So we have them beat on square miles, number of states, number of territories, number of sign languages, number of major religions, oral literature, number of ethnic groups, and richest and poorest people!
Obviously we are falling behind on total languages and national level political parties (we could fix that last by getting rid of the electoral college) and total political parties.
Truly, we need to close the "Tower of Babel" gap, the better to not be able to communicate effectively, but you can't always be the best at everything...
H1-B's can not be transferred. The new employer has to file an H-1B petition on behalf of the applicant, all over again. The difference is that this does not count as an application to which the H-1B cap applies. This only applies for a period of 60 days, after which they are subject to deportation.
Getting fired for incompetence if you are in the U.S. on an H-1B is a really bad thing, since the new employer is probably going to wait out the two month clock to make sure that the applicant is still working, rather than having been fired. Unless they can demonstrate a general layoff, and disclose this up front to get the ball rolling on the re-petition at the new employer.
So the situation is nowhere near as dire as you are making it out to be.
The education system has also failed them. In some cases the teachers were ineffective and didn't know the material they were supposed to be teaching.
If the education system gave them access to textbooks and other course materials, the teacher is irrelevant. The education system did not fail them, they failed themselves.
The person to whom I was replying had already posted that same comment multiple times in multiple places in this discussion thread, each time in response to a statement which, in context, makes their statement imply a feeling that people are entitled to an equality of outcome.
I'm sorry (especially if you are Robin Williams having a bad day) that you were unaware of their other postings, or having a bad enough day that you couldn't infer this yourself from the multiple posting locations for their statement of entitlement.
Apparently, the problem is that nobody can learn calculus from a teacher that doesn't know calculus. But those with aptitude can hope that if they cheat their way past the arbitrary cutoff, perhaps they will get the opportunity to actually learn the material later. If they don't cheat, they will have no such opportunity to make it right later, through no fault of their own.
An education is not something you are given.
An education is something you TAKE.
If your teacher sucks, that's too bad for your teacher, but presumably the book you are using was written by someone who didn't suck. And yes, it will require more work on your part to TAKE your education from the system in that case, but it is *possible*, if it's possible for you to understand calculus in the first place.
The problem in the news article is all the people attempting to shortcut putting in effort, in order to get to the point where their certifications prove that they are worthy to participate as a cog in a corrupt system. They have absolutely no interest in actually learning the material (either that, or they lack the capability), because a teacher is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition of learning something, if one is capable of learning it at all.
The idea that an education is something that is "given" you because you show up, like a lollipop for showing up at the doctors office, is part of the problem which makes cheating a viable option for getting ahead: when you cheat, you are "given" a certification that you have learned something, as a result of passing the test, but it's worthless a hell for proving whether or not you've actually learned the something, it's just a piece of paper you can wave at a gatekeeper.
In other words, the certificate is a union card, not a demonstrator that you have the knowledge that the certificate claims you have. It might as well be written in Aramaic, for all the value it has, other than as a train ticket that gets you past a gatekeeper whose job it is to keep out those with train tickets. Or the gatekeeper whose job it is to keep people off the construction site, unless they can show their union cards, etc..
Give up testing altogether. Help everyone get to an A+ level.
No amount of education is going to cram an understanding of calculus into the head of someone who is incapable of learning calculus.
How do you propose we get those people "to an A+ level" in calculus? This is not something you can "give" someone, so it's not like we are "selfishly withholding" an understanding of calculus from them. They are just incapable of learning calculus.
So your suggestion is rather naive at best, and lacking in critical thinking skills at worst. It's like asking society to help someone with no arms and no legs "get to an A+ level" in juggling. It's just not going to happen, ever.
If you had critical thinking skills, you'd recognize that equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of outcome, no matter how much time, effort, and money you pour into trying to make it untrue.
I hate to sound ignorant but from everything I've heard a lot of pressure is put onto school kids to get a good education and get married (particularly males) I doubt it's something they can really change with a law or some arrests, it's seems like a deeply rooted cultural thing.
Perhaps this has not occurred to you...
But if you have to cheat in order to get a good score you don't have a good education.
So they have failed in their task, and no amount of cheating will make them any less of an abject failure.
Deinstitutionalization for most categories of psychiatric patients started around 1950. Psychiatric units are just another specialization in today's hospital.
There are 6 major state hospitals in California which would technically qualify as asylums these days:
Atascadero State Hospital - a hospital primarily for housing the criminally insane (AKA a forensic mental hospital) Patton State Hospital - a forensic mental hospital Napa State Hospital - a civil and forensic mental hospital Coalinga State Hospital - a forensic facility for housing sexually violent predators Harbor View House - a private civil facility operated by a non-profit Metropolitan State Hospital - a civil and forensic mental hospital
They are not some place you get sent for a 5150 72 hour hold, and they didn't hold him the full 72 hours in any case, they held him 40 and verified that he wasn't suffering from an altered mental state due to drugs or a disorder. He was either taken to the PES (Psychiatric Emergency Services) unit at San Mateo Medical center, or he was taken to Mills Peninsula Medical Center, which are the San Mateo County designated 5150 receiving hospitals.
In addition, there are two other semi-major facilities, which count a bit more strongly than PES intake facilities for 5150's which are normally handled by regional medical centers, since they deal with longer term holds:
John George Psychiatric Pavilion - which is primarily used for PES 5150's and longer term holds Langley Porter Psychiatric Institute at UCSF - a psychiatric teaching hospital
Frankly? I'm surprised they took him on it; if he hadn't shown up on their doorstep (he visited the police station for another matter, and admitted to having made the Facebook posting), then they probably wouldn't have. I've had a hard enough time getting services for people who were obviously decompensating or off their meds, in the street in Santa Clara, and the county mental health wouldn't send out a social worker to help them out, unless I basically called the cops on them to have them arrested. There was really no call for that, as they weren't actually hurting anyone, just talking to their voices outside a Subway Sandwich shop or whatever.
But that kind of B.S. attitude would not have flow where I grew up and volunteered: there, they would have sent a social worker. California's mental health services have been going down hill a lot faster than they have in other states.
That is the failure of a criminal justice system based upon punishment and not rehabilitation. With a system based purely on rehabilitation, with specific crimes where risk of server consequence is high, no rehabilitation, no release. That becomes much more feasible where detention conditions are much more humane and the concern is protecting the public, whilst still endeavouring to achieve rehabilitation.
One year: 56.7% Three year: 67.8% Five year: 76.6%
Percentage of adult resident population in prison: 0.97%
Perhaps we could rehabilitate them with some reasonable expectation of being able to be reintegrated into society, by giving them blue collar factory jobs, if we hadn't shipped all those jobs offshore.
I would think spending 50 years contemplating their murderous deeds would be much harsher punishment than execution. By your reasoning George W.H. Bush and George W. Bush, as recently examples, should have been executed as well for their murderous deeds.
A sociopath would spend that 50 years plotting revenge upon release, and how best to play "the reformed person who had spent that 50 years contemplating their murderous deeds" to the parole board in order to get out so they could enact that revenge.
As far as the Bush's go: you only go to prison for your deeds if you lose, and you can't lose if you can't be held accountable, and you can't be held accountable, as the leader of a country, unless you acknowledge being subject to the World Court (which the U.S. does not, for its citizens). And if you are held accountable in the U.S., you either resign and get immediately pardoned by your hand-picked successor, or you wait until the next president immediately after you pardons you, so that they, too, will not be held accountable for their actions in office. So if it had been an issue, Obama would have pardoned the last one, so that whoever is elected after him would pardon him. It's a well understood "gentleman's agreement" to "pay it forward".
Honest question, since there's a list of nazis up above: if an elderly Adolf Hitler were forced to live in prison for 50 years and released into modern life, what more harm could he do?
I dare say he could produce an astonishingly smelly old man diaper.
In a Machiavellian sense, he could be used, for example, as a figurehead to drum up support from the people who he was able to drum up support from before, in order to follow a political agenda. He could also be used in a campaign of renewed anti-semitism, and he could function as the Nazi equivalent of Nelson Mandela when he was jailed for his statements (which he would be, in Germany). At which point he could be a martyr. He could also be assassinated via a false flag operation in order to create a martyr. If he weren't senile, he could run for Chancellor - there's precedent for ancient men as Chancellor: Konrad Adenauer, born in 1876, was elected in 1949 at the age of 73, and served until 1969, when he was aged 87.
I could think of many dozens of ways he could himself cause trouble, and I can think of many more dozens of ways he could be symbolically used by someone else to cause trouble. Who would have thought a presumptive nobody like Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria could have been used to touch off WW I? And Hitler would have not really been a presumptive nobody, had be been released under the conditions you imply.
Ridiculous. You can't agree to anything just by being born; you aren't even sentient at that point. There is no meeting of the minds, no clear agreement. If this so-called "social contract" existed, it would be a contract of adhesion which no human being in history ever explicitly agreed to, and any competent court would throw it out with prejudice after a cursory hearing.
Try using that argument to opt out of the "income tax" portion of the social contract.
False dichotomy. You are asserting that the option is to execute or parole after some maximum term. You are intentionally neglecting the option of life in prison without the chance of parole. Your argument is rendered almost entirely moot by such a sentencing option.
The following countries have abolished "Life without parole":
Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brasil, Cape Verde, Columbia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Kosovo, Macau China, Mexico, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Portugal, Republic of Congo, Serbia, Spain, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vatican City, Venezuela
The following countries have life sentences, but have mandatory consideration for parole after some set period:
Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, Caech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Georgia, Greece, India, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Republic of Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, Monaco, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Switzerland, Republic of China, Turkey
Except people who commit crimes don't really care all that much about the punishment. Harsher sentences don't lead to reduction in crime. Criminals are the kinds of people who think, "Hey, what's the punishment for killing somebody?"
Not all criminals are sociopaths or psychopaths. A large percentage of them relative to the general population tend to be XYY, but not all people who are XYY are criminals.
Part of the problem is that there are differential penalties for minors and adults who commit the same crimes (something which encourages adult recruitment of minors into criminal enterprises). Par of the problem is that the penalties (these days) are not swift. Part of the problem is that the penalties are not certain.
So it's possible for a completely rational person to make a risk/reward decision on a crime, and decide to commit the crime (example: a father who robbed a bank to pay for his sons cancer treatment). People can do bad things for reasons other than sociopathy or psychopathy.
Face it: Yes, it is wrong to kill any human being. Some people, however, have committed crimes so heinous that they no longer qualify as human beings, just because they happen to have a particular DNA sequence.
.. and some people decide that's because they don't believe in the same god, don't accept the same society rules, are homosexuals,..
I believe you need to read Rosseau. There is something called "The Social Contract", which is something of a "shrink wrap license" you agree to by being born into a society, that by doing so, you agree to abide by that societies rules.
The correct response to a disagreement with societies rules is to (A) Get them changed, or (B) emigrate elsewhere.
I agree that (B) is becoming a lot more difficult, as available space fills up, and as nation-states impose moral strictures on other nation states; in that case, there is the suboptimal option (C) hide your differences from the larger society until such time as you can exercise one of the other two options, or until you die, or are caught.
Why are you americans so squeamish about executing people? Surely you want to just watch them suffer, take a life for a life etc etc?
No. The purpose of the penal system is to enact a penalty.
The purpose of a penalty is to provide an example to the rest of society, such that they obey the laws, for fear of a similar penalty.
Society is taught this lesson, regardless of whether or not someone is later found to have been not the perpetrator, since they were *convicted*, they are definitionally guilty, unless exonerated.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with "retribution".
Sadly, there are some jurisdictions that make a pretense of it being about retribution by permitting victims or family members of victims during sentencing. This is a perversion of justice towards retribution, and should probably not be allowed.
As to your other point...
The "squeamishness" in method of execution arises from temporarily enacted bans on executions, and the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the Constitution, since something that's been banned for 8 years, if you go to try to use it after the ban is lifted, is, by definition, unusual.
Ted Bundy was killed in the Florida electric chair in 1989, He is known to have committed at least 30 homicides, including decapitating at least 12 of his victims. He would keep the corpses around and have sex with them until the putrefied. He kept some of his victims severed heads in his apartment as mementos. While in prison on other charges awaiting extradition, he escaped twice, and while a fugitive, committed other assaults, including 3 more murders.
Ted Bundy needed to die to protect society, since he could not be kept locked up.
If you agree, then we are merely arguing about where to draw the line, and not whether or not there are people who should be executed.
Just think what lovely neighbors you would have, if the following were still alive, since according to the sentencing limit laws in some European countries, these guys would have been out on parole and living in your community as early as 1971:
Hans Frank Wilhelm Frick Alfred Jodl Ernst Kaltenbrunner Wilhelm Keitel Joachim von Ribbentrop Alfred Rosenberg Fritz Sauckel Arthur Seyss-Inquart Julius Streicher Hermann Göring
Face it: Yes, it is wrong to kill any human being. Some people, however, have committed crimes so heinous that they no longer qualify as human beings, just because they happen to have a particular DNA sequence.
" by stupidly assuming a client and a server need synchronized time values in the first place"
Have you worked with Amazon S3?
If your time is off by more than 15 minutes than Amazon's servers, you get a big ol fat rejection response saying your clocks arent sync.
This seems a pretty stupid design decision on Amazon's part, given that a rejection response means you aren't using their service for that request, which means that they are not making money off of you.
Seems a pretty lame design choice to make that code path time fragile. I wonder if they calculate the number of times this happens in order to determine how much money they are losing, per day, because of this bad design decision.
Nope, there's no easy way to remove Kerberos dependency on time synchronization.
The only thing needing notice is that Kerberos requires closks to be synced within about a second (could be increased to a few minutes of error easily), while NFS reuires a few miliseconds of error at most.
The maintainer of Heimdal Kerberos at Apple (Love Hörnquist Åstrand), and I have discussed this at some length in the past.
If the server (AS) included the server current time in Message B, then the Authenticator in Message D, G, & H could be calculated as delta relative to the difference in the server and client "now" times relative to the receipt time of the original Message B, without compromising the safety vs. replay, brute force, and other attacks on the protocol.
It would require a change to the protocol for the initial ticket negotiation which would result in a binary incompatibility at the protocol level, but it's doable.
"network latency adjustment is automatic" - I don't understand this statement. If you are only taking two time stamps - client transmit and server receive - then you have no information about the network latency.
You don't NEED information about the latency, as long as the latency in both directions is equal. It's going to be included in the delta + now on the mtime set, and it's going to be subtracted back out on the -delta + mtime stat on the way back.
As long as it round-trips like this, the latency is actually immaterial. Which is the point, since your latency between your NTP source and your file server vs. your latency between your NTP source and your file server client can be unequal, which will screw your time sync to hell for client/server communications. This is something that NTP can't account for, but which PTP *can* (which is why it had to be invented), and which is irrelevant, if you are sending around delta calculations.
PS: The reason you send around two factors for the delta calculation, rather than just the delta itself is to *allow* protocols like NTP and PTP to sync the clocks without everything being screwed up by that happening, but it's not *necessary* to sync the clocks, it's just *allowed*.
you, know - you're right. Instead of having a simple, lightweight protocol that keeps time accurate across the globe, to the tiniest portion of a second...we should have every single time-sensitive thing on every single machine everywhere re-write their own time service. That way, not only will everything suddenly become substantially more noisy, but risk factors will go through the roof and code complexity across all of the IT universe will dramatically increase! Or, we could just use the tiny, lightweight, extremely accurate tool that's been doing it very well for decades. Damn, such hard decisions...
How are you writing your own time service? You are sending deltas around.
Nothing stops you from syncing your clocks if you want, but the main gist if the article was "OMG! NTP might have a vulnerability discovered! Better fund it more than the 100K a year the guy already gets, just in case!".
If your protocols aren't time-sync fragile as shit, then it doesn't matter if you turn NTP off when/if a vulnerability is found, wait for a fix without your entire business going down because NTP is turned off, and then turn the damn thing back on after installing the fix.
Would 'make' across multiple mounts work to build Linux with non-synched time?
Well, probably not Linux, at least if you were using the Debian Build system, but that's because it probably wouldn't work on a standalone machine, either... OK just joking! Put down the knives!
The answer is "Yes, it would work", because you'd use the same technique to take a server response in server time and delta it to local time for the "stat" issued over NFS by the "make" process, so the local node always has a consistent view of the relative timestamps on the server, even if the local node's clock has drifted considerably.
So if you distribute a build to 30 machines, all with different stamps, and they're all working off the same NFS (or other) back end file service, the locally apply delties, and they can see the stat on the ".o" makes it newer than the ".c", and go onto the next item to build, since some other system in the build cluster has already handled it.
Slashdot Mirror
So we have them beat on square miles, number of states, number of territories, number of sign languages, number of major religions, oral literature, number of ethnic groups, and richest and poorest people!
Obviously we are falling behind on total languages and national level political parties (we could fix that last by getting rid of the electoral college) and total political parties.
Truly, we need to close the "Tower of Babel" gap, the better to not be able to communicate effectively, but you can't always be the best at everything...
Fraudulent degrees are grounds for immediate deportation, because it means the H-1B petition was perjured.
H1-B's can not be transferred. The new employer has to file an H-1B petition on behalf of the applicant, all over again. The difference is that this does not count as an application to which the H-1B cap applies. This only applies for a period of 60 days, after which they are subject to deportation.
Getting fired for incompetence if you are in the U.S. on an H-1B is a really bad thing, since the new employer is probably going to wait out the two month clock to make sure that the applicant is still working, rather than having been fired. Unless they can demonstrate a general layoff, and disclose this up front to get the ball rolling on the re-petition at the new employer.
So the situation is nowhere near as dire as you are making it out to be.
The education system has also failed them. In some cases the teachers were ineffective and didn't know the material they were supposed to be teaching.
If the education system gave them access to textbooks and other course materials, the teacher is irrelevant. The education system did not fail them, they failed themselves.
The person to whom I was replying had already posted that same comment multiple times in multiple places in this discussion thread, each time in response to a statement which, in context, makes their statement imply a feeling that people are entitled to an equality of outcome.
I'm sorry (especially if you are Robin Williams having a bad day) that you were unaware of their other postings, or having a bad enough day that you couldn't infer this yourself from the multiple posting locations for their statement of entitlement.
Apparently, the problem is that nobody can learn calculus from a teacher that doesn't know calculus. But those with aptitude can hope that if they cheat their way past the arbitrary cutoff, perhaps they will get the opportunity to actually learn the material later. If they don't cheat, they will have no such opportunity to make it right later, through no fault of their own.
An education is not something you are given.
An education is something you TAKE.
If your teacher sucks, that's too bad for your teacher, but presumably the book you are using was written by someone who didn't suck. And yes, it will require more work on your part to TAKE your education from the system in that case, but it is *possible*, if it's possible for you to understand calculus in the first place.
The problem in the news article is all the people attempting to shortcut putting in effort, in order to get to the point where their certifications prove that they are worthy to participate as a cog in a corrupt system. They have absolutely no interest in actually learning the material (either that, or they lack the capability), because a teacher is neither a necessary nor sufficient condition of learning something, if one is capable of learning it at all.
The idea that an education is something that is "given" you because you show up, like a lollipop for showing up at the doctors office, is part of the problem which makes cheating a viable option for getting ahead: when you cheat, you are "given" a certification that you have learned something, as a result of passing the test, but it's worthless a hell for proving whether or not you've actually learned the something, it's just a piece of paper you can wave at a gatekeeper.
In other words, the certificate is a union card, not a demonstrator that you have the knowledge that the certificate claims you have. It might as well be written in Aramaic, for all the value it has, other than as a train ticket that gets you past a gatekeeper whose job it is to keep out those with train tickets. Or the gatekeeper whose job it is to keep people off the construction site, unless they can show their union cards, etc..
Too bad there's so much car ownership there...
If only fewer people owned cars there, and instead car-pooled using Uber...
Give up testing altogether. Help everyone get to an A+ level.
No amount of education is going to cram an understanding of calculus into the head of someone who is incapable of learning calculus.
How do you propose we get those people "to an A+ level" in calculus? This is not something you can "give" someone, so it's not like we are "selfishly withholding" an understanding of calculus from them. They are just incapable of learning calculus.
So your suggestion is rather naive at best, and lacking in critical thinking skills at worst. It's like asking society to help someone with no arms and no legs "get to an A+ level" in juggling. It's just not going to happen, ever.
If you had critical thinking skills, you'd recognize that equality of opportunity does not guarantee equality of outcome, no matter how much time, effort, and money you pour into trying to make it untrue.
I hate to sound ignorant but from everything I've heard a lot of pressure is put onto school kids to get a good education and get married (particularly males)
I doubt it's something they can really change with a law or some arrests, it's seems like a deeply rooted cultural thing.
Perhaps this has not occurred to you...
But if you have to cheat in order to get a good score you don't have a good education.
So they have failed in their task, and no amount of cheating will make them any less of an abject failure.
Deinstitutionalization for most categories of psychiatric patients started around 1950. Psychiatric units are just another specialization in today's hospital.
There are 6 major state hospitals in California which would technically qualify as asylums these days:
Atascadero State Hospital - a hospital primarily for housing the criminally insane (AKA a forensic mental hospital)
Patton State Hospital - a forensic mental hospital
Napa State Hospital - a civil and forensic mental hospital
Coalinga State Hospital - a forensic facility for housing sexually violent predators
Harbor View House - a private civil facility operated by a non-profit
Metropolitan State Hospital - a civil and forensic mental hospital
They are not some place you get sent for a 5150 72 hour hold, and they didn't hold him the full 72 hours in any case, they held him 40 and verified that he wasn't suffering from an altered mental state due to drugs or a disorder. He was either taken to the PES (Psychiatric Emergency Services) unit at San Mateo Medical center, or he was taken to Mills Peninsula Medical Center, which are the San Mateo County designated 5150 receiving hospitals.
In addition, there are two other semi-major facilities, which count a bit more strongly than PES intake facilities for 5150's which are normally handled by regional medical centers, since they deal with longer term holds:
John George Psychiatric Pavilion - which is primarily used for PES 5150's and longer term holds
Langley Porter Psychiatric Institute at UCSF - a psychiatric teaching hospital
Frankly? I'm surprised they took him on it; if he hadn't shown up on their doorstep (he visited the police station for another matter, and admitted to having made the Facebook posting), then they probably wouldn't have. I've had a hard enough time getting services for people who were obviously decompensating or off their meds, in the street in Santa Clara, and the county mental health wouldn't send out a social worker to help them out, unless I basically called the cops on them to have them arrested. There was really no call for that, as they weren't actually hurting anyone, just talking to their voices outside a Subway Sandwich shop or whatever.
But that kind of B.S. attitude would not have flow where I grew up and volunteered: there, they would have sent a social worker. California's mental health services have been going down hill a lot faster than they have in other states.
That is the failure of a criminal justice system based upon punishment and not rehabilitation. With a system based purely on rehabilitation, with specific crimes where risk of server consequence is high, no rehabilitation, no release. That becomes much more feasible where detention conditions are much more humane and the concern is protecting the public, whilst still endeavouring to achieve rehabilitation.
Recidivism rates, as of 2014, http://www.nij.gov/topics/corr...
One year: 56.7%
Three year: 67.8%
Five year: 76.6%
Percentage of adult resident population in prison: 0.97%
Perhaps we could rehabilitate them with some reasonable expectation of being able to be reintegrated into society, by giving them blue collar factory jobs, if we hadn't shipped all those jobs offshore.
I would think spending 50 years contemplating their murderous deeds would be much harsher punishment than execution. By your reasoning George W.H. Bush and George W. Bush, as recently examples, should have been executed as well for their murderous deeds.
A sociopath would spend that 50 years plotting revenge upon release, and how best to play "the reformed person who had spent that 50 years contemplating their murderous deeds" to the parole board in order to get out so they could enact that revenge.
As far as the Bush's go: you only go to prison for your deeds if you lose, and you can't lose if you can't be held accountable, and you can't be held accountable, as the leader of a country, unless you acknowledge being subject to the World Court (which the U.S. does not, for its citizens). And if you are held accountable in the U.S., you either resign and get immediately pardoned by your hand-picked successor, or you wait until the next president immediately after you pardons you, so that they, too, will not be held accountable for their actions in office. So if it had been an issue, Obama would have pardoned the last one, so that whoever is elected after him would pardon him. It's a well understood "gentleman's agreement" to "pay it forward".
Honest question, since there's a list of nazis up above: if an elderly Adolf Hitler were forced to live in prison for 50 years and released into modern life, what more harm could he do?
I dare say he could produce an astonishingly smelly old man diaper.
In a Machiavellian sense, he could be used, for example, as a figurehead to drum up support from the people who he was able to drum up support from before, in order to follow a political agenda. He could also be used in a campaign of renewed anti-semitism, and he could function as the Nazi equivalent of Nelson Mandela when he was jailed for his statements (which he would be, in Germany). At which point he could be a martyr. He could also be assassinated via a false flag operation in order to create a martyr. If he weren't senile, he could run for Chancellor - there's precedent for ancient men as Chancellor: Konrad Adenauer, born in 1876, was elected in 1949 at the age of 73, and served until 1969, when he was aged 87.
I could think of many dozens of ways he could himself cause trouble, and I can think of many more dozens of ways he could be symbolically used by someone else to cause trouble. Who would have thought a presumptive nobody like Archduke Franz Ferdinand of Austria could have been used to touch off WW I? And Hitler would have not really been a presumptive nobody, had be been released under the conditions you imply.
Ridiculous. You can't agree to anything just by being born; you aren't even sentient at that point. There is no meeting of the minds, no clear agreement. If this so-called "social contract" existed, it would be a contract of adhesion which no human being in history ever explicitly agreed to, and any competent court would throw it out with prejudice after a cursory hearing.
Try using that argument to opt out of the "income tax" portion of the social contract.
False dichotomy. You are asserting that the option is to execute or parole after some maximum term. You are intentionally neglecting the option of life in prison without the chance of parole. Your argument is rendered almost entirely moot by such a sentencing option.
The following countries have abolished "Life without parole":
Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Brasil, Cape Verde, Columbia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Honduras, Kosovo, Macau China, Mexico, Montenegro, Nicaragua, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Portugal, Republic of Congo, Serbia, Spain, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vatican City, Venezuela
The following countries have life sentences, but have mandatory consideration for parole after some set period:
Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Chile, Cyprus, Caech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Germany, Georgia, Greece, India, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Republic of Macedonia, Republic of Moldova, Monaco, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Romania, Singapore, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Switzerland, Republic of China, Turkey
So no, the argument is not "moot".
Except people who commit crimes don't really care all that much about the punishment. Harsher sentences don't lead to reduction in crime. Criminals are the kinds of people who think, "Hey, what's the punishment for killing somebody?"
Not all criminals are sociopaths or psychopaths. A large percentage of them relative to the general population tend to be XYY, but not all people who are XYY are criminals.
Part of the problem is that there are differential penalties for minors and adults who commit the same crimes (something which encourages adult recruitment of minors into criminal enterprises). Par of the problem is that the penalties (these days) are not swift. Part of the problem is that the penalties are not certain.
So it's possible for a completely rational person to make a risk/reward decision on a crime, and decide to commit the crime (example: a father who robbed a bank to pay for his sons cancer treatment). People can do bad things for reasons other than sociopathy or psychopathy.
Face it: Yes, it is wrong to kill any human being. Some people, however, have committed crimes so heinous that they no longer qualify as human beings, just because they happen to have a particular DNA sequence.
.. and some people decide that's because they don't believe in the same god, don't accept the same society rules, are homosexuals, ..
I believe you need to read Rosseau. There is something called "The Social Contract", which is something of a "shrink wrap license" you agree to by being born into a society, that by doing so, you agree to abide by that societies rules.
The correct response to a disagreement with societies rules is to (A) Get them changed, or (B) emigrate elsewhere.
I agree that (B) is becoming a lot more difficult, as available space fills up, and as nation-states impose moral strictures on other nation states; in that case, there is the suboptimal option (C) hide your differences from the larger society until such time as you can exercise one of the other two options, or until you die, or are caught.
It's not ideal.
Why are you americans so squeamish about executing people? Surely you want to just watch them suffer, take a life for a life etc etc?
No. The purpose of the penal system is to enact a penalty.
The purpose of a penalty is to provide an example to the rest of society, such that they obey the laws, for fear of a similar penalty.
Society is taught this lesson, regardless of whether or not someone is later found to have been not the perpetrator, since they were *convicted*, they are definitionally guilty, unless exonerated.
It has nothing whatsoever to do with "retribution".
Sadly, there are some jurisdictions that make a pretense of it being about retribution by permitting victims or family members of victims during sentencing. This is a perversion of justice towards retribution, and should probably not be allowed.
As to your other point...
The "squeamishness" in method of execution arises from temporarily enacted bans on executions, and the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the Constitution, since something that's been banned for 8 years, if you go to try to use it after the ban is lifted, is, by definition, unusual.
Ted Bundy was killed in the Florida electric chair in 1989, He is known to have committed at least 30 homicides, including decapitating at least 12 of his victims. He would keep the corpses around and have sex with them until the putrefied. He kept some of his victims severed heads in his apartment as mementos. While in prison on other charges awaiting extradition, he escaped twice, and while a fugitive, committed other assaults, including 3 more murders.
Ted Bundy needed to die to protect society, since he could not be kept locked up.
If you agree, then we are merely arguing about where to draw the line, and not whether or not there are people who should be executed.
Your justice system is flawed, too.
Just think what lovely neighbors you would have, if the following were still alive, since according to the sentencing limit laws in some European countries, these guys would have been out on parole and living in your community as early as 1971:
Hans Frank
Wilhelm Frick
Alfred Jodl
Ernst Kaltenbrunner
Wilhelm Keitel
Joachim von Ribbentrop
Alfred Rosenberg
Fritz Sauckel
Arthur Seyss-Inquart
Julius Streicher
Hermann Göring
Face it: Yes, it is wrong to kill any human being. Some people, however, have committed crimes so heinous that they no longer qualify as human beings, just because they happen to have a particular DNA sequence.
" by stupidly assuming a client and a server need synchronized time values in the first place"
Have you worked with Amazon S3?
If your time is off by more than 15 minutes than Amazon's servers, you get a big ol fat rejection response saying your clocks arent sync.
This seems a pretty stupid design decision on Amazon's part, given that a rejection response means you aren't using their service for that request, which means that they are not making money off of you.
Seems a pretty lame design choice to make that code path time fragile. I wonder if they calculate the number of times this happens in order to determine how much money they are losing, per day, because of this bad design decision.
Nope, there's no easy way to remove Kerberos dependency on time synchronization.
The only thing needing notice is that Kerberos requires closks to be synced within about a second (could be increased to a few minutes of error easily), while NFS reuires a few miliseconds of error at most.
The maintainer of Heimdal Kerberos at Apple (Love Hörnquist Åstrand), and I have discussed this at some length in the past.
If the server (AS) included the server current time in Message B, then the Authenticator in Message D, G, & H could be calculated as delta relative to the difference in the server and client "now" times relative to the receipt time of the original Message B, without compromising the safety vs. replay, brute force, and other attacks on the protocol.
It would require a change to the protocol for the initial ticket negotiation which would result in a binary incompatibility at the protocol level, but it's doable.
You are advocating shutting down the mechanisms that make aviation possible.
Propellors?
"network latency adjustment is automatic" - I don't understand this statement.
If you are only taking two time stamps - client transmit and server receive - then you have no information about the network latency.
You don't NEED information about the latency, as long as the latency in both directions is equal. It's going to be included in the delta + now on the mtime set, and it's going to be subtracted back out on the -delta + mtime stat on the way back.
As long as it round-trips like this, the latency is actually immaterial. Which is the point, since your latency between your NTP source and your file server vs. your latency between your NTP source and your file server client can be unequal, which will screw your time sync to hell for client/server communications. This is something that NTP can't account for, but which PTP *can* (which is why it had to be invented), and which is irrelevant, if you are sending around delta calculations.
PS: The reason you send around two factors for the delta calculation, rather than just the delta itself is to *allow* protocols like NTP and PTP to sync the clocks without everything being screwed up by that happening, but it's not *necessary* to sync the clocks, it's just *allowed*.
you, know - you're right. Instead of having a simple, lightweight protocol that keeps time accurate across the globe, to the tiniest portion of a second...we should have every single time-sensitive thing on every single machine everywhere re-write their own time service. That way, not only will everything suddenly become substantially more noisy, but risk factors will go through the roof and code complexity across all of the IT universe will dramatically increase! Or, we could just use the tiny, lightweight, extremely accurate tool that's been doing it very well for decades. Damn, such hard decisions...
How are you writing your own time service? You are sending deltas around.
Nothing stops you from syncing your clocks if you want, but the main gist if the article was "OMG! NTP might have a vulnerability discovered! Better fund it more than the 100K a year the guy already gets, just in case!".
If your protocols aren't time-sync fragile as shit, then it doesn't matter if you turn NTP off when/if a vulnerability is found, wait for a fix without your entire business going down because NTP is turned off, and then turn the damn thing back on after installing the fix.
Why build time-fragile systems?
Would 'make' across multiple mounts work to build Linux with non-synched time?
Well, probably not Linux, at least if you were using the Debian Build system, but that's because it probably wouldn't work on a standalone machine, either... OK just joking! Put down the knives!
The answer is "Yes, it would work", because you'd use the same technique to take a server response in server time and delta it to local time for the "stat" issued over NFS by the "make" process, so the local node always has a consistent view of the relative timestamps on the server, even if the local node's clock has drifted considerably.
So if you distribute a build to 30 machines, all with different stamps, and they're all working off the same NFS (or other) back end file service, the locally apply delties, and they can see the stat on the ".o" makes it newer than the ".c", and go onto the next item to build, since some other system in the build cluster has already handled it.