Yes it is the LEGAL activities that surprise me at how much people try to hide. Look at slashdot. My name, my real name, is right here. You can look me up and call me or visit my home. I hide nothing, why should I? Yet most of you are hiding your identities for whatever reason -- and how many of you are doing something illegal by posting here? Browse the blogs, too, and see how many people use their real names.
The large geographic distances are deceptive, since they mean there is often a significant barrier (time, money, effort) to actually physically approaching someone. If you ever annoyed anyone who was loopy enough by expressing your view that they started coming around and smashing your windows, making death threats, etc. I bet you'd change that tune quick smart. Not likely or common you say? How about emailing your boss that you've been wasting your time online, or threatening you or the company you work for with legal action for expressing your point of view? (Yeah you could argue you shouldn't be posting if it's against your workplace rules etc. but take a look around you - this is slashdot and there are lots of people who do this)
There are lots of good reasons to want annonymity even if you're not a crim.
We hide more than that -- I brought up the question of sex (marital) with a friend, and he freaked when I asked him about his sex life. As if sex when you're married is immoral or illegal, but still people hide behind the idea that we need privacy about such matters.
Hey I'm married. I consider myself a pretty open person. However if you asked me about my sex life I'd tell you to &#%! off too. If you don't understand why, you probably also don't understand why I wouldn't boink my wife out in the open even if it were legal to do so. (If I did talk in detail about my sex life with some random friend, or if I were to suggest boinking in the street my wife would probably headbutt me:-))
Privacy may not be an important thing to you but it is to many people.
The more I look around my life, the more I am amazed at how private people are, because they're afraid that some of their actions may be construed as immoral, or immature -- yet most of the people in my life are doing the exact same thing as others, and just hiding it. We post on forums and blogs, but we feel we must keep our names private because others might see what we write, even if others are thinking the same thoughts, or if those same others pretend to believe in freedom of expression but may secretly use it against you.
Yep, I agree this is silly but good luck changing the world. If you associate your company's name with a post that they deem unflattering or embarassing you'll be just as fired regardless of whether you think you should be able to use your real name or not. You're basically saying you want to live in a world that's completely honest and where there is no need to protect your identity. Well I want world peace, oh and lots of money, and a pony. Ain't gonna happen. (Well maybe not the pony. Those things shit everywhere).
In most cases, the law of the jungle. You're in international waters. You're not an "important" person. Who's going to create a headache for themselves by claiming it as their juridiction.
Violent fantasies do not reduce anger. "Venting" does not reduce anger. They both just increase it.
You lost me right there. Perhaps I don't have really violent fantasies, but if a person vents into a video game, often that anger is spent. It doesn't necessarily come back later 100 times stronger. Sometimes you can focus your anger on something like say a shoot em up. You focus your frustration on the game till that frustration is spent and you move on.
Things that feel nice like "therapeutic" shampoo or "therapeutic" massages or "therapeutic" whatever do nothing by themselves to promote growth or change.
Sometimes what's bad feels good. Sometimes, what's good for you also feels good. Sometimes it depends on the circumstance.
Lets agree moderate excercise in general if done sensibly is good for you. So lets talk about moderate excercise that someone of low fitness can do without it being dangerous. If you're unfit it feels awful but it's still good for you. If you're fit you can get addicted to it (and go too far which isn't good) and it's still good for you.
Getting back to what you were saying Therapeutic shampoo is great for you if you haven't washed your hair in a week. (It's probably not much better benefit wise than the regular stuff though).
If you're feeling good you have to apply another level of rational thought, and consider the CONSEQUENCES of your actions. Is getting drunk today going to kill brain and liver cells, turn me into an obnoxious violent person that destroys relationships with people? So it might feel good for you to have that first drink but if you have a penchant for getting drunk its a bad idea and not good for you. If you know how to stop at 2, have weighed up the consequences, and have the money it may feel just as good but not be bad for you at all.
So I think your idea that you have to feel bad to do yourself good is very very twisted and in itself dangerous. Your world must be a narrow hateful place where you despise anything that makes you feel good. That certainly ain't good.
It's called reenforcement. Like Pavlov's dog salivating.
The blue M&M was not preferred. The monkey felt bad about being given what it didn't prefer. This bad feeling became associated with the blue M&M and the monkey therefore preferred any other colour.
Reminds me of what happens when I've bought bad buggy software. After a while even if there are improvements, if you've been disappionted enough you'd rather use any other piece of software that does the same job.
In other words, for some slashdotters, Windows is the blue M&M.
Not only that but you are essentially teaching children that there is nothing wrong with being tracked wherever you go - and that can only mean that they grow up to be people who will consent to draconian surveillance schemes because they are used to them.
I think that's the idea. (Though perhaps not the PARENT'S idea)
You're asking if a bug wherein entire folder hierarchies can go *poof* in the event a network share drops should be considered critical? Are you serious?
It's called being a zealot. Every OS and in fact every significant piece of off the shelf software has them. These are people who would argue that it's not the software's fault even if it were proven that the software was designed and program to hunt down and brutally murder their family. If you complained that you bought the software and it had succeeded in killing your family they'd ask stupid questions like "Did you read the packaging? It says it will do that you know! You stupid user!" or "Did you remember to run with the -dontkillmyfamilyswitch ?" or tell you "You can work around that by downloading the hack that causes it not to kill your family".
After three months, both of the AV-free PCs were completely fine, and one of the machines that had the anti-virus was running a botnet spammer (the outgoing spam was being blocked by the firewall). The most amazing bit though, was that the fear of not having anti-virus protection had stopped users of those two machines from doing most of the non-viral bad stuff that average windows users do. There was no proliferation of toolbars, no weatherbug.... They didn't even have realPlayer.
This is going to sound harsh but your science education really failed you. You have a hypothesis that you've decided is true without any compelling evidence, and then twisted the evidence to argue that it proves the hypothesis.
However there's a simpler explanation, and the clue's quite evident to me from your post. You gave the users a strong warning about the 2 machines having no virus protection. Meanwhile you gave them hotdesking access to machines that do have antivirus. If they know how to avoid a virus and they're about to do something risky, they'd just ask their buddy on the virus protected computer to do it, or move to a machine that's virus protected when it's avaiable and engage in the risky behaviour. That way it's not their usual machine that's been infected, so it's harder to trace, and there is some sort of a safety net.
If you wanted to conduct this experiment properly you'd need to do it double blind. ie. the person assigning users to PCs and admining can't know which is virus protected (the admin part is hard), and neither could the employees. That way neither the admin nor the group can influence the results. You'd actually need a 3rd party to divide people into 4 groups.
1. People on virus protected computers that know it 2. People on virus protected computers that are told they're not protected 3. People on virus unprotected computers that know it 4. People on virus unprotected computers that are told they are protected
When telling users about the AV software, you need to keep in mind that how strongly you word what you're telling them may also have an impact on what's being said. You might want to further divide the above groups into 2 - one strongly warned and the other weakly warned.
Oh and you need a sample size of more than 20-25 employees.
You can take this as me being obnoxious or you can choose to learn from it. If you were a paid admin at a larger company, this kind of assumption is exactly the sort of assumption that would get your company hosed and your backside canned. You need to be more scientific about things.
EVEN if you are proven correct in your assumption, that's based on a gut instinct not on any proof you've presented from your description.
Well I accept that's your opinion, but from TFA, it seems other pro musicians disagree...
"This isn't the first, or the most advanced, self-tuning guitar system on the market. Over the past 20 years, a small Colorado company called TransPerformance has custom-built about 300 guitars, costing $3,000 and up for the electronics alone, for rock stars including Jimmy Page and Eddie Van Halen."
Perhaps it has more to do with the musician's playing style.
Also if the system got cheap enough it might be useful to beginners who can't tune - yes I know they can use an electronic tuner, and yes I know they need to learn to tune sooner rather than later, but a cheap and quick built-in tuner might let an absolute beginner concentrate on excercise rather than wondering if it sounds wrong because they're doing the wrong thing or because the thing's out of tune.
The Facebook college crowd may mostly be out of their teenage years but they're still about rebellion and experimentation (college). Having the "grown ups" come in and be organized and taking over their little corner of the world just annoys them. Our Australian politicians have been trying to use the Net - social network sites (including myspace which does have a teenage bent) and wikipedia. They're quickly realizing that having some old ass politician come in and try and be one of the cool kids is just going to get them trashed. They're about as cool as golf pants. Well some corporations are going throught he same thing. Short of getting younger already cool representation (look at the softdrink companies hiring rock stars) and having a youngster targetted product range, this is what they can continue to expect.
The trouble is unless some kind of special technology is used to redistribute the writes across the entire disk, you'll get the same bytes being written to 1000 times a day in a cache situation. 1350/1000 = 1.35 years which is not so good.
I'll believe it when (a) an indpendent agency - not a government one, but someone like the ACLU - verifies that they watched the procedure of wiping the drives per DoD standards of data erasure
Yes because if an agency agreed to that the data could not possibly have been copied before it was so publicly wiped?
Almost anything passes for "insightful" here lately.
There are no such things as weight problems. Only eating problems.
That's pure bunk. Some people's bodies are remarkably good at storing and absorbing calories. You need excercise too. The trouble is if your body is like that the moment you stop eating like a fucking rabbit and exercising like Rocky, you get fat again. How long could YOU keep that up? 6 months? 12 months? 6 years? What if you're hurt? What if you get ill? What if you're broke and have to work 2 or 3 jobs? Think about it.
Another thing. I'm fucking tired of idiots with their own unscientific pet diet that they didn't need because their weight "problem" consists of 3 extra kilos and a bad body image telling me their pet diet will fix it all.
Yeah I haven't fact checked, but it's believable. What is more difficult to believe is that people would defend that decrepid piece of shit operating system.
Vista is being sold as being better: Better for high def content, better for security, better for business. It is none of those things. I have checked and yet I've STILL had it foisted on me when buying a laptop. I dual boot now so I should be able to claim a lot of experience with Vista. The truth is I've only booted to it a handful of times once I got XP dual booting nicely. Compatibility is awful. Security and DRM just gets in the way. THAT is personal experience.
Want to know something. I don't feel like re-buying my software every few years to get the same goddamned fucking capability I use to have anyway. But hey you're willing to put the blame on the user for not loving an OS you clearly believe has major compatibility issues with existing software, so I may as well be talking to a brick wall. Vista should come with a bucket of sand for the user to stick their head in.
I know a guy online who claims Vista stopped him from being able to produce his own video of some biking event he went to. After trying for a while he decided it was ridiculous and actually went back to XP.
That's the real damage that DRM is doing - it's creating a huge DIS-incentive for being creative. Everything from GPS software that's crippled so they can sell you more maps (that you can't afford or refuse to fork out for) to printers with extortionately priced consumables, to camera software that changes with each couple of models, to music players that suddenly stop file sharing (legal or not! think about free postcasts).
I use to love buying gadgets but now every time I buy one I wince because I know I'm going to spend more time with the product working around limitations that have been added, or general poor quality. The most idiotic thing is that what this ultimately means is that after a few sales to desperate consumers, many decide they don't have the time, or money or that its just not worth the grey hairs to get into a hobby, especially in a world where you're expected to work half your life or more away.
MySQL requires code contributions to be re-assigned to MySQL AB
Then why on earth are we calling it open source?
Every time a product starts to get good, some greedy fugknuckle on the project decides to close the source. We've seen it again and again. Here are the ones the come to mind:
FICS - Free Internet Chess Server DD-WRT - Firmware for Linksys router CDDB - Distrubted CD catalogue system BitTorrent - File transfer (on/. yesterday) Now MySQL
I'm sure others could add plenty more examples. Anyone who committed to developing or using these products because the were FOSS has been badly burned.
I think this is becoming a bigger threat to open source than any other and it certainly puts me off contributing anything. For goodness sake don't call it open if they have the ability to close it off legally at any moment.
After helping her through getting her life back together over the course of years since her accident, I'd be just fine if they threw drunk drivers in jail and told their cellmates that they were child molesters....which is why I'm glad you're not making the laws. Your anger isn't something to display proudly. Emmotion isn't a good basis for punishment (or law in general). It's not going to get your friend's leg back or take away the pain she's suffered or continues to suffer.
I hope you're just venting, because otherwise you have some real issues to work through.
I do think drunk drivers belong in jail, but that's because otherwise they're likely to re-offend, not so I can punish them for the existing offence. That's what jails are primarily for - keeping dangerous people away from the rest of society.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it is the LEGAL activities that surprise me at how much people try to hide. Look at slashdot. My name, my real name, is right here. You can look me up and call me or visit my home. I hide nothing, why should I? Yet most of you are hiding your identities for whatever reason -- and how many of you are doing something illegal by posting here? Browse the blogs, too, and see how many people use their real names.
:-))
The large geographic distances are deceptive, since they mean there is often a significant barrier (time, money, effort) to actually physically approaching someone. If you ever annoyed anyone who was loopy enough by expressing your view that they started coming around and smashing your windows, making death threats, etc. I bet you'd change that tune quick smart. Not likely or common you say? How about emailing your boss that you've been wasting your time online, or threatening you or the company you work for with legal action for expressing your point of view? (Yeah you could argue you shouldn't be posting if it's against your workplace rules etc. but take a look around you - this is slashdot and there are lots of people who do this)
There are lots of good reasons to want annonymity even if you're not a crim.
We hide more than that -- I brought up the question of sex (marital) with a friend, and he freaked when I asked him about his sex life. As if sex when you're married is immoral or illegal, but still people hide behind the idea that we need privacy about such matters.
Hey I'm married. I consider myself a pretty open person. However if you asked me about my sex life I'd tell you to &#%! off too. If you don't understand why, you probably also don't understand why I wouldn't boink my wife out in the open even if it were legal to do so. (If I did talk in detail about my sex life with some random friend, or if I were to suggest boinking in the street my wife would probably headbutt me
Privacy may not be an important thing to you but it is to many people.
The more I look around my life, the more I am amazed at how private people are, because they're afraid that some of their actions may be construed as immoral, or immature -- yet most of the people in my life are doing the exact same thing as others, and just hiding it. We post on forums and blogs, but we feel we must keep our names private because others might see what we write, even if others are thinking the same thoughts, or if those same others pretend to believe in freedom of expression but may secretly use it against you.
Yep, I agree this is silly but good luck changing the world. If you associate your company's name with a post that they deem unflattering or embarassing you'll be just as fired regardless of whether you think you should be able to use your real name or not. You're basically saying you want to live in a world that's completely honest and where there is no need to protect your identity. Well I want world peace, oh and lots of money, and a pony. Ain't gonna happen. (Well maybe not the pony. Those things shit everywhere).
Thank you for making me laugh so hard I nearly cried.
I've looked into both palm OS and symbian development and am glad I had the sense to stay away. I have other things to do with my life.
Which law would apply there?
In most cases, the law of the jungle. You're in international waters. You're not an "important" person. Who's going to create a headache for themselves by claiming it as their juridiction.
Violent fantasies do not reduce anger. "Venting" does not reduce anger. They both just increase it.
You lost me right there. Perhaps I don't have really violent fantasies, but if a person vents into a video game, often that anger is spent. It doesn't necessarily come back later 100 times stronger. Sometimes you can focus your anger on something like say a shoot em up. You focus your frustration on the game till that frustration is spent and you move on.
Things that feel nice like "therapeutic" shampoo or "therapeutic" massages or "therapeutic" whatever do nothing by themselves to promote growth or change.
Sometimes what's bad feels good. Sometimes, what's good for you also feels good. Sometimes it depends on the circumstance.
Lets agree moderate excercise in general if done sensibly is good for you. So lets talk about moderate excercise that someone of low fitness can do without it being dangerous. If you're unfit it feels awful but it's still good for you. If you're fit you can get addicted to it (and go too far which isn't good) and it's still good for you.
Getting back to what you were saying Therapeutic shampoo is great for you if you haven't washed your hair in a week. (It's probably not much better benefit wise than the regular stuff though).
If you're feeling good you have to apply another level of rational thought, and consider the CONSEQUENCES of your actions. Is getting drunk today going to kill brain and liver cells, turn me into an obnoxious violent person that destroys relationships with people? So it might feel good for you to have that first drink but if you have a penchant for getting drunk its a bad idea and not good for you. If you know how to stop at 2, have weighed up the consequences, and have the money it may feel just as good but not be bad for you at all.
So I think your idea that you have to feel bad to do yourself good is very very twisted and in itself dangerous. Your world must be a narrow hateful place where you despise anything that makes you feel good. That certainly ain't good.
It's called reenforcement. Like Pavlov's dog salivating.
The blue M&M was not preferred. The monkey felt bad about being given what it didn't prefer. This bad feeling became associated with the blue M&M and the monkey therefore preferred any other colour.
Reminds me of what happens when I've bought bad buggy software. After a while even if there are improvements, if you've been disappionted enough you'd rather use any other piece of software that does the same job.
In other words, for some slashdotters, Windows is the blue M&M.
What exactly is new here?
Not only that but you are essentially teaching children that there is nothing wrong with being tracked wherever you go - and that can only mean that they grow up to be people who will consent to draconian surveillance schemes because they are used to them.
I think that's the idea. (Though perhaps not the PARENT'S idea)
You're asking if a bug wherein entire folder hierarchies can go *poof* in the event a network share drops should be considered critical? Are you serious?
It's called being a zealot. Every OS and in fact every significant piece of off the shelf software has them. These are people who would argue that it's not the software's fault even if it were proven that the software was designed and program to hunt down and brutally murder their family. If you complained that you bought the software and it had succeeded in killing your family they'd ask stupid questions like "Did you read the packaging? It says it will do that you know! You stupid user!" or "Did you remember to run with the -dontkillmyfamilyswitch ?" or tell you "You can work around that by downloading the hack that causes it not to kill your family".
I wish I could click through all those links in 23 seconds. Where's the damned printer friendly version?
After three months, both of the AV-free PCs were completely fine, and one of the machines that had the anti-virus was running a botnet spammer (the outgoing spam was being blocked by the firewall). The most amazing bit though, was that the fear of not having anti-virus protection had stopped users of those two machines from doing most of the non-viral bad stuff that average windows users do. There was no proliferation of toolbars, no weatherbug.... They didn't even have realPlayer.
This is going to sound harsh but your science education really failed you. You have a hypothesis that you've decided is true without any compelling evidence, and then twisted the evidence to argue that it proves the hypothesis.
However there's a simpler explanation, and the clue's quite evident to me from your post. You gave the users a strong warning about the 2 machines having no virus protection. Meanwhile you gave them hotdesking access to machines that do have antivirus. If they know how to avoid a virus and they're about to do something risky, they'd just ask their buddy on the virus protected computer to do it, or move to a machine that's virus protected when it's avaiable and engage in the risky behaviour. That way it's not their usual machine that's been infected, so it's harder to trace, and there is some sort of a safety net.
If you wanted to conduct this experiment properly you'd need to do it double blind. ie. the person assigning users to PCs and admining can't know which is virus protected (the admin part is hard), and neither could the employees. That way neither the admin nor the group can influence the results. You'd actually need a 3rd party to divide people into 4 groups.
1. People on virus protected computers that know it
2. People on virus protected computers that are told they're not protected
3. People on virus unprotected computers that know it
4. People on virus unprotected computers that are told they are protected
When telling users about the AV software, you need to keep in mind that how strongly you word what you're telling them may also have an impact on what's being said. You might want to further divide the above groups into 2 - one strongly warned and the other weakly warned.
Oh and you need a sample size of more than 20-25 employees.
You can take this as me being obnoxious or you can choose to learn from it. If you were a paid admin at a larger company, this kind of assumption is exactly the sort of assumption that would get your company hosed and your backside canned. You need to be more scientific about things.
EVEN if you are proven correct in your assumption, that's based on a gut instinct not on any proof you've presented from your description.
Well I accept that's your opinion, but from TFA, it seems other pro musicians disagree...
"This isn't the first, or the most advanced, self-tuning guitar system on the market. Over the past 20 years, a small Colorado company called TransPerformance has custom-built about 300 guitars, costing $3,000 and up for the electronics alone, for rock stars including Jimmy Page and Eddie Van Halen."
Perhaps it has more to do with the musician's playing style.
Also if the system got cheap enough it might be useful to beginners who can't tune - yes I know they can use an electronic tuner, and yes I know they need to learn to tune sooner rather than later, but a cheap and quick built-in tuner might let an absolute beginner concentrate on excercise rather than wondering if it sounds wrong because they're doing the wrong thing or because the thing's out of tune.
Is is possible to have a discussion on slashdot without bashing the President?
Yes. Just not this president.
The Facebook college crowd may mostly be out of their teenage years but they're still about rebellion and experimentation (college). Having the "grown ups" come in and be organized and taking over their little corner of the world just annoys them. Our Australian politicians have been trying to use the Net - social network sites (including myspace which does have a teenage bent) and wikipedia. They're quickly realizing that having some old ass politician come in and try and be one of the cool kids is just going to get them trashed. They're about as cool as golf pants. Well some corporations are going throught he same thing. Short of getting younger already cool representation (look at the softdrink companies hiring rock stars) and having a youngster targetted product range, this is what they can continue to expect.
The trouble is unless some kind of special technology is used to redistribute the writes across the entire disk, you'll get the same bytes being written to 1000 times a day in a cache situation. 1350/1000 = 1.35 years which is not so good.
Although I do think someone should tell the to get the FUD out of here.
I'll believe it when (a) an indpendent agency - not a government one, but someone like the ACLU - verifies that they watched the procedure of wiping the drives per DoD standards of data erasure
Yes because if an agency agreed to that the data could not possibly have been copied before it was so publicly wiped?
Almost anything passes for "insightful" here lately.
There are no such things as weight problems. Only eating problems.
That's pure bunk. Some people's bodies are remarkably good at storing and absorbing calories. You need excercise too. The trouble is if your body is like that the moment you stop eating like a fucking rabbit and exercising like Rocky, you get fat again. How long could YOU keep that up? 6 months? 12 months? 6 years? What if you're hurt? What if you get ill? What if you're broke and have to work 2 or 3 jobs? Think about it.
Another thing. I'm fucking tired of idiots with their own unscientific pet diet that they didn't need because their weight "problem" consists of 3 extra kilos and a bad body image telling me their pet diet will fix it all.
By the way you're completely wrong.
i cle.html
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,135814-pg,1/art
It's not like it will downsample non-drm'ed HD content
i cle.html
Lies
http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,135814-pg,1/art
Yeah I haven't fact checked, but it's believable. What is more difficult to believe is that people would defend that decrepid piece of shit operating system.
Vista is being sold as being better: Better for high def content, better for security, better for business. It is none of those things. I have checked and yet I've STILL had it foisted on me when buying a laptop. I dual boot now so I should be able to claim a lot of experience with Vista. The truth is I've only booted to it a handful of times once I got XP dual booting nicely. Compatibility is awful. Security and DRM just gets in the way. THAT is personal experience.
Want to know something. I don't feel like re-buying my software every few years to get the same goddamned fucking capability I use to have anyway. But hey you're willing to put the blame on the user for not loving an OS you clearly believe has major compatibility issues with existing software, so I may as well be talking to a brick wall. Vista should come with a bucket of sand for the user to stick their head in.
I know a guy online who claims Vista stopped him from being able to produce his own video of some biking event he went to. After trying for a while he decided it was ridiculous and actually went back to XP.
That's the real damage that DRM is doing - it's creating a huge DIS-incentive for being creative. Everything from GPS software that's crippled so they can sell you more maps (that you can't afford or refuse to fork out for) to printers with extortionately priced consumables, to camera software that changes with each couple of models, to music players that suddenly stop file sharing (legal or not! think about free postcasts).
I use to love buying gadgets but now every time I buy one I wince because I know I'm going to spend more time with the product working around limitations that have been added, or general poor quality. The most idiotic thing is that what this ultimately means is that after a few sales to desperate consumers, many decide they don't have the time, or money or that its just not worth the grey hairs to get into a hobby, especially in a world where you're expected to work half your life or more away.
Yes, 90% of fat people just need to lay off McDonald and other heavily processed food and throw away TVs.
Spoken like person who's never had to deal with a weight problem.
MySQL requires code contributions to be re-assigned to MySQL AB
/. yesterday)
Then why on earth are we calling it open source?
Every time a product starts to get good, some greedy fugknuckle on the project decides to close the source. We've seen it again and again. Here are the ones the come to mind:
FICS - Free Internet Chess Server
DD-WRT - Firmware for Linksys router
CDDB - Distrubted CD catalogue system
BitTorrent - File transfer (on
Now MySQL
I'm sure others could add plenty more examples. Anyone who committed to developing or using these products because the were FOSS has been badly burned.
I think this is becoming a bigger threat to open source than any other and it certainly puts me off contributing anything. For goodness sake don't call it open if they have the ability to close it off legally at any moment.
Ah I see. I hit reply to the wrong article. My mistake. It was meant to be attached to the MySql article.
After helping her through getting her life back together over the course of years since her accident, I'd be just fine if they threw drunk drivers in jail and told their cellmates that they were child molesters. ...which is why I'm glad you're not making the laws. Your anger isn't something to display proudly. Emmotion isn't a good basis for punishment (or law in general). It's not going to get your friend's leg back or take away the pain she's suffered or continues to suffer.
I hope you're just venting, because otherwise you have some real issues to work through.
I do think drunk drivers belong in jail, but that's because otherwise they're likely to re-offend, not so I can punish them for the existing offence. That's what jails are primarily for - keeping dangerous people away from the rest of society.
what spoon modified this offtopic? Were you awake when you did it?