One of her toys is an old keyboard with the cord removed. I don't see a "minimum' age at all.
Same here, but you want to keep an eye on her. Mi son had his keyboard privileges removed once he discovered how to pop out the keys (hint: it involves "banging" and "floor"). Those things are real choking hazards. Just a heads-up from a peer:)
Yeah, because torture is always so funny. Really, did anyone read the whole article? Hint: If this had happened in the US or Europe, slashbots would be up in arms. But it happened to "oh, those quaint indians" and suddenly it's funny.
Arguments such as 'my family has to eat' [...] are missing the point. I'd hate to find myself deciding that the reason is that proprietary developers consciously dismiss the moral / ethical issues as uninteresting or irrelevant.
I don't know about you. I have a wife and a 1-year-old son, and "my family has to eat" is the most relevant concern for me. I won't tell my kid he has to starve because Daddy is "fighting the good fight" and creating a world where software will be free. I mean, would you?
They uh also sound a lot more intelligent cuz like they uh edited down the filler kinda stuff that kids like to use yunno. And adults too kinda. I'm sorta like exaggerating for effect and stuff but you get the idea right? Same words and all that but when the editors want to get all concise and shit to save column space, then the stuff they edit out sounds like a lot more intelligent.
As an example, we can turn the above into:
the editors want to get all concise to save column space
Since my mind keeps s/Erector Set/Viagra, I'd like to know if Skat Skoota maybe some sort of vaginal euphemism? And if so, all I can say for the one you "wore out" is: ouch!
I always wanted Rockem' Sockem' Robots when I was a kid. Never got it.
Now, my son is 3-1/2. Guess what I got him a few months ago?
Liar. You didn't "get him" the robots. You used him to get them for yourself. Which is actually quite cool. My kid will get a big set of Mindstorms as soon as he is able to use them --or maybe a couple of years before that;)
As a Spanish speaker, I'll have you all know that "jovencitas cahondas" translates pretty much to "horny girls". So, what engine looks better now? Eh? Eh?
See, this paragraph is what threw me in your original post:
For that reason, I believe that the death penalty should be outlawed. I can't see our legal system being reworked to guarantee truly fair trials (too much money involved), so since we can't guarantee that everyone who's on trial for their life gets a fair shake, no one should be put to death. Just lock 'em up and let them rot. If their crime was heinous enough (child rapist/killer, etc.), their prison mates will take care of them in time.
Quoted in full, so context is not an issue. If you reread it, hopefully you'll see how it can be misinterpreted.
And again, not a "petty attack", but a discussion. That's what we're here for, right?;)
So what's your point? Did you have one? Or were you just looking to piss on my sneakers?
Yep, from the first phrase, I can see this is going to be a high-road kind of debate. Anyway.
It's not that I think we should abolish the death penality because I'm worried about innocent people being executed (although an outgoing governor of Illinois was). It is a concern, but it's not my primary concern.
It probably should be. Punishing the guilty and absolving the innocent is the most important thing in a legal system; in fact, if it fails at that, anything else is pointless.
If you'd really taken the time to understand what I'd written, instead of writing me off as a whatever-you-wrote-me-off-as...
As nothing. I didn't call you names, I didn't attack you personally....you'd see that my primary concern is that I don't feel that our legal system really guarantees everyone an equal shot at fair representation. If O.J. had had the exact same level of representation as some schmoe from Compton, I don't think there's any doubt that he'd be sitting there on death row.
What that boils down to is: You are (rightly) concerned that the innocent poors are going to get punished, and the guilty rich are going to walk thanks to their money. See above.
I used to be pretty strongly in favor of capital punishment, because I don't believe in rehabilitation for sociopaths. As I grew up, however, I began to see that Justice in this country is largely influenced by money, and that bothers me greatly. I'd much rather see incorrigible criminals locked away until they die than to perpetuate the status quo of executing people who were unable to drum up enough cash to get a better legal team.
And yet, you seem unconcerned that the poor-but-innocent are going to rot in jail, as long as they are not executed. Abolishing the death penalty is not the answer. Trying to get everyone a fair shot at a legal defense is. And saying "that's too hard" is not an excuse to stop trying. What I get from your post, and I hope you'll correct me if I'm wrong, is that everyone should have a proper defense (on which I agree), and if that is not possible, death penalty should not be applied (agree on that too). But then you make a rather strange leap of logic to refer to the guilty who should remain in prision, and forget completely about the unjustly convicted. Yes, it's good that they're not executed. But it is not right that they should remain imprisoned. So, abolishing the death penalty as a solution to unequal representation is grossly shorthanded.
You twisted my words to make your petty little attack.
...since we can't guarantee that everyone who's on trial for their life gets a fair shake, no one should be put to death. Just lock 'em up and let them rot. If their crime was heinous enough (child rapist/killer, etc.), their prison mates will take care of them in time.
Your "logic" boggles me. We can't guarantee Johnny a fair trial, so we shouldn't put him to death (just in case he is innocent, I guess). Just let him rot in jail, which shouldn't be a nice place. He was innocent you say? Who cares?
"The lady is screaming with joy because she enjoyed the shampoo so much". Kids are a lot smarter than you think. And they understand the concept of screaming with joy without the need for an orgasm. My 13-months old kid is Exhibit A on that one.
You missed my point. Yes, you can and should try to get a good medical attenticn. What I think happens sometimes --and I'm not saying it is yours or Patrick's case-- is analog to a user wanting a new hard disk to get rid of his popups problem. Namely, that usually --not always, but usually-- the doctor knows best. All I know about Patrick is that he's a great hacker. I don't know anything about his doctors. Yet, if he has consulted what, seven, eight of them, and none of them concurs with his selfdiagnosis, Occam's Razor says that Patrick's diagnosis should be wrong. What is irking to doctors is patients that insist that "I know what's wrong with me, you should operate and extract this or that", when the doctor knows for sure that is not true. We all have encountered users like that; I was trying to use the analogy to give an idea of what doctors feel in that situation. There are doctors in my family, and let me tell you, they work a hell of a lot harder for that medical degree than we do for our IT ones. So, disregarding their medical opinion with just a "he's a doctor, he doesn't know anything about medicine and doesn't care about his patients" is more than a little rude. Thanks for keeping this civil. I know a lot of other people would have flamed me mercilessly.:)
Slashdot Mirror
One of her toys is an old keyboard with the cord removed. I don't see a "minimum' age at all.
:)
Same here, but you want to keep an eye on her. Mi son had his keyboard privileges removed once he discovered how to pop out the keys (hint: it involves "banging" and "floor"). Those things are real choking hazards.
Just a heads-up from a peer
Maybe he's Schroedinger's wife?
You know, you botched it... had you said "You're new here, right?", you'd have gotten an automatic +5, Funny. ;)
Yeah, because torture is always so funny.
Really, did anyone read the whole article?
Hint: If this had happened in the US or Europe, slashbots would be up in arms. But it happened to "oh, those quaint indians" and suddenly it's funny.
So, how is it working for NASA these days?
Arguments such as 'my family has to eat' [...] are missing the point. I'd hate to find myself deciding that the reason is that proprietary developers consciously dismiss the moral / ethical issues as uninteresting or irrelevant.
I don't know about you. I have a wife and a 1-year-old son, and "my family has to eat" is the most relevant concern for me. I won't tell my kid he has to starve because Daddy is "fighting the good fight" and creating a world where software will be free.
I mean, would you?
Deep man
You probed?
Or maybe you forgot a comma.
I hope it's the second one.
Oh.. yeah.... right.. a drunken roomate actually throwing something away!! LOL!.. nevermind...
Mine did. Two words: Projectile vomiting. Had pretty good aim, too.
Nuff said, I guess.
They uh also sound a lot more intelligent cuz like they uh edited down the filler kinda stuff that kids like to use yunno. And adults too kinda. I'm sorta like exaggerating for effect and stuff but you get the idea right? Same words and all that but when the editors want to get all concise and shit to save column space, then the stuff they edit out sounds like a lot more intelligent.
As an example, we can turn the above into:
the editors want to get all concise to save column space
Q.E.D.
Since my mind keeps s/Erector Set/Viagra, I'd like to know if Skat Skoota maybe some sort of vaginal euphemism? And if so, all I can say for the one you "wore out" is: ouch!
I always wanted Rockem' Sockem' Robots when I was a kid. Never got it.
Now, my son is 3-1/2. Guess what I got him a few months ago?
Liar. You didn't "get him" the robots. You used him to get them for yourself.
Which is actually quite cool. My kid will get a big set of Mindstorms as soon as he is able to use them --or maybe a couple of years before that
Who the hell modded parent insightful?
It is funny, mind you... but insightful?
I don't know if that was racist or just plain stupid.
We never had people bringing guns to school before video games became popular. So I would tell you to get your facts straight.
You tell him, man! Ban videogames, not guns, because guns don't kill people, videogames do. Right?
What ever in heck can they do that would be reflected by zipzoomfly?
JNSPUA (Je ne suis pas un avocat)
Dude, I'n not an avocado either. Hardly anyone in Slashdot is (since JonKatz left). But I don't see the relevance here.
I think it's a valid mention of the N word.
I think you meant "of the word 'nigger'".
I mean, really, you make such a great point (no irony intended) and then go and undermine it like that...
I know you thought you were playing, but if you had RTFA:
Accoona takes its name from the Swahili phrase, "accoona matata," for "no worries," popularized by Disney's film, "The Lion King."
I'm not sure if that's irony, but it sure as hell is funny.
As a Spanish speaker, I'll have you all know that "jovencitas cahondas" translates pretty much to "horny girls".
So, what engine looks better now? Eh? Eh?
So, we agree in a lot more than we disagree.
;)
See, this paragraph is what threw me in your original post:
For that reason, I believe that the death penalty should be outlawed. I can't see our legal system being reworked to guarantee truly fair trials (too much money involved), so since we can't guarantee that everyone who's on trial for their life gets a fair shake, no one should be put to death. Just lock 'em up and let them rot. If their crime was heinous enough (child rapist/killer, etc.), their prison mates will take care of them in time.
Quoted in full, so context is not an issue. If you reread it, hopefully you'll see how it can be misinterpreted.
And again, not a "petty attack", but a discussion. That's what we're here for, right?
So what's your point? Did you have one? Or were you just looking to piss on my sneakers?
...you'd see that my primary concern is that I don't feel that our legal system really guarantees everyone an equal shot at fair representation. If O.J. had had the exact same level of representation as some schmoe from Compton, I don't think there's any doubt that he'd be sitting there on death row.
Yep, from the first phrase, I can see this is going to be a high-road kind of debate. Anyway.
It's not that I think we should abolish the death penality because I'm worried about innocent people being executed (although an outgoing governor of Illinois was). It is a concern, but it's not my primary concern.
It probably should be. Punishing the guilty and absolving the innocent is the most important thing in a legal system; in fact, if it fails at that, anything else is pointless.
If you'd really taken the time to understand what I'd written, instead of writing me off as a whatever-you-wrote-me-off-as...
As nothing. I didn't call you names, I didn't attack you personally.
What that boils down to is: You are (rightly) concerned that the innocent poors are going to get punished, and the guilty rich are going to walk thanks to their money. See above.
I used to be pretty strongly in favor of capital punishment, because I don't believe in rehabilitation for sociopaths. As I grew up, however, I began to see that Justice in this country is largely influenced by money, and that bothers me greatly. I'd much rather see incorrigible criminals locked away until they die than to perpetuate the status quo of executing people who were unable to drum up enough cash to get a better legal team.
And yet, you seem unconcerned that the poor-but-innocent are going to rot in jail, as long as they are not executed. Abolishing the death penalty is not the answer. Trying to get everyone a fair shot at a legal defense is. And saying "that's too hard" is not an excuse to stop trying.
What I get from your post, and I hope you'll correct me if I'm wrong, is that everyone should have a proper defense (on which I agree), and if that is not possible, death penalty should not be applied (agree on that too). But then you make a rather strange leap of logic to refer to the guilty who should remain in prision, and forget completely about the unjustly convicted. Yes, it's good that they're not executed. But it is not right that they should remain imprisoned. So, abolishing the death penalty as a solution to unequal representation is grossly shorthanded.
You twisted my words to make your petty little attack.
Quoting != Twisting words.
Disagreement != Attack.
Differently opinionated != Petty.
If you are interested in a discussion then reply like an adult.
As opposed to pissing on your sneakers (whatever the hell that is)?
And Mussolinni made the trains run on time. So he wasn't all that bad, either.
...since we can't guarantee that everyone who's on trial for their life gets a fair shake, no one should be put to death. Just lock 'em up and let them rot. If their crime was heinous enough (child rapist/killer, etc.), their prison mates will take care of them in time.
Your "logic" boggles me.
We can't guarantee Johnny a fair trial, so we shouldn't put him to death (just in case he is innocent, I guess). Just let him rot in jail, which shouldn't be a nice place. He was innocent you say? Who cares?
"The lady is screaming with joy because she enjoyed the shampoo so much". Kids are a lot smarter than you think.
And they understand the concept of screaming with joy without the need for an orgasm. My 13-months old kid is Exhibit A on that one.
I could self-identify myself as a sculptor. That wouldn't make it so.
Maybe for very clumsy values of sculptor?
You missed my point. :)
Yes, you can and should try to get a good medical attenticn. What I think happens sometimes --and I'm not saying it is yours or Patrick's case-- is analog to a user wanting a new hard disk to get rid of his popups problem. Namely, that usually --not always, but usually-- the doctor knows best.
All I know about Patrick is that he's a great hacker. I don't know anything about his doctors. Yet, if he has consulted what, seven, eight of them, and none of them concurs with his selfdiagnosis, Occam's Razor says that Patrick's diagnosis should be wrong.
What is irking to doctors is patients that insist that "I know what's wrong with me, you should operate and extract this or that", when the doctor knows for sure that is not true. We all have encountered users like that; I was trying to use the analogy to give an idea of what doctors feel in that situation.
There are doctors in my family, and let me tell you, they work a hell of a lot harder for that medical degree than we do for our IT ones. So, disregarding their medical opinion with just a "he's a doctor, he doesn't know anything about medicine and doesn't care about his patients" is more than a little rude.
Thanks for keeping this civil. I know a lot of other people would have flamed me mercilessly.