I could call the GPL "Berkeley Dope-Smoker Copyright" by the same turn and be just as right.
That would be the "MIT Alleged Dope-Smoker Copyright" (I can't find any evidence of Stallman doing illicit drugs, and I've never seen him is person so I can't say that he does). If you're going to mock people, inform yourself first and do it with some accuracy. This is like mocking Australians for their goofy British accent.
I think the pleasure for many, and certainly for me, is that someone is having to pay for their hypocrisy. Their bread and butter is selling copyrighted works, and they pirated someone else's. It also reduces their credibility with me if they complain about other pirates in the future.
Frankly, I'd rather have them sleeping in their car, and able to answer any call in short order, than be parked somewhere handing out speeding tickets.
Hoovering.*
* I named this tactic both after the vacuum and the unscrupulous FBI administrator who utilized similar, albeit low-tech, methods to do the same; clever, huh?;-)
It was clever 16 years ago, when it was used in Gattacca. Still entirely appropriate.
First, you need to look at the criteria you use to determine what you want to learn.
If the question is: What are the odds that a random vehicle being driven today will catch fire, broken down by Tesla vs. non-Tesla?, then Musk has given the correct figure with the data we have.
If the question is: How many miles does a vehicle have to be driven, on mean, before it catches fire, broken down by Tesla vs. non-Tesla?, then Musk hasn't given us enough information to determine. Depending on data collection, it may be hard to determine. A similar question could be asked with age, as well.
If the question is: Which car has more expensive fires, as a percentage of the value of the vehicle that caught on fire?, then Musk has given no information at all. I haven't heard whether any of the Teslas that caught fire were written off or not, so it's hard for me to say.
If the question is: How likely are you to walk away from a car fire without injury or loss of life, broken down by Tesla vs. non-Tesla?, then the limited information says the Tesla is safer. This is by virtue that no one has been injured or killed by the fire in any of these three incidents, while we know people have been injured in car fires before. It's statistically irrelevant at this point, and hopefully will take a number of years before enough statistics are collected for them to be relevant.
Those few acres of woods could provide for about ten homes' worth of nearly free heat, and the only pollutant would be carbon.
One note. Presuming you weren't steadily clearing out your few acres of woodlot in heating your home, it is technically carbon neutral. The space you clear provides room for more trees to grow in, sequestering the carbon you released in a relatively short time (20 years is nothing in geological terms). As for the idea some may propose that the trees would grow anyway, even without you clearing firewood, forest growth slows once the canopy is closed. Opening the canopy gives faster growth, and better carbon sequestration.
Wood burning is a great green heating solution in low population areas. Go help the environment. Kill some trees. On the bright side, you might get to watch some ignorant environmentalists' heads explode!
No, the problem the GPP was referring to, and which you're so studiously avoiding again, is that there are quite likely a variety of options that fall between "shoot my neighbour" and "have the government deal with it". Nowhere do you explore any of those options, which probably has a multitude of sources, not least of which is that the US government and the US media present the vast majority of issues in this simplistic manner. The new phrase for the day is "false dichotomy".
The problem is, as you said, laws are like code. The longer it is, the more bugs there are. Also, since ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it, having laws that the layman can't understand at least the primary tenets of is inherently harmful for the layman. (Yes, an argument could be made that the layman has no right to be willfully ignorant, but most people would have difficulty even reading the U.S. legal code in it's entirety and actually be able to be gainfully employed - not even lawyers.)
To paraphrase what Einstein used about science, but which I think applies here as well, "The law should be as simple as possible, but no simpler."
Much more effective as a threat than a club, though, if the other party doesn't know that the ammunition is missing.
In the scenarios people are talking about here, primarily airplane hijackings and assassination of political figures, the mere threat is pointless. If it happened on an airplane as you describe, the people will dogpile him, there will be some bruises, and after the 'hijacker' (clown is more appropriate) is subdued, someone will say, "Huh, no bullets in this plastic gun. Oh well, he still goes to jail." In the case of an 'attempted assassination', someone who threw himself in front of the target is going to have a very good day, and after the 'assassin' is killed, someone will say, "Huh, no bullets in this plastic gun. Oh well, he's still dead."
In just about any other scenario, a real gun is safer (for the user), cheaper, and more effective. If you can think of a scenario where it is noticeably harder to sneak in a real gun, and having an unloaded weapon will still provide a credible threat, please share.
A key difference between a plane hijacking and a database penetration is that a plane hijacking always costs the airline money now. It costs more when the plane is blown up. This tends to make them more diligent with respect to hijackings vs. database penetration. So, yes, I think they did take a measured, and valid, response.
I look outside, it's cloudy. I look at my phone - cloudy, 22 degrees C, light wind. Now I know I don't need a jacket. Both let me know I don't need an umbrella, yet.
Since I can't tell whether or not your cell phone is turned off by looking at you, it would be more like carrying a clown mask in your jacket - not quite as obvious to the rest of us, but an examination will make it clear.
OTOH, isn't carrying a working cell phone while committing a major crime equivalent to doing so while carrying around a sign saying "Here I am"?
I agree, primaries seem stupid and bizarre. It's quite the spectacle to watch as a non-American.
But, next you create a barrier to free speech to promote your Libertarian ideals. If I have a great idea that a million people like, but can only afford to pay $1 to support, I have $1 million for my campaign (and a lot of legwork to get it). If I have a great idea that 10 people agree with, and they can each pay $1 million to support, I have 10 times the money (and I may have only spent a tiny fraction of the time to get it). I'm sure this will lead to the campaigns being run in an equally good manner, and the will of the people will be perfectly represented.
I'd rather pay everyone who shows that they're serious about their desire to be elected a fixed amount than the alternatives of: put a low artificial limit on the spending, causing people to not have an an opportunity to hear about their options; put a high artificial limit on the spending, causing people without the funds to not be able to present their proposals to the people effectively; or having no limits on campaign spending, causing those with unpopular proposals (financially speaking) to be almost completely drowned out.
I know anecdotal evidence isn't valid, but I've always wondered where are the Androids? A few people at work have Android phones, and I see them around town, sparsely. As for tablets, I saw a Galaxy Tab last year and one this year. Other than that, I see them on the shelf at Best Buy. Almost everyone is carrying an iOS device. These reports of Android's crazy market share would be a lot more believable (to me) if they were consistent with physical evidence.
In my extended family, there is one Blackberry, mine, and I expect to be replacing it with an Android soon. There is one iPhone, formerly two. I expect the last iPhone will be replaced with an Android, but that isn't a discussion I've been a part of. The other iPhone was replaced with an Android in the last year. Everyone else uses Android or uses a dumb phone. Outside of my family, I really don't keep much track of phones. The two I know of are both Blackberries. So: 3 Blackberries, 1 iPhone, 8 Androids, 1 dumb phone, 1 that's either iPhone or Android so we'll say iPhone.
My anecdote says that about 62% smartphones are Android, 23% Blackberry, and as much as 15% iPhone. Which proves...that anecdotes aren't the same as data, and that small sample sizes can provide really skewed results. Also, that poorly-representative data can also skew results.
Apple made the same mistake with smartphones as in the 80s with the computers.
I don't think the closed ecosystem has anything to do with it : i have an iPhone, and while my teenage kids love it and wouldn't stop dreaming about one, they just CAN NOT AFFORD it. So they jumped ship and bought a cheap 150€ android. While their phone is inferior, it is "good enough" for all they need to do. Now that they bought it, they're stuck in the android world partly because of the apps they bought, partly due to pride in defending their choice, but mostly because they see that their cheap phone can do EVERYTHING my iPhone can do at a quarter of the price.
So...what you're saying is that it's exactly the same as it was in the 80s with computers.
Highly trained and disciplined Pilots in the virtually empty air != drivers in SIlicon Valley
FTFY.
Nevermind the fact the sky is damn near empty; remember what your driving test entailed? Zero comparison between that and the training military pilots go through.
...or that plenty of cars come with built-in HUDs nowadays.
If Google Glass was only capable of displaying information directly relevant to driving (i.e, land speed, RPM, oil temp, etc), or you could look up your facebook profile on the cars built-in HUD, that would be an equal comparison. Plus, military pilots go through many months of training and simulation before they so much as see the cockpit of an actual aircraft. Class F MVO holders, not so much.
I don't see what most of the points you raised in response to my comment have to do with the points you raised in the comment I responded to. Also, I've never heard of any special training required for using the HUD systems already available in a variety of cars today. So, would you be okay with a version of Google Glass that had a verifiable car mode or not? And if there was such a thing, how would it be less distracting to have some information in a certain point of your field of view versus information that is specifically designed to be in same the field of view as the road you're driving on?
Highly trained and disciplined Pilots in the virtually empty air != drivers in SIlicon Valley
FTFY.
Nevermind the fact the sky is damn near empty; remember what your driving test entailed? Zero comparison between that and the training military pilots go through.
...or that plenty of cars come with built-in HUDs nowadays.
I wouldn't focus just on those who make breakthroughs, but also on those who just find it 'easy' or 'fun'. There could be two things at work here. Mathematical capability, and creative capability. I suspect they would be othogonal, with the pairing being truly powerful, but this also makes finding any genetic factors more difficult. In fact, it would be wise to test people with a spectrum and variety of mathematical abilities, and see what patterns and commonalities emerge, and who has them that they didn't expect to.
No, buddy, you seem to be under the delusion that terms can mean what you want them to, rather than what everyone else uses them as, that your particular concerns are the only important ones in the discussion, and that it's impossible to look at a single facet of a subject without addressing all the other facets without believing they don't exist.
The key difference between the economic impact and the environmental impact is that the environmental impact from polluting is on the order of centuries (perhaps millenia), and economic impacts of regressive taxes are pretty much immediate (years at most). Yes, we're likely at the tail end of the levels of pollution we can cause before we start having to pay for our actions. That said, I'll let you be the one to tell those who are living at the poverty line that they aren't important enough to be allowed to use their cars to get to work, or can pay 3 times what they now for the privilege of being able to survive (and thus being pushed below the poverty line). Sure, there might be a way to solve these problems without destroying the lives of millions of people who are probably the least able to afford or effect the changes needed to solve these problems, but why bother looking when we have this simple (and painful) solution right here?
First, you're confusing two issues: the effect of taxes on the economy, and the effect of taxes on the environment. The previous poster was discussing the effect of taxes on the economy, as was I, and you're talking about the effect on the environment. Yes, taxes can be used to do both. But using a regressive tax, which has greater impact on the poor, still sounds like a bad idea to affect the environment. These people are, after all, the ones least likely to have an effect in the first place, and the increase in cost is going to have little impact on the wealthier people's behaviour.
First, draw a circle. Label it Christian. Next, draw a circle inside that one. Make it about 2/3 the area of the first one. Label it Catholic. Make a third circle inside that one (not sure how big it would be). Label it Roman Catholic. The third one is to differentiate between that small but not insignificant group of people who classify themselves as Catholic but do not recognize the Pope's authority.
The non-Venn version of that. About 2/3 of the current world population of Christians describe themselves as Catholics. Within the last 50 years or so, some groups of Catholics (Greek Orthodox, Lutheran, etc.) have once again recognized the authority of the Pope. Prior to that they didn't, and this state existed in a number of variations since not long after Jesus died. That is just one of the class of people that the Roman Catholics were hostile towards. In fact, whole wars were fought between various factions of Catholics, at times to determine who the next Pope would be.
Capital punishment is derived from, and entirely indistinguishable in the 21st century from, biblical retribution. The idea that killing the killer will somehow make everything OK is nothing more than a laughably exotic attempt by the state to appease constituents clammouring for a reduction in violent crime.
While I've defended the Bible before, and I do believe it is defensible in many cases, I can't condone capital punishment, and I haven't been able to for years. But I'll ask you this. Which alternative would you suggest for dealing with a murderer 3500 years ago? And how much worse was the biblical standard compared to the contemporaries? The good news is, we have far more options now. Some of them could be considered better.
And this is when you tell them that 300 people on death row have been exonerated by DNA evidence, which is a pretty big number when the total death row inmates this year is around 3000 (3146 in 2012). That's right, about 10% who were able to be cleared of guilt using one technique that may not have been around when they were convicted, and who were actually tested through the persistence of their legal advocates. Doubtless more could be exonerated if routine DNA checks were done on people convicted before DNA testing was possible or commonplace. "But what about all the people who were executed," they say. "What about those? Surely that reduces that percentage by some significant amount." Not really. About 1000 have been executed in the last 20 years. (1316 to be exact.) So, worst-case scenario, we're looking at about 6.7% exoneration rates. By one kind of evidence. In a society where the majority don't seem to want to try very hard to exonerate them.
With numbers like those, I'm not too interested in being the one to end a person's life based on their supposed crimes. Even if I could guarantee the person was guilty before execution was an option, I don't think there is any benefit to society.
Of course, I'm also not interested in condoning prison rape and other things that are routine. This probably puts me in the minority - most seem to think it's their just desserts. Personally, I'd love to see a prisoner make a constitutional claim that the government is engaging in cruel and unusual punishment by condoning such acts through the expedient of simply looking the other way. But, again, that doesn't support the sense of vengeance that so many seem to be driven by.
There was a BBC program, 'How To Kill A Human Being,' that examined various methods of execution. The presenter concluded that nitrogen was the ideal way. The idea was presented to the director of a pro-death-penalty campaign group, but he rejected it on the grounds that it was 'inhumane to the victim,' because a pleasant death did not satisfy the demands of justice.
And this is when you realize that the vast majority of people, even well-educated people, even people well-educated in the law, don't know the difference between justice and vengeance.
Slashdot Mirror
I could call the GPL "Berkeley Dope-Smoker Copyright" by the same turn and be just as right.
That would be the "MIT Alleged Dope-Smoker Copyright" (I can't find any evidence of Stallman doing illicit drugs, and I've never seen him is person so I can't say that he does). If you're going to mock people, inform yourself first and do it with some accuracy. This is like mocking Australians for their goofy British accent.
I think the pleasure for many, and certainly for me, is that someone is having to pay for their hypocrisy. Their bread and butter is selling copyrighted works, and they pirated someone else's. It also reduces their credibility with me if they complain about other pirates in the future.
Frankly, I'd rather have them sleeping in their car, and able to answer any call in short order, than be parked somewhere handing out speeding tickets.
Hoovering.* ;-)
* I named this tactic both after the vacuum and the unscrupulous FBI administrator who utilized similar, albeit low-tech, methods to do the same; clever, huh?
It was clever 16 years ago, when it was used in Gattacca. Still entirely appropriate.
First, you need to look at the criteria you use to determine what you want to learn.
If the question is: What are the odds that a random vehicle being driven today will catch fire, broken down by Tesla vs. non-Tesla?, then Musk has given the correct figure with the data we have.
If the question is: How many miles does a vehicle have to be driven, on mean, before it catches fire, broken down by Tesla vs. non-Tesla?, then Musk hasn't given us enough information to determine. Depending on data collection, it may be hard to determine. A similar question could be asked with age, as well.
If the question is: Which car has more expensive fires, as a percentage of the value of the vehicle that caught on fire?, then Musk has given no information at all. I haven't heard whether any of the Teslas that caught fire were written off or not, so it's hard for me to say.
If the question is: How likely are you to walk away from a car fire without injury or loss of life, broken down by Tesla vs. non-Tesla?, then the limited information says the Tesla is safer. This is by virtue that no one has been injured or killed by the fire in any of these three incidents, while we know people have been injured in car fires before. It's statistically irrelevant at this point, and hopefully will take a number of years before enough statistics are collected for them to be relevant.
Those few acres of woods could provide for about ten homes' worth of nearly free heat, and the only pollutant would be carbon.
One note. Presuming you weren't steadily clearing out your few acres of woodlot in heating your home, it is technically carbon neutral. The space you clear provides room for more trees to grow in, sequestering the carbon you released in a relatively short time (20 years is nothing in geological terms). As for the idea some may propose that the trees would grow anyway, even without you clearing firewood, forest growth slows once the canopy is closed. Opening the canopy gives faster growth, and better carbon sequestration.
Wood burning is a great green heating solution in low population areas. Go help the environment. Kill some trees. On the bright side, you might get to watch some ignorant environmentalists' heads explode!
No, the problem the GPP was referring to, and which you're so studiously avoiding again, is that there are quite likely a variety of options that fall between "shoot my neighbour" and "have the government deal with it". Nowhere do you explore any of those options, which probably has a multitude of sources, not least of which is that the US government and the US media present the vast majority of issues in this simplistic manner. The new phrase for the day is "false dichotomy".
The problem is, as you said, laws are like code. The longer it is, the more bugs there are. Also, since ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it, having laws that the layman can't understand at least the primary tenets of is inherently harmful for the layman. (Yes, an argument could be made that the layman has no right to be willfully ignorant, but most people would have difficulty even reading the U.S. legal code in it's entirety and actually be able to be gainfully employed - not even lawyers.)
To paraphrase what Einstein used about science, but which I think applies here as well, "The law should be as simple as possible, but no simpler."
Much more effective as a threat than a club, though, if the other party doesn't know that the ammunition is missing.
In the scenarios people are talking about here, primarily airplane hijackings and assassination of political figures, the mere threat is pointless. If it happened on an airplane as you describe, the people will dogpile him, there will be some bruises, and after the 'hijacker' (clown is more appropriate) is subdued, someone will say, "Huh, no bullets in this plastic gun. Oh well, he still goes to jail." In the case of an 'attempted assassination', someone who threw himself in front of the target is going to have a very good day, and after the 'assassin' is killed, someone will say, "Huh, no bullets in this plastic gun. Oh well, he's still dead."
In just about any other scenario, a real gun is safer (for the user), cheaper, and more effective. If you can think of a scenario where it is noticeably harder to sneak in a real gun, and having an unloaded weapon will still provide a credible threat, please share.
A key difference between a plane hijacking and a database penetration is that a plane hijacking always costs the airline money now. It costs more when the plane is blown up. This tends to make them more diligent with respect to hijackings vs. database penetration. So, yes, I think they did take a measured, and valid, response.
I look outside, it's cloudy. I look at my phone - cloudy, 22 degrees C, light wind. Now I know I don't need a jacket. Both let me know I don't need an umbrella, yet.
Since I can't tell whether or not your cell phone is turned off by looking at you, it would be more like carrying a clown mask in your jacket - not quite as obvious to the rest of us, but an examination will make it clear.
OTOH, isn't carrying a working cell phone while committing a major crime equivalent to doing so while carrying around a sign saying "Here I am"?
I agree, primaries seem stupid and bizarre. It's quite the spectacle to watch as a non-American.
But, next you create a barrier to free speech to promote your Libertarian ideals. If I have a great idea that a million people like, but can only afford to pay $1 to support, I have $1 million for my campaign (and a lot of legwork to get it). If I have a great idea that 10 people agree with, and they can each pay $1 million to support, I have 10 times the money (and I may have only spent a tiny fraction of the time to get it). I'm sure this will lead to the campaigns being run in an equally good manner, and the will of the people will be perfectly represented.
I'd rather pay everyone who shows that they're serious about their desire to be elected a fixed amount than the alternatives of: put a low artificial limit on the spending, causing people to not have an an opportunity to hear about their options; put a high artificial limit on the spending, causing people without the funds to not be able to present their proposals to the people effectively; or having no limits on campaign spending, causing those with unpopular proposals (financially speaking) to be almost completely drowned out.
I know anecdotal evidence isn't valid, but I've always wondered where are the Androids? A few people at work have Android phones, and I see them around town, sparsely. As for tablets, I saw a Galaxy Tab last year and one this year. Other than that, I see them on the shelf at Best Buy. Almost everyone is carrying an iOS device. These reports of Android's crazy market share would be a lot more believable (to me) if they were consistent with physical evidence.
In my extended family, there is one Blackberry, mine, and I expect to be replacing it with an Android soon. There is one iPhone, formerly two. I expect the last iPhone will be replaced with an Android, but that isn't a discussion I've been a part of. The other iPhone was replaced with an Android in the last year. Everyone else uses Android or uses a dumb phone. Outside of my family, I really don't keep much track of phones. The two I know of are both Blackberries. So: 3 Blackberries, 1 iPhone, 8 Androids, 1 dumb phone, 1 that's either iPhone or Android so we'll say iPhone.
My anecdote says that about 62% smartphones are Android, 23% Blackberry, and as much as 15% iPhone. Which proves...that anecdotes aren't the same as data, and that small sample sizes can provide really skewed results. Also, that poorly-representative data can also skew results.
Apple made the same mistake with smartphones as in the 80s with the computers.
I don't think the closed ecosystem has anything to do with it : i have an iPhone, and while my teenage kids love it and wouldn't stop dreaming about one, they just CAN NOT AFFORD it. So they jumped ship and bought a cheap 150€ android. While their phone is inferior, it is "good enough" for all they need to do. Now that they bought it, they're stuck in the android world partly because of the apps they bought, partly due to pride in defending their choice, but mostly because they see that their cheap phone can do EVERYTHING my iPhone can do at a quarter of the price.
So...what you're saying is that it's exactly the same as it was in the 80s with computers.
Highly trained and disciplined Pilots in the virtually empty air != drivers in SIlicon Valley
FTFY.
Nevermind the fact the sky is damn near empty; remember what your driving test entailed? Zero comparison between that and the training military pilots go through.
...or that plenty of cars come with built-in HUDs nowadays.
If Google Glass was only capable of displaying information directly relevant to driving (i.e, land speed, RPM, oil temp, etc), or you could look up your facebook profile on the cars built-in HUD, that would be an equal comparison. Plus, military pilots go through many months of training and simulation before they so much as see the cockpit of an actual aircraft. Class F MVO holders, not so much.
I don't see what most of the points you raised in response to my comment have to do with the points you raised in the comment I responded to. Also, I've never heard of any special training required for using the HUD systems already available in a variety of cars today. So, would you be okay with a version of Google Glass that had a verifiable car mode or not? And if there was such a thing, how would it be less distracting to have some information in a certain point of your field of view versus information that is specifically designed to be in same the field of view as the road you're driving on?
Highly trained and disciplined Pilots in the virtually empty air != drivers in SIlicon Valley
FTFY.
Nevermind the fact the sky is damn near empty; remember what your driving test entailed? Zero comparison between that and the training military pilots go through.
...or that plenty of cars come with built-in HUDs nowadays.
I wouldn't focus just on those who make breakthroughs, but also on those who just find it 'easy' or 'fun'. There could be two things at work here. Mathematical capability, and creative capability. I suspect they would be othogonal, with the pairing being truly powerful, but this also makes finding any genetic factors more difficult. In fact, it would be wise to test people with a spectrum and variety of mathematical abilities, and see what patterns and commonalities emerge, and who has them that they didn't expect to.
No, buddy, you seem to be under the delusion that terms can mean what you want them to, rather than what everyone else uses them as, that your particular concerns are the only important ones in the discussion, and that it's impossible to look at a single facet of a subject without addressing all the other facets without believing they don't exist.
The key difference between the economic impact and the environmental impact is that the environmental impact from polluting is on the order of centuries (perhaps millenia), and economic impacts of regressive taxes are pretty much immediate (years at most). Yes, we're likely at the tail end of the levels of pollution we can cause before we start having to pay for our actions. That said, I'll let you be the one to tell those who are living at the poverty line that they aren't important enough to be allowed to use their cars to get to work, or can pay 3 times what they now for the privilege of being able to survive (and thus being pushed below the poverty line). Sure, there might be a way to solve these problems without destroying the lives of millions of people who are probably the least able to afford or effect the changes needed to solve these problems, but why bother looking when we have this simple (and painful) solution right here?
First, you're confusing two issues: the effect of taxes on the economy, and the effect of taxes on the environment. The previous poster was discussing the effect of taxes on the economy, as was I, and you're talking about the effect on the environment. Yes, taxes can be used to do both. But using a regressive tax, which has greater impact on the poor, still sounds like a bad idea to affect the environment. These people are, after all, the ones least likely to have an effect in the first place, and the increase in cost is going to have little impact on the wealthier people's behaviour.
Let me help you with that.
First, draw a circle. Label it Christian. Next, draw a circle inside that one. Make it about 2/3 the area of the first one. Label it Catholic. Make a third circle inside that one (not sure how big it would be). Label it Roman Catholic. The third one is to differentiate between that small but not insignificant group of people who classify themselves as Catholic but do not recognize the Pope's authority.
The non-Venn version of that. About 2/3 of the current world population of Christians describe themselves as Catholics. Within the last 50 years or so, some groups of Catholics (Greek Orthodox, Lutheran, etc.) have once again recognized the authority of the Pope. Prior to that they didn't, and this state existed in a number of variations since not long after Jesus died. That is just one of the class of people that the Roman Catholics were hostile towards. In fact, whole wars were fought between various factions of Catholics, at times to determine who the next Pope would be.
Capital punishment is derived from, and entirely indistinguishable in the 21st century from, biblical retribution. The idea that killing the killer will somehow make everything OK is nothing more than a laughably exotic attempt by the state to appease constituents clammouring for a reduction in violent crime.
While I've defended the Bible before, and I do believe it is defensible in many cases, I can't condone capital punishment, and I haven't been able to for years. But I'll ask you this. Which alternative would you suggest for dealing with a murderer 3500 years ago? And how much worse was the biblical standard compared to the contemporaries? The good news is, we have far more options now. Some of them could be considered better.
...the largest problem being that you can't release a falsely convicted person from death.
Well, yes, there is that...
And this is when you tell them that 300 people on death row have been exonerated by DNA evidence, which is a pretty big number when the total death row inmates this year is around 3000 (3146 in 2012). That's right, about 10% who were able to be cleared of guilt using one technique that may not have been around when they were convicted, and who were actually tested through the persistence of their legal advocates. Doubtless more could be exonerated if routine DNA checks were done on people convicted before DNA testing was possible or commonplace. "But what about all the people who were executed," they say. "What about those? Surely that reduces that percentage by some significant amount." Not really. About 1000 have been executed in the last 20 years. (1316 to be exact.) So, worst-case scenario, we're looking at about 6.7% exoneration rates. By one kind of evidence. In a society where the majority don't seem to want to try very hard to exonerate them.
With numbers like those, I'm not too interested in being the one to end a person's life based on their supposed crimes. Even if I could guarantee the person was guilty before execution was an option, I don't think there is any benefit to society.
Of course, I'm also not interested in condoning prison rape and other things that are routine. This probably puts me in the minority - most seem to think it's their just desserts. Personally, I'd love to see a prisoner make a constitutional claim that the government is engaging in cruel and unusual punishment by condoning such acts through the expedient of simply looking the other way. But, again, that doesn't support the sense of vengeance that so many seem to be driven by.
Death Row Inmates by Year
Executions by Year
300th Person Exonerated, approx. Oct. 2012
There was a BBC program, 'How To Kill A Human Being,' that examined various methods of execution. The presenter concluded that nitrogen was the ideal way. The idea was presented to the director of a pro-death-penalty campaign group, but he rejected it on the grounds that it was 'inhumane to the victim,' because a pleasant death did not satisfy the demands of justice.
And this is when you realize that the vast majority of people, even well-educated people, even people well-educated in the law, don't know the difference between justice and vengeance.