If they reconstitute that species, they better reconstitute it's least powerful predator as well.
Yeah, because we all know how difficult it has been to controll the elephant populations of the world. Without any preditors, they are multiplying uncontrollably.
---Lane
Re:The original idea of All Hallow's Eve...
on
Howl-o-ween
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
It comes from the Celtic traditions:
People believed around this time, spirits walked the earth. They would put out their fires, in order to make their homes less appealing to the spririts. They also dressed up, and acted strange, in order to make the spirits think they were already posessed, so they would move on.
Children would also go door to door, and ask for "treats" in exchange for singing a song, or reciting a poem. This tradition was brought to America by Irish immigrants in the mid 1800's
Listen to NPR a little, no conspriacy here
You'll have to wait until February to see a holiday that was truely concocted by merchandisers to sell thing (namely cards and flowers)
for jotting down reminders on how to do things better/correctly for when the code you're currently slamming out fails
Ladies and gentlemen... we have a true-to-form coder here. Don't put the notes in comments, put them in seperate sheets of paper that can be quickly destroyed after the project is compiled and working.
Remember... the code is the comments! If it was hard to write, it should be hard to read;)
Hello, sorry, but...
Go has not been analyzed and picked apart enough for us to say that it us much more difficult than chess.
Perhaps with the belief among computer chess researchers that chess has been solved will Go soon undergo the same nitpicking that chess has
This game is much more popular than chess in China, Japan, and Korea. Somehow, you seem to assume that these regions are all completely deviod of any programming, AI, or mathematical talent.
These people are obviously just sitting around waiting for us Westerners to solve chess so we can move onto their little problem.
As for your 'points'... they cry of a lack of deep understanding of both Go, and AI
1. Go pieces can be removed from the board, by capturing. Thus opening up more combinations
2. Even if it weren't possible, and a stone was plunked down each time, you'd still have (19x19)! possible moves (a lot, as stated earlier)
3. When chess pieces are removed from the board, it collapses the search tree. On a Go board, it expands it.
4. There are 4 'cells' Remember, in a Ko battle, a space can be empty, but unplayable.
5. The whole cells argument is pretty nonsensical anyway? You are basically discussing bit-depth... in which case, would a black and white face be easier for a computer to recognize than a grayscale, how about color?
6. Facial recognition really has nothing to do with Go in a practical sense. Facial recognition is categorization based on large differences. In go, you have to select the best move based on extremely small differences in extremely similiar layouts.
7. As far as the "million game database" This just will not work, as playing against a human, they'll just do a profitable, but nonsensical move. It is the same thing that happens when studying Joseki. People will know the Joseki, but without an understanding of the principles behind it, it will be useless to them as they will not be able to respond to non-standard moves (GNU Go has a Joseki database I believe).
This guy is describing the correct attack... against the wrong algorithm....
He is describing how you crack a replacement cryptographic system.
The way this system works is, you take a letter in your alphabet, say E and always replace Es with Rs.
When you "plug in" a peice of text, for instace "world trade center" to a piece of cipher text, you are saying (if the cipher text begins with x)... "ok, I'm going to see what happens when I tell all Xs to become Ws.
In this way, the rest of the text can "fall out" in the way he described. This is because, when you make one replacement that replacement is continued throughout the rest of the doccuemtn. This means there is a pattern, and patterns are the enemy of cryptography.
In a one time pad, there is no pattern. This is because the replacement scheme is different for every letter. This means, even if you "plug in" World Trade Center, it doesn't tell you anything about the rest of the text, because no pattern holds for the rest of the text
The parent text is describing the cracking of a system other than one time pad. This illustrates a fundamental problem with cryptography, that many people are pointing out in this article... it is tough to tell when someone makes a claim, if they know just what the hell they're talking about.
I have a feeling we agree... but disagree on what is "reasonable"...
A simple way to show that not all.yap files are encrypted files would be to rename a.gif file to.yap. It's not encrypted, and shows that "my app" is not the only way to create such files.
Let me remind you of the circumstance...
1) Your app makes.yap files
2) They find a user with a series of random files with the.yap file type
This leaves two possibilities:
1) the user could have simply piped a random stream into a series of.yap files.
- or -
2) The user could have obtained your app and used it illegally to create encrypted file.
For point 1 the only reason the user would be doing it would be to screw over the author of the software in question.
This is where the circumstance is examined, and the arguments are made. Did the user simply want to screw over the particular author? Or were they actually using the software in question
The point being, is that showing there is another way to create.yap files, does not suddenly put the creation of your.yap files into doubt...
It is along the same lines as another common/. argument...
"The RIAA will read the list of files you are sharing on Napster, and bust you"
"Yeah, but I could have simply run 'touch Madonna_like_a_virgin.mp3' for a bunch of songs".
Sure.... again... you could have but in all honesty, do you think it is unreasonable to think they didn't?
In the case of your average user, I bet not.... This only makes sense to a/. reader because it is something that they might actually consider doing. In that case however, it would be brought up in court under the motivation part I metioned earlier.
I've noticed this trend on slashdot as part of the geek influence no doubt. Repeat after me... things don't have to be mathematically proven to count as proof in a court of law.
This question is posted ever so often by someone who thinks they are real clever... it is one of those "invisible people would be blind" things that if you think about, makes sense...
Then, someone on slashdot (sorry, not credits to give out, can't remember) posted a great reply I thought I should parrot:
in modern fighter jets, there is no way a pilot could hear the planes flying around him. To increase awareness however, the engine noises are added in by computer. The computer figures out where the planes are, given radar data, then adds in engine noises with the appropriate distance and placement. This way, the pilot is much more situationally aware, without having to check the instruments.
I thought that was pretty cool.
Presumably, this is a feature that would be included, and improved upon in the future. Therefore, the sounds you hear, might not be from the ships themselves, but a computer onboard making those sounds to identify what ships they are, how fast they're going, and where they are.
3) What caused the Big Bang? What happened in the first 10E-38th of a second after the Big Bang happened?
Evolutionary theorists don't have to explain the big bang. For all they can God did cause the big bang, or even set up the universe billions of years ago. All they care is that No matter how the universe was created it was created with a framework that allowed evolution.
Now of course, as you might immagine, many people who believe in evolution also believe in other scientific theories, such as the big bang, but they do not require eachother, and refuting one does not refute the other. See what I mean?
4) How do you explain the relative thinness of the layer of dust on the Moon? It should be much deeper if the Moon is billions of years old.
This seems to make sense, from a limited perspective: ie. "My house gets dusty really fast, therefore really old things should have a lot of dust" Until you ask the simple question... why? IANANE (I am not a Nasa Engineer) so I don't know much about moon dust, but I just want to ask this question, because it is the basis of your point: Why should the moon have a lot of dust? I mean, there is little gravity, atmosphere, or water. These are the primary forces that lead to the creation of dust on Earth (errosion) so what would cause it on the moon. Like I say, I'm just curious, because often times people (in all branches) will use arguments because they sound correct, but never really examine them thinking "hmmm, now why is this correct?"
5) How do you reconcile the perfection of Scripture with the hoaxes and embarrassments of science (i.e., Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Lucy, etc.)
You realize of course, that this is not really an argument, or a provable point. In fact, it merely begs the question. You are saying "The scriptures are perfect, because God made them, and they are perfect". Do you see how this is circular? Anything taken on faith is "perfect" because you can not disprove faith. Of course Science, like any human institution, has been wrong about things in the past. We do not, however, give up scientific persuit anymore that you have abandoned religion because the world isn't flat or the center of the universe.
Like I said before, these are not really replies to your questions. My goal is more to probe your sense of beliefs, and examine the logical structure of your argument. I happen to not believe in creationism. This does not require that I not believe in God however. My reason is as follows:
My problem with creationism is that ultimatly, it doesn't give God any "credit." Why is it so difficult to believe that as an omnipotent being, God could have created a system so complex, beutiful, and functional as evolution. This system truely shows the amazing prowess of God, as it is a system so dynamic and creative that it has created all we see and know today, yet so complex that full understanding of this mechanism elludes us to this day. I find it much easier to accept than a simple "God created everything the way it is, that's it." Give God credit for being more creative than that.
---Lane
P.S. No, I usually don't reply to anonymous cowards, but I understand that being a creationist has a certian stigma and probably warrented the anonymous posting
Yes,
I am well aware of the fact that I did not back up my statement with numbers. This is because I was merely giving an example of how someone could think that drug arrests account for "a vast amount" of our countries prison population, while in all actuality, it isn't.
The requirement for proof falls on the one making the claim, not the one refuting it:
Person 1: Bigfoot exists, I just know it is true, look I even have a picture
Person 2: Are you kidding me, that picture is just an out of focus picture of a guy in a gorrilla costume.
Person 1: What are you a photo expert? You have to prove this photo is fake, otherwise we should all believe in bigfoot.
Do you see, how it is not up to Person 2 to prove the negative, but to Person 1 to prove the positive.
This is something a lot of people don't understand, that is why they ignore a lot of common sense and go on thinking whatever they want. (Like that bigfoot/UFO/Nessie exists)
Yes, I realize that I could have made a much more cogent argument by researching the numbers, but it was not a requirement for me to prove my point, and doesn't make it any less valid
This is exactly why we have the Bill of Rights... to protect the minority from the majority.
This has absolutely nothing to do with what you were talking about earlier... in fact you have completely changed the subject.
To Summarize: Our argument is as follows..
Me: Crime X is punished more than Y because that is what the majority think should be punished and policed for
You: Oh yeah, well "To me..." the two crimes are equivalent because both ruin people's lives
Me: True, they both do, but since we live in a democracy, it isn't what matters "to you", but what the majority thinks.
You:
Yeah but the Bill of Rights protects me from the majority.
Just because the majority thinks something is right, doesn't mean it is
I'm reminded of a quote that has nothing to do with our argument (as we weren't discussing liberty, we were discussing differing severity for crimes)
My replies to your points, which really have nothing to do with the orriginal discussion
The Bill of rights protects your rights from the majortity, not your opinions (in the sense that your opinions somehow have to be written into law). Therefore, if more people want to punish crime X to a greater degree than crime Y, that will be the case, no matter if "to you" they should be punished the same
I never said that because something was the majority descision, that it was right. I was merely explaining the group psychology that caused certian crimes to be punished more severely. It was a reply to the charge that they were motivated by racism and classism.
But I wasn't talking about the hypothetical... I'm talking about the way things are
When a woman walks home at night, she isn't afraid of Ken Lay. She is afraid of someone raping her.
Crime punishments take into account all aspects, such as violence and victims. What is the most deterministic thing, is what people want. Remeber, we live in a democracy, where elected politicians write the laws. So it isn't what you think that matters... it is what the majority thinks. The majority of the population wants to give more policing resources to arresting violent criminals than white collar ones. I would immagine you would too:
The old joke goes:
Mugger: "Your money or your life" ....
Muggee: "I'm thinking..."
It is a joke because people will always choose to give away their money to protect their physical safety, without even thinging. This is exactly what happens in our legal system too.
Just look at how little crack one must possess to be guilty of a felony, and how much powder cocaine- rich people's drug of choice- it takes
I said it before, and I'll say it again...
Laws are tougher on crimes that people fear more
Tough crack laws were enacted not because rich white people wanted to "disenfranchises them [presumably African American minorities], and puts them to work for nearly nothing as convict laborers".
They were enacted as a response to the crack and gang epidemic of the 80s, after outcry by the affected African American communities.
I believe this is touched on in the book "Loosing the Race". For good measure, you should probably read "Ethnic America" before you proclaim what is, and isn't racist.
As a hint... if the war on drugs is a war on the poor, then why are not all poor equally affected? Indeed, Hispanics are a much larger poor minority than African Americans, yet they don't appear to be convicted in as great a number. Even more so... what about Chinese immigrants. I would doubt they register at all for drug offenses. Why is that?
The answer is... the war on drugs is not a war on the poor... the real facts are as follows:
Poor people commit more crimes that society wants to have stricter punishment and policing of (you still have not addressed this in your argument by the way)
Certain ethnic groups on average tend to be of both lower income, and statistically inclinated to both drug use and violent crime.
The really sad part is, as I have said, you will continue with this word view:
"The evil white men are passing more laws in order to turn poor minorities into slaves in order to support Americas Massive manufacturing industry
You also have not addressed, and just assumed everyone should understand, why prison labor is wrong.
vast majority of the prizon[sic] population are non-violent drug offenders
Care to support this with numbers? and sources... yes, those are needed to prove a point.
Furthermore, by non-violent offender, you are implying that this is a person who was simply sitting at home, not harming anyone else. Suddenly, the police bust in, and he is in jail for life, just for smoking pot.
More usually, people who break the law, break many laws.
New York City found this to be true with their quality of life crime enforcements. They found the same people that jump fares at subways are the same people that commit other crimes. Catching them for jumping fares, they found the people often were wanted for another crime, or were breaking parole rules. Doing this prevented them from causing other crimes.
I would wager this, that "the vast majority" of the prison population is locked up for crimes including drug offenses. The fact that these people are also serving time for "non-violent" drug offenses makes people include them in their statistics about "the vast majority" being locked up.
In other words... say 75 percent of the prison population has a drug charge against them (most drug charges being non-violent). Now, some subset, lets say 35 percent of the prison population is in for assault.
Groups with an agenda, come a long and say... look at this! "The vast majority (75%) of our prisoners are in for non-violent drug offenses"
This does not mean, although they want it to, that the 75 percent is in only because of non-violent drug charges.
See the difference?
moving on....
Another disturbing trend is the rise of prizon[sic] labor. Prizoners [sic] manufacturing goods for nearly no pay will be the new form of slavery
It is called a debt to society. Would you rather they sit around, doing nothing, wasting their life? Or do something, repay society, and maybe even get some skills?
Furthermore, slavery implies that they were forced into their situation. Breaking the law is something you choose to do... becoming a slave isn't. There is a huge difference, so don't muddy the waters by using such an emotionally laden word.
That is why America incarcerates 4.4 million of its citizens, more than any other country.
Are you seriously implying that we have laws with the hopes that people will break them so we can use them for cheap labor? Or perhaps that is why laws are so tough? I hope you realize this is complete tripe.
The reason the laws are tough is because of democracy. No politician wants to be seen as "soft on crime". Prison labor is merely making due with available resources, not the cause of them.
More even then China
More.... ummm... Percentage wise? or in terms of raw numbers? Also, keep in mind that there are massive cultural differences between the two countries that account for the crime difference more than anything else.
In all actuality, I am against "the war on drugs", and I do realize that a lot of people (not "a vast majority") are in jail for non-violent drug offenses. The thing that angers me more though, are people who toss off statements like this. It makes the whole movement seem like a product of pot smoking youths who can't justify their position and are therefore sidelined.
a higher ratio of what would be crime in the high income bracket
Well.... no kidding!
Seriously, can you people please stop touting this. It brings to mind a quote by Mark Twain:
"There are three types of lies: Lies, damn Lies, and statistics"
In all actuality, law enforcement goes after the crimes people care about, and are afraid of
This does not include white collar crime. Think about it: Do you know what the crime rate is at your local college dorm? Probably around 100 percent (downloading mp3s is usually done illegally remember)
But, given the police forces are finite, would you rather see the energy devoted to busting these kids, or gang members?
So don't pretend that is is "racism" or "classism" that is causing society to go after people who: are lower income, young, a member of a minority group. It is the fact that we are more afraid of violent crime than white collar.
If you can prove that violent crime* is more prevelant in upper income brackets, I would like to see it.
---Lane
*Bear in mind however, that we even distinguish between violent crimes. We are much more afriad of say "stray bullet", "road rage" or "gang initiation" killings than "he killed his lover" types, because we are more afraid of people who kill other strangers (because that could be us) instead of someone who kills a person they know.
I don't want to leave my house. Why can't I vote over the internet?
They already have something like this, only you vote through the mail.
Dallas does this, and might have to redo elections due to the massive amount of fraud it caused.
We probably could impliment a secure system to do this though. Everyone would be assigned a secure public and private key. This would have to be on some sort of "national ID card"... oh wait, bad idea.
"it doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it can catch mice"
I also think creativity and personal expression are highly overrated. My children will get just brown crayons too.
Care to loan me some money so I can start up a car company I've always dreamed of? The cars will all be the same, just enough to get you from point A to B, no variation, and above all else they all come in one color. They will be serviced every 6 months to make sure you haven't put on any bumper stickers. It can't fail!
>Since it looks like it's going to be a while
>before anyone can access the file, I've put up a
>copy on my local server. [127.0.0.1]
>
>Enjoy!
hmmmm,
I don't seem to be able to reach your server. Don't worry though, I have a feeling the problem is on my end with a firewall or something. The problem should be fixed soon, as myself and several co-workers have sent angry e-mails to our sysadmin about not being able to access 127.0.0.1
Slashdot Mirror
If they reconstitute that species, they better reconstitute it's least powerful predator as well.
Yeah, because we all know how difficult it has been to controll the elephant populations of the world. Without any preditors, they are multiplying uncontrollably.
---Lane
It comes from the Celtic traditions:
People believed around this time, spirits walked the earth. They would put out their fires, in order to make their homes less appealing to the spririts. They also dressed up, and acted strange, in order to make the spirits think they were already posessed, so they would move on.
Children would also go door to door, and ask for "treats" in exchange for singing a song, or reciting a poem. This tradition was brought to America by Irish immigrants in the mid 1800's
Listen to NPR a little, no conspriacy here
You'll have to wait until February to see a holiday that was truely concocted by merchandisers to sell thing (namely cards and flowers)
---Lane
for jotting down reminders on how to do things better/correctly for when the code you're currently slamming out fails
;)
Ladies and gentlemen... we have a true-to-form coder here. Don't put the notes in comments, put them in seperate sheets of paper that can be quickly destroyed after the project is compiled and working.
Remember... the code is the comments! If it was hard to write, it should be hard to read
---Lane
Hello, sorry, but... Go has not been analyzed and picked apart enough for us to say that it us much more difficult than chess.
Perhaps with the belief among computer chess researchers that chess has been solved will Go soon undergo the same nitpicking that chess has
This game is much more popular than chess in China, Japan, and Korea. Somehow, you seem to assume that these regions are all completely deviod of any programming, AI, or mathematical talent.
These people are obviously just sitting around waiting for us Westerners to solve chess so we can move onto their little problem.
As for your 'points'... they cry of a lack of deep understanding of both Go, and AI
1. Go pieces can be removed from the board, by capturing. Thus opening up more combinations
2. Even if it weren't possible, and a stone was plunked down each time, you'd still have (19x19)! possible moves (a lot, as stated earlier)
3. When chess pieces are removed from the board, it collapses the search tree. On a Go board, it expands it.
4. There are 4 'cells' Remember, in a Ko battle, a space can be empty, but unplayable.
5. The whole cells argument is pretty nonsensical anyway? You are basically discussing bit-depth... in which case, would a black and white face be easier for a computer to recognize than a grayscale, how about color?
6. Facial recognition really has nothing to do with Go in a practical sense. Facial recognition is categorization based on large differences. In go, you have to select the best move based on extremely small differences in extremely similiar layouts.
7. As far as the "million game database" This just will not work, as playing against a human, they'll just do a profitable, but nonsensical move. It is the same thing that happens when studying Joseki. People will know the Joseki, but without an understanding of the principles behind it, it will be useless to them as they will not be able to respond to non-standard moves (GNU Go has a Joseki database I believe).
---Lane
So does this mean that I could sell software to Yahoo! with an EULA that allows me to...
Correction: You could try to sell Yahoo software with this EULA.
The difference is Yahoo! has a Team! of! Lawyers! to read each one of these things, whereas Joe consume does not, nor does he have the time...
Let's also face another depressing question here... does Joe consume care all that much? Especially if he can get Civ III for free?
---Lane
This guy is describing the correct attack... against the wrong algorithm....
He is describing how you crack a replacement cryptographic system.
The way this system works is, you take a letter in your alphabet, say E and always replace Es with Rs.
When you "plug in" a peice of text, for instace "world trade center" to a piece of cipher text, you are saying (if the cipher text begins with x)... "ok, I'm going to see what happens when I tell all Xs to become Ws.
In this way, the rest of the text can "fall out" in the way he described. This is because, when you make one replacement that replacement is continued throughout the rest of the doccuemtn. This means there is a pattern, and patterns are the enemy of cryptography.
In a one time pad, there is no pattern. This is because the replacement scheme is different for every letter. This means, even if you "plug in" World Trade Center, it doesn't tell you anything about the rest of the text, because no pattern holds for the rest of the text
The parent text is describing the cracking of a system other than one time pad. This illustrates a fundamental problem with cryptography, that many people are pointing out in this article... it is tough to tell when someone makes a claim, if they know just what the hell they're talking about.
---Lane
How is it possible that these algorithms work?
I mean, didn't Darwin denounce evolution on his deathbed?
---Lane
"beyond a reasonable doubt"
.yap files are encrypted files would be to rename a .gif file to .yap. It's not encrypted, and shows that "my app" is not the only way to create such files.
.yap files .yap file type
.yap files.
.yap files, does not suddenly put the creation of your .yap files into doubt...
/. argument...
/. reader because it is something that they might actually consider doing. In that case however, it would be brought up in court under the motivation part I metioned earlier.
I have a feeling we agree... but disagree on what is "reasonable"...
A simple way to show that not all
Let me remind you of the circumstance...
1) Your app makes
2) They find a user with a series of random files with the
This leaves two possibilities:
1) the user could have simply piped a random stream into a series of
- or -
2) The user could have obtained your app and used it illegally to create encrypted file.
For point 1 the only reason the user would be doing it would be to screw over the author of the software in question.
This is where the circumstance is examined, and the arguments are made. Did the user simply want to screw over the particular author? Or were they actually using the software in question
The point being, is that showing there is another way to create
It is along the same lines as another common
"The RIAA will read the list of files you are sharing on Napster, and bust you"
"Yeah, but I could have simply run 'touch Madonna_like_a_virgin.mp3' for a bunch of songs".
Sure.... again... you could have but in all honesty, do you think it is unreasonable to think they didn't?
In the case of your average user, I bet not.... This only makes sense to a
---Lane
They find stupid users computer:
.yap files when it encrypts things
Stupid user has *.yap files on it, encrypted...
your app makes
Don't think that could happen?
I've noticed this trend on slashdot as part of the geek influence no doubt. Repeat after me... things don't have to be mathematically proven to count as proof in a court of law.
---Lane
This question is posted ever so often by someone who thinks they are real clever... it is one of those "invisible people would be blind" things that if you think about, makes sense...
Then, someone on slashdot (sorry, not credits to give out, can't remember) posted a great reply I thought I should parrot:
in modern fighter jets, there is no way a pilot could hear the planes flying around him. To increase awareness however, the engine noises are added in by computer. The computer figures out where the planes are, given radar data, then adds in engine noises with the appropriate distance and placement. This way, the pilot is much more situationally aware, without having to check the instruments.
I thought that was pretty cool.
Presumably, this is a feature that would be included, and improved upon in the future. Therefore, the sounds you hear, might not be from the ships themselves, but a computer onboard making those sounds to identify what ships they are, how fast they're going, and where they are.
---Lane
3) What caused the Big Bang? What happened in the first 10E-38th of a second after the Big Bang happened?
Evolutionary theorists don't have to explain the big bang. For all they can God did cause the big bang, or even set up the universe billions of years ago. All they care is that No matter how the universe was created it was created with a framework that allowed evolution.
Now of course, as you might immagine, many people who believe in evolution also believe in other scientific theories, such as the big bang, but they do not require eachother, and refuting one does not refute the other. See what I mean?
4) How do you explain the relative thinness of the layer of dust on the Moon? It should be much deeper if the Moon is billions of years old.
This seems to make sense, from a limited perspective: ie. "My house gets dusty really fast, therefore really old things should have a lot of dust" Until you ask the simple question... why? IANANE (I am not a Nasa Engineer) so I don't know much about moon dust, but I just want to ask this question, because it is the basis of your point: Why should the moon have a lot of dust? I mean, there is little gravity, atmosphere, or water. These are the primary forces that lead to the creation of dust on Earth (errosion) so what would cause it on the moon. Like I say, I'm just curious, because often times people (in all branches) will use arguments because they sound correct, but never really examine them thinking "hmmm, now why is this correct?"
5) How do you reconcile the perfection of Scripture with the hoaxes and embarrassments of science (i.e., Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Lucy, etc.)
You realize of course, that this is not really an argument, or a provable point. In fact, it merely begs the question. You are saying "The scriptures are perfect, because God made them, and they are perfect". Do you see how this is circular? Anything taken on faith is "perfect" because you can not disprove faith. Of course Science, like any human institution, has been wrong about things in the past. We do not, however, give up scientific persuit anymore that you have abandoned religion because the world isn't flat or the center of the universe.
Like I said before, these are not really replies to your questions. My goal is more to probe your sense of beliefs, and examine the logical structure of your argument. I happen to not believe in creationism. This does not require that I not believe in God however. My reason is as follows:
My problem with creationism is that ultimatly, it doesn't give God any "credit." Why is it so difficult to believe that as an omnipotent being, God could have created a system so complex, beutiful, and functional as evolution. This system truely shows the amazing prowess of God, as it is a system so dynamic and creative that it has created all we see and know today, yet so complex that full understanding of this mechanism elludes us to this day. I find it much easier to accept than a simple "God created everything the way it is, that's it." Give God credit for being more creative than that.
---Lane
P.S. No, I usually don't reply to anonymous cowards, but I understand that being a creationist has a certian stigma and probably warrented the anonymous posting
Wait a minute, you mean there has to be a reason for buying the fastest processor made?
---Lane
Yes,
I am well aware of the fact that I did not back up my statement with numbers. This is because I was merely giving an example of how someone could think that drug arrests account for "a vast amount" of our countries prison population, while in all actuality, it isn't.
"Extrodinary claims require extrodinary evidence"
---Carl Sagan
The requirement for proof falls on the one making the claim, not the one refuting it:
Person 1: Bigfoot exists, I just know it is true, look I even have a picture
Person 2: Are you kidding me, that picture is just an out of focus picture of a guy in a gorrilla costume.
Person 1: What are you a photo expert? You have to prove this photo is fake, otherwise we should all believe in bigfoot.
Do you see, how it is not up to Person 2 to prove the negative, but to Person 1 to prove the positive.
This is something a lot of people don't understand, that is why they ignore a lot of common sense and go on thinking whatever they want. (Like that bigfoot/UFO/Nessie exists)
Yes, I realize that I could have made a much more cogent argument by researching the numbers, but it was not a requirement for me to prove my point, and doesn't make it any less valid
---Lane
I'd reply, but I fail to see what your post has to do with mine...
I merely discussed the reasons for stiffer penalties againt violent street crime than white collar crime.
You went on a typical slashdot reduction ad absurdum against drug screening. I'm not seeing the connection.
---Lane
This has absolutely nothing to do with what you were talking about earlier... in fact you have completely changed the subject.
To Summarize: Our argument is as follows..
Me: Crime X is punished more than Y because that is what the majority think should be punished and policed for
You: Oh yeah, well "To me..." the two crimes are equivalent because both ruin people's lives
Me: True, they both do, but since we live in a democracy, it isn't what matters "to you", but what the majority thinks.
You:
- Yeah but the Bill of Rights protects me from the majority.
- Just because the majority thinks something is right, doesn't mean it is
- I'm reminded of a quote that has nothing to do with our argument (as we weren't discussing liberty, we were discussing differing severity for crimes)
My replies to your points, which really have nothing to do with the orriginal discussion---Lane
Yes,
....
You have captured the hypothetical very well.
But I wasn't talking about the hypothetical... I'm talking about the way things are
When a woman walks home at night, she isn't afraid of Ken Lay. She is afraid of someone raping her.
Crime punishments take into account all aspects, such as violence and victims. What is the most deterministic thing, is what people want. Remeber, we live in a democracy, where elected politicians write the laws. So it isn't what you think that matters... it is what the majority thinks. The majority of the population wants to give more policing resources to arresting violent criminals than white collar ones. I would immagine you would too:
The old joke goes:
Mugger: "Your money or your life"
Muggee: "I'm thinking..."
It is a joke because people will always choose to give away their money to protect their physical safety, without even thinging. This is exactly what happens in our legal system too.
---Lane
I said it before, and I'll say it again...
Laws are tougher on crimes that people fear more
Tough crack laws were enacted not because rich white people wanted to "disenfranchises them [presumably African American minorities], and puts them to work for nearly nothing as convict laborers".
They were enacted as a response to the crack and gang epidemic of the 80s, after outcry by the affected African American communities.
I believe this is touched on in the book "Loosing the Race". For good measure, you should probably read "Ethnic America" before you proclaim what is, and isn't racist.
As a hint... if the war on drugs is a war on the poor, then why are not all poor equally affected? Indeed, Hispanics are a much larger poor minority than African Americans, yet they don't appear to be convicted in as great a number. Even more so... what about Chinese immigrants. I would doubt they register at all for drug offenses. Why is that?
The answer is... the war on drugs is not a war on the poor... the real facts are as follows:
The really sad part is, as I have said, you will continue with this word view: "The evil white men are passing more laws in order to turn poor minorities into slaves in order to support Americas Massive manufacturing industry
You also have not addressed, and just assumed everyone should understand, why prison labor is wrong.
---Lane
vast majority of the prizon[sic] population are non-violent drug offenders
Care to support this with numbers? and sources... yes, those are needed to prove a point.
Furthermore, by non-violent offender, you are implying that this is a person who was simply sitting at home, not harming anyone else. Suddenly, the police bust in, and he is in jail for life, just for smoking pot.
More usually, people who break the law, break many laws.
New York City found this to be true with their quality of life crime enforcements. They found the same people that jump fares at subways are the same people that commit other crimes. Catching them for jumping fares, they found the people often were wanted for another crime, or were breaking parole rules. Doing this prevented them from causing other crimes.
I would wager this, that "the vast majority" of the prison population is locked up for crimes including drug offenses. The fact that these people are also serving time for "non-violent" drug offenses makes people include them in their statistics about "the vast majority" being locked up.
In other words... say 75 percent of the prison population has a drug charge against them (most drug charges being non-violent). Now, some subset, lets say 35 percent of the prison population is in for assault.
Groups with an agenda, come a long and say... look at this! "The vast majority (75%) of our prisoners are in for non-violent drug offenses"
This does not mean, although they want it to, that the 75 percent is in only because of non-violent drug charges.
See the difference?
moving on....
Another disturbing trend is the rise of prizon[sic] labor. Prizoners [sic] manufacturing goods for nearly no pay will be the new form of slavery
It is called a debt to society. Would you rather they sit around, doing nothing, wasting their life? Or do something, repay society, and maybe even get some skills?
Furthermore, slavery implies that they were forced into their situation. Breaking the law is something you choose to do... becoming a slave isn't. There is a huge difference, so don't muddy the waters by using such an emotionally laden word.
That is why America incarcerates 4.4 million of its citizens, more than any other country.
Are you seriously implying that we have laws with the hopes that people will break them so we can use them for cheap labor? Or perhaps that is why laws are so tough? I hope you realize this is complete tripe.
The reason the laws are tough is because of democracy. No politician wants to be seen as "soft on crime". Prison labor is merely making due with available resources, not the cause of them.
More even then China
More.... ummm... Percentage wise? or in terms of raw numbers? Also, keep in mind that there are massive cultural differences between the two countries that account for the crime difference more than anything else.
In all actuality, I am against "the war on drugs", and I do realize that a lot of people (not "a vast majority") are in jail for non-violent drug offenses. The thing that angers me more though, are people who toss off statements like this. It makes the whole movement seem like a product of pot smoking youths who can't justify their position and are therefore sidelined.
---Lane
a higher ratio of what would be crime in the high income bracket
Well.... no kidding!
Seriously, can you people please stop touting this. It brings to mind a quote by Mark Twain:
"There are three types of lies: Lies, damn Lies, and statistics"
In all actuality, law enforcement goes after the crimes people care about, and are afraid of
This does not include white collar crime. Think about it: Do you know what the crime rate is at your local college dorm? Probably around 100 percent (downloading mp3s is usually done illegally remember)
But, given the police forces are finite, would you rather see the energy devoted to busting these kids, or gang members?
So don't pretend that is is "racism" or "classism" that is causing society to go after people who: are lower income, young, a member of a minority group. It is the fact that we are more afraid of violent crime than white collar.
If you can prove that violent crime* is more prevelant in upper income brackets, I would like to see it.
---Lane
*Bear in mind however, that we even distinguish between violent crimes. We are much more afriad of say "stray bullet", "road rage" or "gang initiation" killings than "he killed his lover" types, because we are more afraid of people who kill other strangers (because that could be us) instead of someone who kills a person they know.
I was there for a brief stint in 2001, but no more.
I don't want to leave my house. Why can't I vote over the internet?
They already have something like this, only you vote through the mail.
Dallas does this, and might have to redo elections due to the massive amount of fraud it caused.
We probably could impliment a secure system to do this though. Everyone would be assigned a secure public and private key. This would have to be on some sort of "national ID card"... oh wait, bad idea.
---Lane
Thank you Chairman Mao:
"it doesn't matter whether the cat is black or white, as long as it can catch mice"
I also think creativity and personal expression are highly overrated. My children will get just brown crayons too.
Care to loan me some money so I can start up a car company I've always dreamed of? The cars will all be the same, just enough to get you from point A to B, no variation, and above all else they all come in one color. They will be serviced every 6 months to make sure you haven't put on any bumper stickers. It can't fail!
---Lane
>Since it looks like it's going to be a while
>before anyone can access the file, I've put up a
>copy on my local server. [127.0.0.1]
>
>Enjoy!
hmmmm,
I don't seem to be able to reach your server. Don't worry though, I have a feeling the problem is on my end with a firewall or something. The problem should be fixed soon, as myself and several co-workers have sent angry e-mails to our sysadmin about not being able to access 127.0.0.1
---Lane
For those of you who might not know...
Perhaps the best plugins would have to be:
GForce
and
White Cap
Both by the talented Andy O'Meara
---Lane
Apparently, with both size and color the same, foreigners have a hard time differenciating between the bills
The Federal Reserve announced they would also hire outside consultants from Parker Brothers.
---Lane