That's no rebuttal. The plain and simple truth is, nobody knows how much is used. However, the mere fact that people are capable of learning and memorizing would seem to indicate that not 100% of the brain is used.
In any case, the implication that forgetting a handful of phone numbers frees up some brain cells for other uses is a bunch of codswallop. Through college I destroyed many a brain cell via alcohol consumption, memorized a ton of facts and theorems in order to pass my final exams for an M.S. in math, and still somehow managed to remember the phone numbers of my friends and family.
Don't mistake laziness for efficient use of the brain.
They have no problem remembering them - after all that's what they use the devices for. Functionally it's the same thing as carrying them in your head, but now you can use the neurons for other things.
Yeah, like storing all the minutiae of your life to regurgitate it to the knucklehead on the other end of the cellphone while you're driving?
We only use, what, 10% of our brains anyway --- why the need to free up some neurons? Nah. It's just mental laziness that leads to atrophy of the brain.
The entire concept of privacy is based around concealing "wrongs"
Like fucking, for instance. Everyone knows that fucking is wrong, yet we keep doing it. We damned sure don't want our children to know about fucking; and we do what we can to conceal it from them. We ought to plant cameras in everyone's homes to make sure that they don't fuck. All these fucking people should be shot --- evil, sinning bastards.
As another parent, I would have to say, it probably doesn't make a difference one way or the other. Whether the child plays in the park or plays GTA matters not one whit. Take a look around --- adults of all backgrounds are pretty much fucked up. Whatever they do can be blamed on Playboy or Halo, D&D or Ozzy Osbourne. Except people did bad things way before mass media. More boogeymen blown way out of proportion so that people will overlook the simplest explanation that our collective and individual psyches are totally warped from day one.
I'm amazed that an entirely lifeless universe bothers you not one whit.
Why should it? I have more pressing concerns than worrying that someday everything may come to an end. It's probably in the nature of things.
So it's not only human life and culture that upsets you - you just don't see any point to anything at all?
Well, I don't see much point in existing just for the sake of existing. I mean, even the lowliest insect has an instincive need to survive and a biological drive to reproduce and continue the species. Is that all we've got? If so, we might as well duke it out Darwin style right here on Earth --- we'll survive if we are fit to survive.
On the other hand, if we slipped into the role of caretaker of the planet and its denizens, we might be worth preserving and the future of our species might thereby be insured without the need for rocket ships.
We're never going to solve those problems -- they're fundamental to our nature as individuals with different goals and desires, coupled with limited resources. What we can do, is try to spread out enough to keep a single major incident from ending us as a species.
Once again, why is it so important that we survive as a species? Why not put all our resources into making sure that the white rhino survives as a species? Or the marijuana plant? After all, we don't see those organisms actively trying to wipe out/enslave/eat all neighboring organisms. Human beings exploit each other, exploit their habitat, and leave a trail of poisonous land, air and water in their wake. Now that the garbage can is starting to overflow onto our dinner plate, it's time to pack up and trash other worlds.
I guess that developing unlimited, replenishable power supplies, accelerating to near-light speeds, and terraforming planets to accomodate the human parasite is far easier than learning to co-exist with each other and with non-human organisms. Pathetic.
Sucks that short-term politics and pet pork takes precedence over the future of humanity itself.
I totally agree. However, we should be setting our sights a little closer to home as regards the future of humanity. Terraforming Mars (if possible) and transplanting people (and our problems) there won't fix anything. If we can't solve the problems of disease, war, overcrowding, famine, racial/religious intolerance, etc. right here on Earth, maybe we don't deserve to survive as a species.
Not to start a flamewar or anything, but I would like to "put forth a slice of personal philosophy". Over the years I have come to be quite skeptical when I hear/read expressions like "infinite amount of time" and "arbitrarily close" as they relate to the real world (or our interpretation of it) rather than a purely theoretical treatment. Take for instance Newton's Law of Cooling which implies that your Betty Crocker brownies will take an infinite amount of time to reach room temperature after removing them from the oven. Or that the magnitude of the electric field near a point charge "grows arbitrarily large" as you get "arbitrarily close" to it. As a mathematician, I love infinity, I really do --- there are infinitely many of them to choose from! But, IMHO, they don't belong in models of the physical universe (apart from simplifying calculations such as integrals over R^3). I don't believe that time is of infinite duration, that space is without bound, or that either one is infinitely subdivisible. Matter and energy are quantized, why not space and time? It has a nice symmetry to it --- a fan favorite for both mathematicians and physicists.
If you say so. But, by that logic, being a citizen of the U.S. makes me responsible for the deaths of thousands of women and children in Iraq.
Here is a clue --- children are independent thinking beings. Unless you keep them locked up in the basement, they will exercise free will. Your P.O.V. raises the question: When am I no longer responsible for my children? The answer involves the very definition of responsibility. It is not as cut and dried as "When they are 18 and move out of the house."
Firstly, I don't give a shit about the parents. They fucked up, majorly and in a way that costs other people their lives. At the very least, they failed to protect society from their spawn's violent mental illness, even if there really was nothing else they could do.
So, not only are parents supposed to have memorized "Parenting for Dummies", but they should also have a degree in psychiatry to be able to recognize mental illness.
The rest of your post is on target, but doesn't go far enough. Schooling is only a piece in the bigger picture --- that being, a society of millions. The old saying "It takes a village to raise a child" has quite a bit of wisdom to it. But, villages have been replaced by The System. It's every man for themselves. We have replaced intimacy and friendship with property and status.
I noticed when you slipped the disclaimer 'property crime' into what was a discussion of all crime.
Negative. Go way back up the thread to where I divided non-vice crimes into property crimes and murder (the big daddy of violent crimes). The last few posts have mainly addressed statements I made regarding property crimes. I didn't "slip that into" the discussion of all crime.
Prison doesn't have these problems; it simply has a fixed cost.
The same can be achieved by amputating limbs, or execution, and perhaps a range of other penalties. Why don't you advocate those?
You advocate the same system for individuals. And so individuals will begin behaving the same lamentable way. Especially wealthier individuals. In no time at all we'll be back to where we were 300 years ago: an above-class that is more or less exempt from laws against coercion.
I don't buy it. Do you assert that no fine, however large, will deter the same number of people from property crime as current prison sentences do? Sure, if the fine for ripping off a million dollars is $2 across the board, lots of people will do it. If the fine is $2 million, only the rich will do it. If the fine is all of your income from all sources for the next 10 years (less minimal living expenses) no one will likely do it.
I guess we'll agree to disagree here. Thanks for being civil.
I would like to add something regarding the fining of corporations --- if current fines don't discourage them, increase it to the point where they take notice. A small fine can be passed on to the consumer. But if the corporation attempts to do this with an enormous fine, customers will go elsewhere, and the corporation will go belly up. Problem solved.
Since we don't presently have a problem with non-electronic copyright violation, you could only have been referring to electronic copyright issues. And that is why I called those laws "just barely on the books". Now you are switching up again... and setting off my "weasel" alarm.
If there was no possibility of copying works (electronic or otherwise), there would be no need for copyright law or punishment for violating it, would there?
This system would create the exact problem we complain about today: corporations can do whatever they please once they've balanced the budget against the anticipated fines for violation. And so they do, whenever and wherever the numbers favor a violation.
Strawman. Corporations don't go to prison.
If I knew exactly what my payoff amount would be for going out and beating up a spammer, or whoever I don't like, I would almost certainly do it.
Check out your local laws regarding assault. Penalties are fines or maybe a little time in the local jail. I know, having assaulted someone before... well, I pushed someone off a chair. They called it assault. I paid a fine.
Ah, but there is a vital ratio at play here. Sure, prison increases the recidividism rate for the one individual, but at the same time its fearsome potential will prevent n law-abiders from going astray. Would you therefore support the idea of imprisonment for n=10? n=100? n=1000?
No, I wouldn't support it. I don't dispute that imprisonment can deter people from property crimes. But, once again I ask, are there not better methods than imprisonment? My freedom is more valuable to me than my life. Stripping someone of their freedom should be reserved for the most extreme of offenses. Depriving people of their property isn't one of them.
It's only natural and proper that vice laws get flaunted
I'm glad you feel that way. I'm in complete agreement here.
And copyright and spam laws are just barely on the books
Well, I wouldn't say copyright law is "just barely" on the books. I think a few hundred years is sufficient to iron out the wrinkles.
It is far more relevant to consider whether prison is effective in the cases of laws which are generally agreed to be legitimate in all reasonable cultures: murder, arson, robbery, etc. etc. Does the prospect of prison time have a general deterrant effect?
Perhaps. But, is imprisonment the only option available to deter these behaviors? And if not, is it the best option?
In matters of damage to property, financial restitution (with interest) would have the benefit of giving compensation to the victims, as well as deterring theft/destruction of property. Furthermore, the guilty party would not have to give up their freedom, nor would they be a burden on the taxpayer.
Imprisonment, on the other hand, doesn't financially compensate the victim... indeed, the victim is likely to pay more (in taxes) for the criminal's upkeep in a prison. And while this may dissuade some from engaging in like behavior, the criminal (upon release) is likely to engage in criminal activity again.
As for murder, I still don't believe that prison is the solution. I'll admit that I have not come up with an alternative that is acceptable to me (much less to anyone else) except in the case of serial killers --- they are beyond rehabilitation, and their incarceration will not deter other potential serial killers.
Wow... that really seems to have worked. See: illegal drug use/distribution, prostitution, illegal gambling, copyright violation, spamming --- all of which have nearly vanished due to fear of being caught and punished.
What is the purpose of punishment? If it serves to keep people from behaving badly, then that is rehabilitation. Otherwise, it serves no purpose other than to indulge in sadistic behavior --- which makes the punisher no better than the punished.
Are we that out of whack that you get more time for spam than for killing someone?
Yes. In some cases, drug dealers can spend decades in prison --- even for a single instance of selling a few hits of LSD to an undercover cop. Personally, I'm against incarceration. Prisons don't rehabilitate people.
Slashdot Mirror
Without computers/dvd players/iPod's/etc. (i.e. physical devices) "bags o bits" are completely worthless.
That's no rebuttal. The plain and simple truth is, nobody knows how much is used. However, the mere fact that people are capable of learning and memorizing would seem to indicate that not 100% of the brain is used.
In any case, the implication that forgetting a handful of phone numbers frees up some brain cells for other uses is a bunch of codswallop. Through college I destroyed many a brain cell via alcohol consumption, memorized a ton of facts and theorems in order to pass my final exams for an M.S. in math, and still somehow managed to remember the phone numbers of my friends and family.
Don't mistake laziness for efficient use of the brain.
They have no problem remembering them - after all that's what they use the devices for. Functionally it's the same thing as carrying them in your head, but now you can use the neurons for other things.
Yeah, like storing all the minutiae of your life to regurgitate it to the knucklehead on the other end of the cellphone while you're driving?
We only use, what, 10% of our brains anyway --- why the need to free up some neurons? Nah. It's just mental laziness that leads to atrophy of the brain.
The entire concept of privacy is based around concealing "wrongs"
Like fucking, for instance. Everyone knows that fucking is wrong, yet we keep doing it. We damned sure don't want our children to know about fucking; and we do what we can to conceal it from them. We ought to plant cameras in everyone's homes to make sure that they don't fuck. All these fucking people should be shot --- evil, sinning bastards.
Then you're talking about me. I don't buy Disney.
As another parent, I would have to say, it probably doesn't make a difference one way or the other. Whether the child plays in the park or plays GTA matters not one whit. Take a look around --- adults of all backgrounds are pretty much fucked up. Whatever they do can be blamed on Playboy or Halo, D&D or Ozzy Osbourne. Except people did bad things way before mass media. More boogeymen blown way out of proportion so that people will overlook the simplest explanation that our collective and individual psyches are totally warped from day one.
It may - someday - dawn on you that ultra-violence and graphic sex is an adolescent obsession and not an adult's.
Tell that to the porno industry. That's one of the stupidest statements I've heard in months.
I'm amazed that an entirely lifeless universe bothers you not one whit.
Why should it? I have more pressing concerns than worrying that someday everything may come to an end. It's probably in the nature of things.
So it's not only human life and culture that upsets you - you just don't see any point to anything at all?
Well, I don't see much point in existing just for the sake of existing. I mean, even the lowliest insect has an instincive need to survive and a biological drive to reproduce and continue the species. Is that all we've got? If so, we might as well duke it out Darwin style right here on Earth --- we'll survive if we are fit to survive.
On the other hand, if we slipped into the role of caretaker of the planet and its denizens, we might be worth preserving and the future of our species might thereby be insured without the need for rocket ships.
But the universe seems pretty inimical to life as it is; what does it matter if the human "parasite" spreads elsewhere?
It might matter to organisms on other worlds.
Is that not better than a lifeless universe?
Not if the only purpose to be served is to allow people to shop at Wal-Mars. A lifeless universe bothers me not one whit.
We're never going to solve those problems -- they're fundamental to our nature as individuals with different goals and desires, coupled with limited resources. What we can do, is try to spread out enough to keep a single major incident from ending us as a species.
Once again, why is it so important that we survive as a species? Why not put all our resources into making sure that the white rhino survives as a species? Or the marijuana plant? After all, we don't see those organisms actively trying to wipe out/enslave/eat all neighboring organisms. Human beings exploit each other, exploit their habitat, and leave a trail of poisonous land, air and water in their wake. Now that the garbage can is starting to overflow onto our dinner plate, it's time to pack up and trash other worlds.
I guess that developing unlimited, replenishable power supplies, accelerating to near-light speeds, and terraforming planets to accomodate the human parasite is far easier than learning to co-exist with each other and with non-human organisms. Pathetic.
Sucks that short-term politics and pet pork takes precedence over the future of humanity itself.
I totally agree. However, we should be setting our sights a little closer to home as regards the future of humanity. Terraforming Mars (if possible) and transplanting people (and our problems) there won't fix anything. If we can't solve the problems of disease, war, overcrowding, famine, racial/religious intolerance, etc. right here on Earth, maybe we don't deserve to survive as a species.
Not to start a flamewar or anything, but I would like to "put forth a slice of personal philosophy". Over the years I have come to be quite skeptical when I hear/read expressions like "infinite amount of time" and "arbitrarily close" as they relate to the real world (or our interpretation of it) rather than a purely theoretical treatment. Take for instance Newton's Law of Cooling which implies that your Betty Crocker brownies will take an infinite amount of time to reach room temperature after removing them from the oven. Or that the magnitude of the electric field near a point charge "grows arbitrarily large" as you get "arbitrarily close" to it. As a mathematician, I love infinity, I really do --- there are infinitely many of them to choose from! But, IMHO, they don't belong in models of the physical universe (apart from simplifying calculations such as integrals over R^3). I don't believe that time is of infinite duration, that space is without bound, or that either one is infinitely subdivisible. Matter and energy are quantized, why not space and time? It has a nice symmetry to it --- a fan favorite for both mathematicians and physicists.
If you say so. But, by that logic, being a citizen of the U.S. makes me responsible for the deaths of thousands of women and children in Iraq.
Here is a clue --- children are independent thinking beings. Unless you keep them locked up in the basement, they will exercise free will. Your P.O.V. raises the question: When am I no longer responsible for my children? The answer involves the very definition of responsibility. It is not as cut and dried as "When they are 18 and move out of the house."
Silly AC, your music hasn't been stolen: You have been copyright violated or RIAAPEd.
Firstly, I don't give a shit about the parents. They fucked up, majorly and in a way that costs other people their lives. At the very least, they failed to protect society from their spawn's violent mental illness, even if there really was nothing else they could do.
So, not only are parents supposed to have memorized "Parenting for Dummies", but they should also have a degree in psychiatry to be able to recognize mental illness.
The rest of your post is on target, but doesn't go far enough. Schooling is only a piece in the bigger picture --- that being, a society of millions. The old saying "It takes a village to raise a child" has quite a bit of wisdom to it. But, villages have been replaced by The System. It's every man for themselves. We have replaced intimacy and friendship with property and status.
I noticed when you slipped the disclaimer 'property crime' into what was a discussion of all crime.
Negative. Go way back up the thread to where I divided non-vice crimes into property crimes and murder (the big daddy of violent crimes). The last few posts have mainly addressed statements I made regarding property crimes. I didn't "slip that into" the discussion of all crime.
Prison doesn't have these problems; it simply has a fixed cost.
The same can be achieved by amputating limbs, or execution, and perhaps a range of other penalties. Why don't you advocate those?
You advocate the same system for individuals. And so individuals will begin behaving the same lamentable way. Especially wealthier individuals. In no time at all we'll be back to where we were 300 years ago: an above-class that is more or less exempt from laws against coercion.
I don't buy it. Do you assert that no fine, however large, will deter the same number of people from property crime as current prison sentences do? Sure, if the fine for ripping off a million dollars is $2 across the board, lots of people will do it. If the fine is $2 million, only the rich will do it. If the fine is all of your income from all sources for the next 10 years (less minimal living expenses) no one will likely do it.
I guess we'll agree to disagree here. Thanks for being civil.
I would like to add something regarding the fining of corporations --- if current fines don't discourage them, increase it to the point where they take notice. A small fine can be passed on to the consumer. But if the corporation attempts to do this with an enormous fine, customers will go elsewhere, and the corporation will go belly up. Problem solved.
Since we don't presently have a problem with non-electronic copyright violation, you could only have been referring to electronic copyright issues. And that is why I called those laws "just barely on the books". Now you are switching up again... and setting off my "weasel" alarm.
... well, I pushed someone off a chair. They called it assault. I paid a fine.
If there was no possibility of copying works (electronic or otherwise), there would be no need for copyright law or punishment for violating it, would there?
This system would create the exact problem we complain about today: corporations can do whatever they please once they've balanced the budget against the anticipated fines for violation. And so they do, whenever and wherever the numbers favor a violation.
Strawman. Corporations don't go to prison.
If I knew exactly what my payoff amount would be for going out and beating up a spammer, or whoever I don't like, I would almost certainly do it.
Check out your local laws regarding assault. Penalties are fines or maybe a little time in the local jail. I know, having assaulted someone before
Ah, but there is a vital ratio at play here. Sure, prison increases the recidividism rate for the one individual, but at the same time its fearsome potential will prevent n law-abiders from going astray. Would you therefore support the idea of imprisonment for n=10? n=100? n=1000?
No, I wouldn't support it. I don't dispute that imprisonment can deter people from property crimes. But, once again I ask, are there not better methods than imprisonment? My freedom is more valuable to me than my life. Stripping someone of their freedom should be reserved for the most extreme of offenses. Depriving people of their property isn't one of them.
It's only natural and proper that vice laws get flaunted
... indeed, the victim is likely to pay more (in taxes) for the criminal's upkeep in a prison. And while this may dissuade some from engaging in like behavior, the criminal (upon release) is likely to engage in criminal activity again.
I'm glad you feel that way. I'm in complete agreement here.
And copyright and spam laws are just barely on the books
Well, I wouldn't say copyright law is "just barely" on the books. I think a few hundred years is sufficient to iron out the wrinkles.
It is far more relevant to consider whether prison is effective in the cases of laws which are generally agreed to be legitimate in all reasonable cultures: murder, arson, robbery, etc. etc. Does the prospect of prison time have a general deterrant effect?
Perhaps. But, is imprisonment the only option available to deter these behaviors? And if not, is it the best option?
In matters of damage to property, financial restitution (with interest) would have the benefit of giving compensation to the victims, as well as deterring theft/destruction of property. Furthermore, the guilty party would not have to give up their freedom, nor would they be a burden on the taxpayer.
Imprisonment, on the other hand, doesn't financially compensate the victim
As for murder, I still don't believe that prison is the solution. I'll admit that I have not come up with an alternative that is acceptable to me (much less to anyone else) except in the case of serial killers --- they are beyond rehabilitation, and their incarceration will not deter other potential serial killers.
Wow... that really seems to have worked. See: illegal drug use/distribution, prostitution, illegal gambling, copyright violation, spamming --- all of which have nearly vanished due to fear of being caught and punished.
So, you agree that it's all about that good feeling you get inside when you see someone suffer. Nice. Clearly, we are evolving as a species.
What is the purpose of punishment? If it serves to keep people from behaving badly, then that is rehabilitation. Otherwise, it serves no purpose other than to indulge in sadistic behavior --- which makes the punisher no better than the punished.
Are we that out of whack that you get more time for spam than for killing someone?
Yes. In some cases, drug dealers can spend decades in prison --- even for a single instance of selling a few hits of LSD to an undercover cop. Personally, I'm against incarceration. Prisons don't rehabilitate people.
A great many people can't even be bothered to use the dictionary. What makes you think they will consult a reference book on software?