/. is US-centric, so I'm only addressing the possibility of this scenario here.
The advances he talks about are obviously going to require advanced technical skills to maintain and build, and we constantly see articles and reports about how pathetic the education system is here. From personal experience, I've seen terrible students slip through the cracks. In my 400 level Information Sciences class, more than a few people did not know what an object-oriented class meant when we were discussing distributed object middleware. A class. How she made it through and kept the GPA requirements is beyond me. (Pitt fans, feel free to blast PSU)
That's a cute excuse. It brightens my day. Try making a case for why some forms of murder are moral and others aren't, and maybe I'll listen.
Who said I think it's moral? Or that punishment always has to be moral?
The fact of the matter is that according to my religious beliefs, I can't morally defend execution. I can justify it for other reasons. I personally think victim's families should have a say at trial. If they don't want the death penalty sought, the prosecutor should consider that when determining what punishment he seeks.
I don't think killing in any form is exactly moral, but my desire to see justice both for society and to the victim('s) family overrides it in this case.(Any responses about how a truly intelligent person always considers moral implications will be gleefully ignored. Ditto for questions such as "What if you were starving and needed bread? Should you be punished?")
Serial killers, for example, deserve to die. I can't really rationalize my beliefs from an intellectual standpoint; I just like to see justice. Not exactly the best of reasons, but eh.
Wow. I can't breathe because of all the words stuffed in my mouth, and I've been using your comments about someone's value after murdering. I'd hate to see what you'd do if I actually talked about my beliefs. All I ever said on the topic is that I don't know what killing another person can genuinely serve. If the effects seemed to be worthwhile, I'd entertain the practice. I've yet to see any worthwhile results, though. And I've seen a lot of negative side-effects, not the least of which are deaths of innocent people.
That's exactly my point. You put words in my mouth more or less, and then you object when I do the same idiotic thing to you. Your analogy of executing me because I support capital punishment is no different than the one I postulated.
"Value" of someone has nothing to do with your analogy. It was about the (ill)logical conclusion you jumped to. You can argue about the moral differences between types of killing--and that's fine--but to make a claim that your scenario was logical is what I was really arguing.
And you believe that the State is skilled enough to actually separate the wheat from the chaff? Hah! I, for one, will not take any odds of being a casualty of this system when other alternatives exist.
So why is the State skilled enough to even put someone on trial in the first place? I agree they obviously make mistakes, but what do you trust them to do?
Uhm...how is choosing to not execute a person "tolerating murder"? States without a death penalty generally give those who would be executed a sentence of life without parole. This is hardly tolerance. Consider the alternative of life imprisonment, especially lifelong imprisonment with hard labor as I suggest. This is still, technically, a death sentence. The difference, however, is that the convict's life hasn't been taken, merely his/her liberty. The State doesn't give you life; it does give you liberty.
It tolerates murder because the punishments are rather tame. "Life in prison" is rarely that. How many times have you read of a prisoner being released before their term is up? Not many prisoners actually die in prison.
The "allegedly beneficial" justification for capital punishment is that their existence is no longer of concern to the rest of society. I for one don't want killers back on the streets, so if they die, that's just fine by me.
I think en masse, executions would make future murderers think twice, but evidence has shown that right now that really isn't the case.
Frankly, all things considered, I don't really care what happens to them. I don't want them rehabilated and sent off to college or any other form of higher education. There's plenty of law-abiding citizens who don't get those opportunities. Now, if everyone else got theirs first, then that'd be fine. That clearly is not the case.
It's interesting how feverent people are to defend the rights of the convict, but could care less about his victims and their families. No, the State doesn't grant life, but neither do individuals. Yet individuals still see themselves fit to take it away. That's where the State gains the ability to respond in kind.
I really hope you can see what a vacant argument that is, especially when you mix it with your agreement about hard labor. Obviously, you have to recognize that, at a minimum, a living person is a unit of labor. Labor has a value. Regardless of that, though, you seem bound to the assumption that someone who murders is without value to humanity, I guess on the grounds that murder is morally reprehensible and immediately strips you of your value. Surely, then, we should start our condemnation with those who murder and extend it to those who support murder. That's fine. The executioners have their backs to the wall first, followed by their supporters.
No, labor is potential value. Since it's not being used and they do nothing but usurp money, that value is gone.
Your argument about executing supporters of murder is idiotic. If you blindly try to extend logic without considering extenuating factors, you get into the kind of logic trainwrecks you detailed above.
Here's an example: Your ridiculous argument also would imply that we as society can *never* support punishment of any type, because by punishing people for their punishing others in the first place, we should be punished ourselves (whew.) I mean, why not? If you want to say that I should be executed because I support capital punishment, then surely I should be punished for meting out any type of punishment.
That aside, my personal feelings about their worth to society have nothing to do with your argument. There's a rather large gap between a random person murdering another innocent person, and society deciding to reciprocate. The key difference is the convict can avoid potential punishment by not doing it, whereas their victim had no choice.
Yeah, and it later turned out that it was wrong, and he was innocent.
So, who is to be executed if someone is executed and it turns out that they are innocent? The judge? The jury? The guy who pulls the switch?
By your logic, someone has to be executed, because an innocent person was murdered.
No, by logic that you have assumed on my behalf, you have made that conclusion. I never said anything of the sort. What about a case like the elderly driver who killed those people in the marketplace? Innocent people died, but there would obviously never be an execution.
So by your logic that you have made up for me, anytime there is any death by the hands of another, there has to be an execution. See the idiocy we get into when you just randomly extrapolate things?
Getting back to the point, I said there are countless cases where there is no question that the convict is the perpetrator. I was talking about cases like Jeffrey Dahmer, the sniper killer (John Mohammed?), etc etc. I'm sure there are cases from your local area that you can think of that apply here. In my area, a son stabbed his father to death over an argument. There were two witnesses, neighbor testimonials, and he had the knife in his hand over the body when the police arrived. I'm talking about cases like that.
Re:Howard Dean
on
Saving the Net
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
How about the innocents killed by execution? Is that not a problem? How about the fact that it merely sets up the state as a band of murderous thugs? How about the fact that, at the end of the day, it just kills another person and therefore doesn't genuinely solve anything?
Innocent people killed by execution is a huge problem, but there are countless cases where there is no question that the convict is the perpetrator. In those cases, I support the death penalty.
I respect people that are opposed to execution on moral grounds, but IMO tolerating murder by letting killers live is just as bad as "being a band of murderous thugs". It's just too bad the system is so wasteful on resources that a killer can appeal appeal appeal for years and drain money.
At the end of the day, it kills another person who has no value to humanity. Good riddance to them. (And hey, it clears prison space, which I'm sure the RIAA would love to put to use.)
However, I agree with you about hard labor. But it will never happen...the ACLU or some other bleeding-heart organization and assert prisoners' rights to watching TV and living rather comfortably on taxpayer dollars.
I disagree. They have nutritional value for sure, particularly the fiber. Fiber gives a feeling of fulness, and will decrease your appetite. Perfect for those looking to lose weight. WHO and the US Diet guidelines suggest 50% of your calories come from carbs, and while there is back and forth research on this, I think carbs are definitely healthier.
Yep. That's why in weight lifting, you try to avoid carbs and maximize protein for optimal muscle building. You obviously don't avoid carbs altogether, but they sort of "block" muscle building because of how our bodies are built. We are really poorly equipped for carb conversion...so simply give it a few thousand years and let evolution do the trick:)
The bad thing is that protein is often found in foods that aren't exactly great for you IMO. Protein s are often found in calorie dense foods, like peanuts, and in red meats, dairy, etc. All these will lead to excess weight, as your body simply drains away unused protein (unlike carbs, which yeah, basically become fat.)
Like I said, I'm simply of the belief that carb foods are typically healthier for you in the long run.
Good points. I've done intentional insulin spikes as part of weight training, but most people don't want to do that (I have plenty of free time at college to do so, that might change when I'm graduated) So, I still say that for people who are looking to simply avoid bad foods and lose weight, eating the carb-heavy foods is a healthy approach and will sufficiently satisfy their appetite.
I don't like the Atkins diet simply because I still think all that fat is not good for the heart and arteries.
Of course you're right about calories. You still have to watch what you eat, even if it is healthy.
But, like Andy said, the two sources are comparable in calories, while fat is at least double. Of course, most people don't eat food pure, it depends on what "surrounds" the food (for lack of a better term.) A fish-oil capsule (all protein) will contain the same amount of calories as carbs, but steak obviously won't. There's too much junk surrounding it. By and large, foods containing carbohydrates have less junk.
The WHO and the US Diet guidelines both suggest about 50% of your daily calorie intake should be carbohydrates. Our bodies don't process complex carbs very well, but overall, grains and the like are far healthier for your body.
Slashdot Mirror
Sue McDonalds.
He's telling the truth about the socially inept part...look at his registration number!!
:) I'm actually pretty similar.
j/k
Context is everything, people.
:
Here is the full quote, as reported by CNN
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GOV. GEORGE W. BUSH (R-TX), PRESIDENT-ELECT: I told all four that there were going to be some times where we don't agree with each other. But that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it'd be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
See, Bush is a good-natured guy and likes to joke around by all acounts. Clearly, he was kidding when he said he'll disagree with some members of his cabinet. Context, once again, is everything. Congratulations for falling prety to radical left-wing idiots frothing at the mouth thinking that Bush wants to be dictator and this is the PROOF!
Read what I said above that: I'm not decided either way. I merely pointed out that bin Laden calling Saddam an infidel is hardly conclusive proof that they aren't allies.
I'll probably get modded down for this, but oh well...
I'm still undecided about a possible Al-Qaeda/Iraq relationship. They share(d) similar goals, and they might have been working together on some level. But it probably can't be proved either way at this point.
However, you can't conclude that they weren't working together simply because bin Laden said so. I'm always amused by the anti-USA people who rant and rave about how the government lies and come up with all kinds of theories, but because bin Laden said this, why, it obviously PROVES al-Qaeda and Hussein weren't allies!
And no, I'm not implying that you're definitely one of those people.
Should be modded "Redundant."
:)
On the other hand, it wouldn't spell anything otherwise
I actually liked the colors, but that slogan is just moronic.
The slogan wasn't just stupid, it was wrong:
You have got a friend in Pennsylvania, if you expand it out. You have got?
Being from PA, I'd probably rather have my SSN printed on my plate then go back to our old idiotic slogan: "You've Got a Friend in Pennsylvania!"
Fair enough. My parents always told me it was a PA law when we were building the stupid thing. Seemed reasonable to me :)
By Pennsylvania law, you're required to have a fence around your pool. Otherwise, if someone decides to trespass and use your pool, you're responsible if they drown.
It's meant as a joke. You know, like when people say "look, im obviously not stupid, I have a doctorate" even if the topic at hand has nothing to do with their field.
It certainly hints at a new media/political reality, and good things for slashdot's future.
*Gasp!* JonKatz got a new UID!
Wasn't there a piracy report not-too-long-ago that screamed some ridiculous number like $500 quadrillion dollars lost due to piracy, but upon investigating their methods, it turned out the number was based on "Number companies expected to sell" - "Number actually sold"?
When this kind of awful estimation becomes common in court, like the DirecTV guy who has to pay $500/month for the rest of his life, it will set precedent to allow this kind of crap to continue unchecked.
You think you get smug with good "IANAL, but" responses? Imagine having to hold back on typing "Look, IAMAFDOJL" (I am a fucking Department of Justice lawyer) when someone tells you you're wrong!
I was thinking the same thing. I honestly don't know, so I'm asking: Are the alleged infringers the RIAA is targeting charged with one count per each song? IANAL, but it seems like that'd be the case, and that's obviously ridiculous.
What's worse is when you try this tactic--and who doesn't--and an ugly slob takes over the till before you get there.
At my local supermarket, one of the guys there is about 40, and talks to me all the time about videogames ever since he heard me talking about PS2 or something to one of my friends while waiting in line once. He wears Pokemon badges on his vest, and about pees his pants when talking about how far he's gotten in the newest RPG. Oh really, you picture your imaginary dwarf in your imaginary world looks like Lucky from my box of Lucky Charms? That's fantastic!
Good point, but for the changes detailed to occur in the next half-century, the quality of education is going to have to rise. I worry that the education given to students is insufficient for this to happen so soon (including me, since I'm still in college.) BTW, I'm aware there are other countries in the world, but /. is US-centric, so I'm only addressing the possibility of this scenario here.
The advances he talks about are obviously going to require advanced technical skills to maintain and build, and we constantly see articles and reports about how pathetic the education system is here. From personal experience, I've seen terrible students slip through the cracks. In my 400 level Information Sciences class, more than a few people did not know what an object-oriented class meant when we were discussing distributed object middleware. A class. How she made it through and kept the GPA requirements is beyond me. (Pitt fans, feel free to blast PSU)
That's a cute excuse. It brightens my day. Try making a case for why some forms of murder are moral and others aren't, and maybe I'll listen.
Who said I think it's moral? Or that punishment always has to be moral?
The fact of the matter is that according to my religious beliefs, I can't morally defend execution. I can justify it for other reasons. I personally think victim's families should have a say at trial. If they don't want the death penalty sought, the prosecutor should consider that when determining what punishment he seeks.
I don't think killing in any form is exactly moral, but my desire to see justice both for society and to the victim('s) family overrides it in this case.(Any responses about how a truly intelligent person always considers moral implications will be gleefully ignored. Ditto for questions such as "What if you were starving and needed bread? Should you be punished?")
Serial killers, for example, deserve to die. I can't really rationalize my beliefs from an intellectual standpoint; I just like to see justice. Not exactly the best of reasons, but eh.
Wow. I can't breathe because of all the words stuffed in my mouth, and I've been using your comments about someone's value after murdering. I'd hate to see what you'd do if I actually talked about my beliefs. All I ever said on the topic is that I don't know what killing another person can genuinely serve. If the effects seemed to be worthwhile, I'd entertain the practice. I've yet to see any worthwhile results, though. And I've seen a lot of negative side-effects, not the least of which are deaths of innocent people.
That's exactly my point. You put words in my mouth more or less, and then you object when I do the same idiotic thing to you. Your analogy of executing me because I support capital punishment is no different than the one I postulated.
"Value" of someone has nothing to do with your analogy. It was about the (ill)logical conclusion you jumped to. You can argue about the moral differences between types of killing--and that's fine--but to make a claim that your scenario was logical is what I was really arguing.
And you believe that the State is skilled enough to actually separate the wheat from the chaff? Hah! I, for one, will not take any odds of being a casualty of this system when other alternatives exist.
So why is the State skilled enough to even put someone on trial in the first place? I agree they obviously make mistakes, but what do you trust them to do?
Uhm...how is choosing to not execute a person "tolerating murder"? States without a death penalty generally give those who would be executed a sentence of life without parole. This is hardly tolerance. Consider the alternative of life imprisonment, especially lifelong imprisonment with hard labor as I suggest. This is still, technically, a death sentence. The difference, however, is that the convict's life hasn't been taken, merely his/her liberty. The State doesn't give you life; it does give you liberty.
It tolerates murder because the punishments are rather tame. "Life in prison" is rarely that. How many times have you read of a prisoner being released before their term is up? Not many prisoners actually die in prison.
The "allegedly beneficial" justification for capital punishment is that their existence is no longer of concern to the rest of society. I for one don't want killers back on the streets, so if they die, that's just fine by me.
I think en masse, executions would make future murderers think twice, but evidence has shown that right now that really isn't the case.
Frankly, all things considered, I don't really care what happens to them. I don't want them rehabilated and sent off to college or any other form of higher education. There's plenty of law-abiding citizens who don't get those opportunities. Now, if everyone else got theirs first, then that'd be fine. That clearly is not the case.
It's interesting how feverent people are to defend the rights of the convict, but could care less about his victims and their families. No, the State doesn't grant life, but neither do individuals. Yet individuals still see themselves fit to take it away. That's where the State gains the ability to respond in kind.
I really hope you can see what a vacant argument that is, especially when you mix it with your agreement about hard labor. Obviously, you have to recognize that, at a minimum, a living person is a unit of labor. Labor has a value. Regardless of that, though, you seem bound to the assumption that someone who murders is without value to humanity, I guess on the grounds that murder is morally reprehensible and immediately strips you of your value. Surely, then, we should start our condemnation with those who murder and extend it to those who support murder. That's fine. The executioners have their backs to the wall first, followed by their supporters.
No, labor is potential value. Since it's not being used and they do nothing but usurp money, that value is gone.
Your argument about executing supporters of murder is idiotic. If you blindly try to extend logic without considering extenuating factors, you get into the kind of logic trainwrecks you detailed above.
Here's an example: Your ridiculous argument also would imply that we as society can *never* support punishment of any type, because by punishing people for their punishing others in the first place, we should be punished ourselves (whew.) I mean, why not? If you want to say that I should be executed because I support capital punishment, then surely I should be punished for meting out any type of punishment.
That aside, my personal feelings about their worth to society have nothing to do with your argument. There's a rather large gap between a random person murdering another innocent person, and society deciding to reciprocate. The key difference is the convict can avoid potential punishment by not doing it, whereas their victim had no choice.
Yeah, and it later turned out that it was wrong, and he was innocent.
So, who is to be executed if someone is executed and it turns out that they are innocent? The judge? The jury? The guy who pulls the switch?
By your logic, someone has to be executed, because an innocent person was murdered.
No, by logic that you have assumed on my behalf, you have made that conclusion. I never said anything of the sort. What about a case like the elderly driver who killed those people in the marketplace? Innocent people died, but there would obviously never be an execution.
So by your logic that you have made up for me, anytime there is any death by the hands of another, there has to be an execution. See the idiocy we get into when you just randomly extrapolate things?
Getting back to the point, I said there are countless cases where there is no question that the convict is the perpetrator. I was talking about cases like Jeffrey Dahmer, the sniper killer (John Mohammed?), etc etc. I'm sure there are cases from your local area that you can think of that apply here. In my area, a son stabbed his father to death over an argument. There were two witnesses, neighbor testimonials, and he had the knife in his hand over the body when the police arrived. I'm talking about cases like that.
How about the innocents killed by execution? Is that not a problem? How about the fact that it merely sets up the state as a band of murderous thugs? How about the fact that, at the end of the day, it just kills another person and therefore doesn't genuinely solve anything?
.
Innocent people killed by execution is a huge problem, but there are countless cases where there is no question that the convict is the perpetrator. In those cases, I support the death penalty.
I respect people that are opposed to execution on moral grounds, but IMO tolerating murder by letting killers live is just as bad as "being a band of murderous thugs". It's just too bad the system is so wasteful on resources that a killer can appeal appeal appeal for years and drain money
At the end of the day, it kills another person who has no value to humanity. Good riddance to them. (And hey, it clears prison space, which I'm sure the RIAA would love to put to use.)
However, I agree with you about hard labor. But it will never happen...the ACLU or some other bleeding-heart organization and assert prisoners' rights to watching TV and living rather comfortably on taxpayer dollars.
I disagree. They have nutritional value for sure, particularly the fiber. Fiber gives a feeling of fulness, and will decrease your appetite. Perfect for those looking to lose weight. WHO and the US Diet guidelines suggest 50% of your calories come from carbs, and while there is back and forth research on this, I think carbs are definitely healthier.
Just about anything refined is bad.
Yep. That's why in weight lifting, you try to avoid carbs and maximize protein for optimal muscle building. You obviously don't avoid carbs altogether, but they sort of "block" muscle building because of how our bodies are built. We are really poorly equipped for carb conversion...so simply give it a few thousand years and let evolution do the trick :)
The bad thing is that protein is often found in foods that aren't exactly great for you IMO. Protein s are often found in calorie dense foods, like peanuts, and in red meats, dairy, etc. All these will lead to excess weight, as your body simply drains away unused protein (unlike carbs, which yeah, basically become fat.)
Like I said, I'm simply of the belief that carb foods are typically healthier for you in the long run.
Good points. I've done intentional insulin spikes as part of weight training, but most people don't want to do that (I have plenty of free time at college to do so, that might change when I'm graduated) So, I still say that for people who are looking to simply avoid bad foods and lose weight, eating the carb-heavy foods is a healthy approach and will sufficiently satisfy their appetite.
I don't like the Atkins diet simply because I still think all that fat is not good for the heart and arteries.
Of course you're right about calories. You still have to watch what you eat, even if it is healthy.
But, like Andy said, the two sources are comparable in calories, while fat is at least double. Of course, most people don't eat food pure, it depends on what "surrounds" the food (for lack of a better term.) A fish-oil capsule (all protein) will contain the same amount of calories as carbs, but steak obviously won't. There's too much junk surrounding it. By and large, foods containing carbohydrates have less junk.
The WHO and the US Diet guidelines both suggest about 50% of your daily calorie intake should be carbohydrates. Our bodies don't process complex carbs very well, but overall, grains and the like are far healthier for your body.