Thank you for your post. I was beginning to think I was alone in my thinking that this fellow was just a schlub who got what he deserved. The way posts have been in the last few months, I was beginning to think I'd missed something in the coverage for everyone on Slashdot to be rallying behind him.
Why should they work with the other side? They are in the opposition.
Uh, because that's how things get done? Opposition to whom? The American people?
More to the point, the other side has shown little to no inclination to meet in the middle.
Interesting point of view considering the health care bill was completely eviscerated in order to meet with some level of approval from the 'Pubs who voted directly on party lines against everything. The clear air act now has no teeth, Obama McWishywashy is now expanding offshore drilling, etc, etc,...seems the left's been working hard against what they believe to be right just to get the 'Pubs to stop saying "no" to everything. Hell, even core beliefs of their "platforms" have been offered up (such as the move to privatize the low orbit space industry) and shot down as irresponsible.
The expectation that the GOP go along with an agenda that would be opposed by most of their base shows a lack of understanding of our political system.
And, to suggest that the 'pubs in Congress only represent the 'pubs in their constituency shows your (and their) complete ignorance of what they're supposed to be doing in the Capital Building.
The fact that the GOP has a good faith disagreement on the wisdom of setting up a permanent bail out fund apparently does not warrant consideration.
The problem is, the GOP has had "good faith disagreements" with exactly EVERYTHING that's been proposed in the last year and a half. Once they actually start trying to work with the other side, they might be taken seriously. In the interim, their rhetoric shows they have nothing of value to say.
No one is going to pay any attention to the guy who just writes a letter, so that is the wrong direction (but nice job trying to pigeonhole what I said).
Not my intention. At this point the only way to get a scientist's data is to ask for it. I realize that you want the data to be freely available so that anyone can get it without asking. And, that as a correlation, more people will be able to scrutinize it. The reality is, though, that if it's available people...say those who work for Faux News...would cherry pick bits, report it their minions...I mean viewers...who will then go out into the world claiming that so and so scientist's data is completely flawed and with people like that, no amount of evidence or fact will ever change that point of view.
But once you start publishing conclusions that are based on some given set of data, it only increases your credibility
It will? With whom? The general public? The same general public that has access to vast amounts of evidence of climate change and doesn't "believe" in it? The same American populace, 42% of whom don't "believe" in evolution? How is having access to the data going to increase credibility?
if you are willing to actually share that data, and discuss the messy details of how you obtained it.
In the scientific community, the only credibility that matters is from your peers. When a scientist publishes a papers, they document clearly the steps they took to acquire the data used and present that results of that data and conclusions drawn from it...they don't publish every single piece of the data. They don't need to, data is only useful in aggregate. If you don't trust the findings, why would you trust it more if every single datum were included, too? That data could be flawed. The only way to confirm that would be...gather the data yourself. Since you have the methodology used, you can gather it in exactly the same fashion and see if you come to the same conclusions. THAT is good science!
So the point is that things like institutional inertia and hoarding need to be minimized, not blithely ignored. So if a guy wants to go over some research data and check it for correctness, he can.
Sorry, no, that's not a valid argument, nor the way it does or should work. Scientists don't work in a vacuum. They have teams that review each other's data and collection methods daily. They have peers within their departments who do the same. Before a paper is published, it goes through a process where the data, the methods and the findings are all checked and double-checked prior to it being published at a paper to ensure correctness. Most issues in science, however, concern the correctness of the methods (was the experiment framed properly) or the conclusions. Very rarely do people within the scientific community complain about the acurateness of the data itself. If you agree with the findings and it's consistent with other research, why would you? If the findings are inconsistent with all other research, flaws in the data itself will be found before the paper leaves the building. All of that being said...
Even if he is just some computer programmer:
Mistakes DO happen. They are, however, rare. Remember, when a paper is published, it's not just the reputation of the lead on the project that's at stake. The reputations of all of the team members, their departments, their collage, university, agency or corporation are also at stake. If there's a significant mistake in the data, it'll be found before it is seen by outsiders. The mistake in your article above a) was not a mistake in the actual collection of the data or the data itself, just how it was reported and b) didn't change the findings of the study, either.
(By institutional inertia, I mean the thing where there is actually a science establishment that ends up directing where funding ends up, simply by existing; there probably isn't any way of eliminating it
Congratulations...you've just posted the dumbest comment I've ever seen on Slashdot. I build systems. Sometimes the systems fail and I have to fix them. Obviously, I build the system so it would fail so I would continue to have a job...yeah, ok. I think there's a hole in your tinfoil hat.
It doesn't necessarily increase scrutiny, it just is more likely to increase it than it is to decrease it.
Although I only tangentially work with the scientific community, it's been my experience that if an actual scientist asks another actual scientist for their data, they'll usually get it. However, the general public...not so much. Why? Well, one only has to read the "evidence" presented in the Climategate scandal to see what happens when people who don't understand the science cherry pick what they read in order to make their case.
As far as why do you give the deniers an easy time? Because that's the way science should be done, that's why.
Really? So, I don't have to do any work to be a scientist, I just need to write letters requesting data that's been arduously collected over years by someone else? No, that's not how it should work.
I never said they were "evil" (whatever that means), I only said that we should put them out of our collective misery. One can feel sorry for a dog with rabies while still acknowledging that the best course of action is to shoot the poor thing.
"Evil" is a banal term, sure. But, it should, to most people, conjure up images of people actively perpetrating harm to others for no other reason than that person's amusement. Your argument seemed to be that rapists, pedophiles and serial killers "choose" to do harm to people and therefore are of no value. It's easy to justify such a flawed argument if you rationalize it by labeling the people as "evil", which you're doing even if you're not using that specific term.
And when that "first fellow" just happens to have a 1 in a billion DNA match to the semen we found inside her?
No institution created by man has been or ever will be perfect.
I'm sure that brings great comfort to those put to death who were later exhonorated due to DNA or other evidence.
I don't buy the argument that past errors on the part of the criminal justice system should exclude current criminals from forfeiting their lives for crimes committed.
Hmmm...and, what is "past" for you? Five years ago? Under your form of "justice", this fellow would've been put to death. You've put your faith in a system that relies on useless eyewitness testimony, and reasonably imperfect technologies to make convictions. Given the level of CURRENT imperfection, I reiterate: we're not mature enough as a society to be putting people to death. Period.
While their deaths were tragic, putting it in perspective puts death by Anthrax WAY down the list of things to really worry about.
The difference, of course, being that lightning, tornadoes, hurricanes and, to some degree, car accidents are things we have little to no control over. Just because only 5 people died from the anthrax attack did not mean (at the time) that's all there would be. Someone had access to a lab capable of making a weaponized version of anthrax, was doing so AND had used it. You don't think some effort should be put into finding out who that might be? You don't think it might've been possible for them to, after having tested the effectiveness of it in a real-world example, actually CAUSE an epidemic? I also can't find the post where someone called it an "epidemic"?
it was good enough in the 1800s, the last time the judges did it, dammit.
Now, now...no making fun of the barely living fossils that make up our Supreme Court just because they're a bunch of clueless ninnies who are so far out of touch with modern reality. Our founding fathers thought it would be a good idea they be appointed for life, and just because history has shown that to be a terrible idea does not mean we're going to change it any time soon!
whereas release of the data can pretty much only increase serious scrutiny
How do you figure? How precisely does giving the People of Walmart access to scientific data increase scrutiny? The one thing I find most amazing about Climategate is this apparent perception that the climate change issue is a new one. Like it hasn't been thoroughly researched over the last 40ish years by scientists in many disparate disciplines. As the parent suggests, the deniers have access to the published papers, and they still fail to "believe" in climate change. How is having raw statistical data going to change that? And, frankly, if they're so concerned about the quality of the data couldn't they....hmmmm, I dunno...collect their own? Why do the actual scientists have to do the work so deniers can just tear it down?
This not only makes you misjudge innocent individuals as dangerous; but also leaves you vulnerable to misjudging dangerous individuals as innocent.
I don't entirely disagree with your assessment. Frankly, I like to keep things "simple" when commenting on Slashdot because most folks here have simplistic "black/white" thinking. If someone, as yourself, steps up and shows a little better clarity of thought, so much the better.:)
That being said, no, I don't think of people who follow through on these impulses as "innocent", either. There IS something wrong with them and they DO present a danger to society that needs to be dealt with. The tone of this thread was "just kill 'em", which I don't think is a reasonable answer when you understand the whole picture. Nor do I feel that throwing pedophiles into gen-pop in prison specifically so they can be beaten, raped and potentially murdered by inmates is an ideal solution, either.
The common conception of liberals is they just want to "excuse" everyone for their actions...that's not so. We like to take all factors into consideration when determining a punishment. If someone has a full-on delusion that kids are seducing them, well...they and society might be better served by having them in a mental institution even if it is for life.
Wow, nice straw man you've got there. Physical disability != lack of self control.
Unfortunately for your argument mental disorder != lack of self control, either. It's very difficult to make a choice when the organ you're using to make that choice has a defect that steers you to make the wrong one. Making the argument that someone is evil because they "choose" to become a serial killer or a pedophile is exactly like suggesting someone who cannot walk can choose to do so. The difference is, you can't "see" a mental disorder, so you "believe" they don't exist or that someone can overcome them through sheer act of will.
I suspect you might have a problem with that though. Are you one of those that thinks the rape victim is morally superior to the woman with the dead would-be rapist at her feet?
I don't think in terms of moral superiority. As there are very few moral absolutes, I'm not sure I could even comprehend what such a term is supposed to mean. If a woman is attacked and kills her attacker in the process, good for her. There can be no doubt she got the right guy. However, to round up a posse afterwards on their eyewitness testimony and extract revenge on the first fellow that matches the description...I don't think that's the correct course of action, either. We can HOPE the justice system will convict the right guy, if caught, and exclude those who are innocent. But, history has shown that's not a realistic expectation either.
I happen to like black girls, but I don't go around raping them.
No, you don't because you don't have a mental disorder. Do you think people like Manson and Dahmer CHOOSE to act as they do? No, their brains are seriously fucked up. Pedophiles are no different. In their minds, the kids are coming on to them. To them, they're the victims...these kids seduced them, and now they're going to jail. They don't understand what's going on any more than you can understand what's going on in their heads.
I don't ascribe to the theory that someone is forced to molest children.
That's nice. Fortunately, reality doesn't care what you think. Although, "forced" is probably the wrong phrase. "Overcome with urges that can't be ignored" would be a better one. But, I'm sure you don't see the difference. Do you also think paraplegics are just choosing not to walk?
Why do you assume I was advocating vigilantism?
Because in a thread about the pros/cons of vigilantism, you spoke up about putting people out of our collective misery.
I'd actually like to see rape made into a capital offense, as it used to be. Then the state could put these lowlifes out of our collective misery after according them due process of law as required by our Constitution.
That would be great if we could guarantee you've got the right guy. Unfortunately, given the number of rape and murder cases that have been overturned in the last decade or so thanks to DNA evidence, plus the overwhelming proof that eye-witness testimony is only slightly more reliable and accurate than remote viewing...I'd say we're not at the point where we're mature enough as a society to start making decisions like that.
Putting them out of our collective misery would be an even bigger service to mankind but some people frown on such notions
Yes, that would be people who believe societies function best when people aren't working solely in their own interests or who throw away the law whenever they disagree with it. Would you have a problem with my saying "I think anyone who would take it on themselves to put others out of 'our' misery should be tracked down and shot in the head?"
As a father, I worry each day about my young daughter and what could happen to her. The fact is, I have a list of things I would do to anyone who harmed her. Things that terrify even me and I would never speak them aloud. But, as an intelligent, rational person I'm also aware that pedophilia is a disease, one that takes control of the person. I don't offer that as an excuse for their actions, but a reason. It's the simple answer to just say "put 'em in prison, let them get gang raped, that'll straighten 'em out. And, if it doesn't, shoot 'em in the head." The problem is, that's not how you build a JUSTICE system, it's how you build a REVENGE system.
Nowhere in the original article did I get the sense that the author was blaming Windows for his issues. In fact, he starts out by stating that he's installed Windows 7 hundreds of times without a single incident, but this was a "problem PC". So, how did this turn into an anti-Windows rant? Oh, right, it's Slashdot...
who's written over 100 books
Michael Behe's written dozens of books trying to debunk evolution. It does not make him an expert in evolution. He installs Windows, copies down what he sees on the screen and writes it down. That does NOT translate into "he knows what he's doing". I'm not saying he's not an expert, just that it's not a valid qualification.
If this hardware geek spends days solving a CPU-meets-Windows 7 problem, what chance do mere mortals have?"
They wouldn't be installing an OS. Very few non-geeks do so. They buy a computer from a vendor like Dell, it comes with an OS. When it's time to upgrade, they buy a new PC and give the old one to their kids or grandparents. They also, as has been stated numerous times in the comments, wouldn't be installing on machines that had an engineering sample for a CPU. Actually, this debunks the claim that because he's written books, he's an expert. He knew he had a machine with an unsupported processor in it and still replaced everything in the machine first. Um....duh!
Ah, the old "climate has changed before" mantra. I thought that one had long been explained to the deniers (I note the bias in the article calling these people "skeptics"). The climate changes you're referring to have to with Milankovitch cycles which are predictable cycles. The problem with the "it's been hot before" hypothesis is that we're on the downward end of a Milankovitch, meaning temps should be going down, but instead they're going up.
They're concerned that in a few generations our children won't still have such fair skin.
Of course, that's why they want to combat climate change! With perpetual summer-like weather, even the fairest of geeks will be tan, or worse....brown!
Which is not what the OP said. What he said was "most of how Internet is used now a day". That would be web, unless you can name one other application that's used by the overwhelming majority of users on the Internet? FTP? SSH? Gopher?
I'm betting that most people who are looking for reviews online are just going to use Google. It's free and ubiquitous.
As long as you're aware that it is a wager, and you may have backed the wrong horse. When my family was in NYC in August and Toronto last week, we used Yelp exclusively to find places to eat. We were happy with all of the places we found, and added our own reviews to the group think, not to mention duplicating them on Urbanspoon as well. Also: you're not sure what your customers are using for reviews? I thought you said in your first post that you were very in touch with your customers? Frankly, this is the first I'm hearing that Google has a review site. Google would be the LAST place I would look for reviews. I would concentrate on sites that specialize in it.
Regardless, online reviews are pretty pointless. They're anonymous and easily gamed by anybody on the planet. They're about as reliable as bathroom stall graffiti.
That's true, it does take a modicum of effort to figure if the reviews are of any value. You may just have to READ them! But, that's really the point, isn't it? Reading the reviews and seeing if people are a) incapable of expressing a thought and therefore could be ignored or b) complaining about things you care about. For example, when choosing our hotel, we found most of the complaints about the one we did choose concerned having to park across the street. As we'd planned on parking our truck and leaving it since Toronto has a fantastic public transit system, we couldn't have cared less. Of course, simply looking a place that's gotten an average of 4.5 stars with 500 reviews is generally a pretty indicator a place isn't going to kill you if you eat there.
Slashdot Mirror
I see bad behavior combined with a smug sense of self-importanceI see bad behavior combined with a smug sense of self-importance
:)
That's pretty much the definition of an IT person, though, isn't it?
Thank you for your post. I was beginning to think I was alone in my thinking that this fellow was just a schlub who got what he deserved. The way posts have been in the last few months, I was beginning to think I'd missed something in the coverage for everyone on Slashdot to be rallying behind him.
Why should they work with the other side? They are in the opposition.
Uh, because that's how things get done? Opposition to whom? The American people?
More to the point, the other side has shown little to no inclination to meet in the middle.
Interesting point of view considering the health care bill was completely eviscerated in order to meet with some level of approval from the 'Pubs who voted directly on party lines against everything. The clear air act now has no teeth, Obama McWishywashy is now expanding offshore drilling, etc, etc,...seems the left's been working hard against what they believe to be right just to get the 'Pubs to stop saying "no" to everything. Hell, even core beliefs of their "platforms" have been offered up (such as the move to privatize the low orbit space industry) and shot down as irresponsible.
The expectation that the GOP go along with an agenda that would be opposed by most of their base shows a lack of understanding of our political system.
And, to suggest that the 'pubs in Congress only represent the 'pubs in their constituency shows your (and their) complete ignorance of what they're supposed to be doing in the Capital Building.
Possibly even the same people who don't understand the difference between socialism, communism, fascism, and the Nazis.
'Round these parts, we calls them 'Mericans, boy! Spit-tooey!
The fact that the GOP has a good faith disagreement on the wisdom of setting up a permanent bail out fund apparently does not warrant consideration.
The problem is, the GOP has had "good faith disagreements" with exactly EVERYTHING that's been proposed in the last year and a half. Once they actually start trying to work with the other side, they might be taken seriously. In the interim, their rhetoric shows they have nothing of value to say.
No problem. BTW, they're not skeptics, they're deniers. Skeptics can be convinced by facts and evidence. Deniers cannot. Big difference.
No one is going to pay any attention to the guy who just writes a letter, so that is the wrong direction (but nice job trying to pigeonhole what I said).
Not my intention. At this point the only way to get a scientist's data is to ask for it. I realize that you want the data to be freely available so that anyone can get it without asking. And, that as a correlation, more people will be able to scrutinize it. The reality is, though, that if it's available people...say those who work for Faux News...would cherry pick bits, report it their minions...I mean viewers...who will then go out into the world claiming that so and so scientist's data is completely flawed and with people like that, no amount of evidence or fact will ever change that point of view.
But once you start publishing conclusions that are based on some given set of data, it only increases your credibility
It will? With whom? The general public? The same general public that has access to vast amounts of evidence of climate change and doesn't "believe" in it? The same American populace, 42% of whom don't "believe" in evolution? How is having access to the data going to increase credibility?
if you are willing to actually share that data, and discuss the messy details of how you obtained it.
In the scientific community, the only credibility that matters is from your peers. When a scientist publishes a papers, they document clearly the steps they took to acquire the data used and present that results of that data and conclusions drawn from it...they don't publish every single piece of the data. They don't need to, data is only useful in aggregate. If you don't trust the findings, why would you trust it more if every single datum were included, too? That data could be flawed. The only way to confirm that would be...gather the data yourself. Since you have the methodology used, you can gather it in exactly the same fashion and see if you come to the same conclusions. THAT is good science!
So the point is that things like institutional inertia and hoarding need to be minimized, not blithely ignored. So if a guy wants to go over some research data and check it for correctness, he can.
Sorry, no, that's not a valid argument, nor the way it does or should work. Scientists don't work in a vacuum. They have teams that review each other's data and collection methods daily. They have peers within their departments who do the same. Before a paper is published, it goes through a process where the data, the methods and the findings are all checked and double-checked prior to it being published at a paper to ensure correctness. Most issues in science, however, concern the correctness of the methods (was the experiment framed properly) or the conclusions. Very rarely do people within the scientific community complain about the acurateness of the data itself. If you agree with the findings and it's consistent with other research, why would you? If the findings are inconsistent with all other research, flaws in the data itself will be found before the paper leaves the building. All of that being said...
Even if he is just some computer programmer:
Mistakes DO happen. They are, however, rare. Remember, when a paper is published, it's not just the reputation of the lead on the project that's at stake. The reputations of all of the team members, their departments, their collage, university, agency or corporation are also at stake. If there's a significant mistake in the data, it'll be found before it is seen by outsiders. The mistake in your article above a) was not a mistake in the actual collection of the data or the data itself, just how it was reported and b) didn't change the findings of the study, either.
(By institutional inertia, I mean the thing where there is actually a science establishment that ends up directing where funding ends up, simply by existing; there probably isn't any way of eliminating it
Congratulations...you've just posted the dumbest comment I've ever seen on Slashdot. I build systems. Sometimes the systems fail and I have to fix them. Obviously, I build the system so it would fail so I would continue to have a job...yeah, ok. I think there's a hole in your tinfoil hat.
It doesn't necessarily increase scrutiny, it just is more likely to increase it than it is to decrease it.
Although I only tangentially work with the scientific community, it's been my experience that if an actual scientist asks another actual scientist for their data, they'll usually get it. However, the general public...not so much. Why? Well, one only has to read the "evidence" presented in the Climategate scandal to see what happens when people who don't understand the science cherry pick what they read in order to make their case.
As far as why do you give the deniers an easy time? Because that's the way science should be done, that's why.
Really? So, I don't have to do any work to be a scientist, I just need to write letters requesting data that's been arduously collected over years by someone else? No, that's not how it should work.
I never said they were "evil" (whatever that means), I only said that we should put them out of our collective misery. One can feel sorry for a dog with rabies while still acknowledging that the best course of action is to shoot the poor thing.
"Evil" is a banal term, sure. But, it should, to most people, conjure up images of people actively perpetrating harm to others for no other reason than that person's amusement. Your argument seemed to be that rapists, pedophiles and serial killers "choose" to do harm to people and therefore are of no value. It's easy to justify such a flawed argument if you rationalize it by labeling the people as "evil", which you're doing even if you're not using that specific term.
And when that "first fellow" just happens to have a 1 in a billion DNA match to the semen we found inside her?
Very few posses actually take the time to do a DNA test. But, if there wasn't any DNA as appears to be the case in about 20% of rape cases?
No institution created by man has been or ever will be perfect.
I'm sure that brings great comfort to those put to death who were later exhonorated due to DNA or other evidence.
I don't buy the argument that past errors on the part of the criminal justice system should exclude current criminals from forfeiting their lives for crimes committed.
Hmmm...and, what is "past" for you? Five years ago? Under your form of "justice", this fellow would've been put to death. You've put your faith in a system that relies on useless eyewitness testimony, and reasonably imperfect technologies to make convictions. Given the level of CURRENT imperfection, I reiterate: we're not mature enough as a society to be putting people to death. Period.
While their deaths were tragic, putting it in perspective puts death by Anthrax WAY down the list of things to really worry about.
The difference, of course, being that lightning, tornadoes, hurricanes and, to some degree, car accidents are things we have little to no control over. Just because only 5 people died from the anthrax attack did not mean (at the time) that's all there would be. Someone had access to a lab capable of making a weaponized version of anthrax, was doing so AND had used it. You don't think some effort should be put into finding out who that might be? You don't think it might've been possible for them to, after having tested the effectiveness of it in a real-world example, actually CAUSE an epidemic? I also can't find the post where someone called it an "epidemic"?
it was good enough in the 1800s, the last time the judges did it, dammit.
Now, now...no making fun of the barely living fossils that make up our Supreme Court just because they're a bunch of clueless ninnies who are so far out of touch with modern reality. Our founding fathers thought it would be a good idea they be appointed for life, and just because history has shown that to be a terrible idea does not mean we're going to change it any time soon!
whereas release of the data can pretty much only increase serious scrutiny
How do you figure? How precisely does giving the People of Walmart access to scientific data increase scrutiny? The one thing I find most amazing about Climategate is this apparent perception that the climate change issue is a new one. Like it hasn't been thoroughly researched over the last 40ish years by scientists in many disparate disciplines. As the parent suggests, the deniers have access to the published papers, and they still fail to "believe" in climate change. How is having raw statistical data going to change that? And, frankly, if they're so concerned about the quality of the data couldn't they....hmmmm, I dunno...collect their own? Why do the actual scientists have to do the work so deniers can just tear it down?
This not only makes you misjudge innocent individuals as dangerous; but also leaves you vulnerable to misjudging dangerous individuals as innocent.
:)
I don't entirely disagree with your assessment. Frankly, I like to keep things "simple" when commenting on Slashdot because most folks here have simplistic "black/white" thinking. If someone, as yourself, steps up and shows a little better clarity of thought, so much the better.
That being said, no, I don't think of people who follow through on these impulses as "innocent", either. There IS something wrong with them and they DO present a danger to society that needs to be dealt with. The tone of this thread was "just kill 'em", which I don't think is a reasonable answer when you understand the whole picture. Nor do I feel that throwing pedophiles into gen-pop in prison specifically so they can be beaten, raped and potentially murdered by inmates is an ideal solution, either.
The common conception of liberals is they just want to "excuse" everyone for their actions...that's not so. We like to take all factors into consideration when determining a punishment. If someone has a full-on delusion that kids are seducing them, well...they and society might be better served by having them in a mental institution even if it is for life.
Wow, nice straw man you've got there. Physical disability != lack of self control.
Unfortunately for your argument mental disorder != lack of self control, either. It's very difficult to make a choice when the organ you're using to make that choice has a defect that steers you to make the wrong one. Making the argument that someone is evil because they "choose" to become a serial killer or a pedophile is exactly like suggesting someone who cannot walk can choose to do so. The difference is, you can't "see" a mental disorder, so you "believe" they don't exist or that someone can overcome them through sheer act of will.
I suspect you might have a problem with that though. Are you one of those that thinks the rape victim is morally superior to the woman with the dead would-be rapist at her feet?
I don't think in terms of moral superiority. As there are very few moral absolutes, I'm not sure I could even comprehend what such a term is supposed to mean. If a woman is attacked and kills her attacker in the process, good for her. There can be no doubt she got the right guy. However, to round up a posse afterwards on their eyewitness testimony and extract revenge on the first fellow that matches the description...I don't think that's the correct course of action, either. We can HOPE the justice system will convict the right guy, if caught, and exclude those who are innocent. But, history has shown that's not a realistic expectation either.
I happen to like black girls, but I don't go around raping them.
No, you don't because you don't have a mental disorder. Do you think people like Manson and Dahmer CHOOSE to act as they do? No, their brains are seriously fucked up. Pedophiles are no different. In their minds, the kids are coming on to them. To them, they're the victims...these kids seduced them, and now they're going to jail. They don't understand what's going on any more than you can understand what's going on in their heads.
I don't ascribe to the theory that someone is forced to molest children.
That's nice. Fortunately, reality doesn't care what you think. Although, "forced" is probably the wrong phrase. "Overcome with urges that can't be ignored" would be a better one. But, I'm sure you don't see the difference. Do you also think paraplegics are just choosing not to walk?
Why do you assume I was advocating vigilantism?
Because in a thread about the pros/cons of vigilantism, you spoke up about putting people out of our collective misery.
I'd actually like to see rape made into a capital offense, as it used to be. Then the state could put these lowlifes out of our collective misery after according them due process of law as required by our Constitution.
That would be great if we could guarantee you've got the right guy. Unfortunately, given the number of rape and murder cases that have been overturned in the last decade or so thanks to DNA evidence, plus the overwhelming proof that eye-witness testimony is only slightly more reliable and accurate than remote viewing...I'd say we're not at the point where we're mature enough as a society to start making decisions like that.
Putting them out of our collective misery would be an even bigger service to mankind but some people frown on such notions
Yes, that would be people who believe societies function best when people aren't working solely in their own interests or who throw away the law whenever they disagree with it. Would you have a problem with my saying "I think anyone who would take it on themselves to put others out of 'our' misery should be tracked down and shot in the head?"
As a father, I worry each day about my young daughter and what could happen to her. The fact is, I have a list of things I would do to anyone who harmed her. Things that terrify even me and I would never speak them aloud. But, as an intelligent, rational person I'm also aware that pedophilia is a disease, one that takes control of the person. I don't offer that as an excuse for their actions, but a reason. It's the simple answer to just say "put 'em in prison, let them get gang raped, that'll straighten 'em out. And, if it doesn't, shoot 'em in the head." The problem is, that's not how you build a JUSTICE system, it's how you build a REVENGE system.
"It's ok, it's pronounced "ah-nahl rah-pist"."
It's not the pronunciation I'm worried about.
Nowhere in the original article did I get the sense that the author was blaming Windows for his issues. In fact, he starts out by stating that he's installed Windows 7 hundreds of times without a single incident, but this was a "problem PC". So, how did this turn into an anti-Windows rant? Oh, right, it's Slashdot...
who's written over 100 books
Michael Behe's written dozens of books trying to debunk evolution. It does not make him an expert in evolution. He installs Windows, copies down what he sees on the screen and writes it down. That does NOT translate into "he knows what he's doing". I'm not saying he's not an expert, just that it's not a valid qualification.
If this hardware geek spends days solving a CPU-meets-Windows 7 problem, what chance do mere mortals have?"
They wouldn't be installing an OS. Very few non-geeks do so. They buy a computer from a vendor like Dell, it comes with an OS. When it's time to upgrade, they buy a new PC and give the old one to their kids or grandparents. They also, as has been stated numerous times in the comments, wouldn't be installing on machines that had an engineering sample for a CPU. Actually, this debunks the claim that because he's written books, he's an expert. He knew he had a machine with an unsupported processor in it and still replaced everything in the machine first. Um....duh!
Ah, the old "climate has changed before" mantra. I thought that one had long been explained to the deniers (I note the bias in the article calling these people "skeptics"). The climate changes you're referring to have to with Milankovitch cycles which are predictable cycles. The problem with the "it's been hot before" hypothesis is that we're on the downward end of a Milankovitch, meaning temps should be going down, but instead they're going up.
They're concerned that in a few generations our children won't still have such fair skin.
Of course, that's why they want to combat climate change! With perpetual summer-like weather, even the fairest of geeks will be tan, or worse....brown!
What's really scary is that anyone remembers "The Wave".
Internet != World Wide Web
Which is not what the OP said. What he said was "most of how Internet is used now a day". That would be web, unless you can name one other application that's used by the overwhelming majority of users on the Internet? FTP? SSH? Gopher?
I'm betting that most people who are looking for reviews online are just going to use Google. It's free and ubiquitous.
As long as you're aware that it is a wager, and you may have backed the wrong horse. When my family was in NYC in August and Toronto last week, we used Yelp exclusively to find places to eat. We were happy with all of the places we found, and added our own reviews to the group think, not to mention duplicating them on Urbanspoon as well. Also: you're not sure what your customers are using for reviews? I thought you said in your first post that you were very in touch with your customers? Frankly, this is the first I'm hearing that Google has a review site. Google would be the LAST place I would look for reviews. I would concentrate on sites that specialize in it.
Regardless, online reviews are pretty pointless. They're anonymous and easily gamed by anybody on the planet. They're about as reliable as bathroom stall graffiti.
That's true, it does take a modicum of effort to figure if the reviews are of any value. You may just have to READ them! But, that's really the point, isn't it? Reading the reviews and seeing if people are a) incapable of expressing a thought and therefore could be ignored or b) complaining about things you care about. For example, when choosing our hotel, we found most of the complaints about the one we did choose concerned having to park across the street. As we'd planned on parking our truck and leaving it since Toronto has a fantastic public transit system, we couldn't have cared less. Of course, simply looking a place that's gotten an average of 4.5 stars with 500 reviews is generally a pretty indicator a place isn't going to kill you if you eat there.