If your goal is to practice arguing, I'll leave the discussion now. If you want to seriously debate whether the justice system worked in this particular case--including the definition of "worked"--I might continue on.
I never did nor do I now wish to debate if the justice system worked in this particular case. And I did not do so. If you believe I did, you are mistaken. The whole point of what I've written here is to say, what I said in my first post, that no, it is not obvious (especially so to the people asked; slashdotters) that this man should be "thrown in jail". We are not omniscient. We are merely domesticated animals.
Now finally, I leave you by pointing out that law and justice are two seperate things. Ethics and moral. Jus and Fas.
I believe he admitted his guilt. Even if he didn't, we are concerned with his guilt or innoncence relative to our justice system. The case was tried and a verdict returned. He's guilty. Assumption. You say he 'is' guilty when all we've done is to find him guilty relative to the law.
That's a matter of opinion. I think it does. So punishing someone arbitrarily is OK with you?
Not relevant. If he's covering up for someone else, it's not relevant?
It depends on what's available. I assume he will not go to a maximum security prison and so he won't be thrown in with murderers. You're digressing from the mode of conversation. This was a question which had not been aswered at the time judgement was passed, so it's a bit late now.
For the length of his sentence or until existing rules and guidelines that apply to all similar criminals reduce it to something less. And how long is that?
Not relevant. This was a criminal case, not a civil case. Not relevant. Justice is justice.
Not relevant. In my opionion, however, it acts as a deterrent to other people who might consider doing something similar. Will shooting children save the world from over-population? - Not relevant. You cannot take measure without knowing what consequence that measure has.
Then I question his motives. Why he wants this job. Why we should hire him. Then I move on to casual conversation. Simply getting to know him. Eventually I try to get him engaged in a subject he's passionate about. Maybe politics. If I find him to lack ethics or morals, he doesn't get the job. Amongst the applicants I should be able to find at least one trustworthy fellow.
That's not a quick leaving-day "fuck-you" to the Man, that's premeditated and deliberate.
Ah, see, you don't know that. That's an assumption. You assume he's guilty of everyting you accuse him of because he probably is guilty of some of it. You can only punish him for what you can prove he did, and you can never prove his intention even if he announces what his intentions were. Similarly there are a lot of other things you cannot prove. Thousands of them.
A court of law makes educated guesses. They are not sure about anything. Therefore nothing about this case is "obvious". That someone thinks it is obvious indicates a prejudice inconsiderate of the possibility of undue suffering of their fellow man. Had the grandparent said "He should probably be thrown in jail", then I would not have argued. However, saying that is inconsequential and qould likely get modded 'Redunadnt'. Saying that he should obviously be thrown in jail sounds something akin to the exaggerated mode of speak some people resort to in casual conversations. Since people have an annoying tendency to go "yeah" to anything anyone in their surrounding says, there's the potential that a lot of people arbitrarily decide that 'this should be done' and form a mob. A contigency, of course, but it has happened before. Humans are not rational beings, but pack animals. By merely saying that no, it isn't obvious, I automatically provoke a retort by disagreeing. I can skip this by saying it's because "A thousand factors". Now someone either uses his wit and thinks for himself or is provoked to attack that statement. A statement which I have already enforced in my last reply in this thread.
Does his conviction exclude the possibility of him being innocent? Does punishment the fit the crime? Is there another explanation for why he did it? In what jail should he be thrown in to? How long should he be forced to stay there? How will throwing him in jail compensate the victim of his crime? What problem does jail-time solve?
No. No it isn't obvious in the least. That you think it is makes my skin crawl in disgust. There were thousands of factors you were unaware of when you judged him, yet you are absolutely sure of yourself. My mind boggles. My mind boggles and my skin crawls.
I run Opteron on my destop and tested the 64bit version of Breezy on it some time ago. There's a lot of packages missing, so the apt-get niceness is often useless. While desktop use is grealy different from server use, it does stand to show what the situation is like ATM. If the 64 bit version of Breezy came with full support for 32 bit packages then all would be OK, but for some reason one has to set up the compability manually, and how to do that is far from obvious.
I wouldn't be surpised if some dev decided not to include 32 bit support natively as to prompt people to supply 64 bit code instead of relying on the 32 bit support. However, this sort of strong-arming doesn't work well with people who supply time an effort voluntarily. AMD's idea was to run 64 bit and 32 bit simultaneously until the 32 bit applications are no longer useful. There's no need to force 64 bit on anyone. (Note. This paragraph is a big IF. I'm not saying this is the way things are.)
I switched back to 32 bit Breezy for my desktop after I noticed how hopeless the situation was. Sad to say, it was Macromedia's lack of support for 64 bit Flash that was the last drop. Can't have a desktop without Flash these days, it seems. =(
UFO means Unidentified Flying Object. We as geeks respect original definitions. Unidentified extraterrestrial spacecraft in flight are a subcategory of UFOs, if they exist. The existense of UFOs is not doubted, but claiming a UFO is extraterrestrial is unfounded.
While at it, there's no reason to claim extraterrestrial life is intelligent either when we're yet to communicate with any. We have no reason to say that something intelligent necessarily is alive either. Our own development of AI should at the very least indicate this. We have no reason to beleive a hypothetic extraterrestrial intelligence has biological needs we can relate to, so we can't assume they would act like we do. For example, we have no reason to assume that if they had any interest in this planet we would be the center of their attention.
Being a skeptic is all fine and dandy, but jumping to unfounded conclusions isn't, even when the jump is miniscule. There are lots of things we simply don't know yet, and we should absolutely not prentend we do.
Konica Minolta has got an anti-shake system that moves the CCD instead of the optics. They even have cheap cameras with this feature. An experienced photographer can shoot at 1/4 second shutter speed using their AS. Normal flash photography is maybe 1/150 second, for comparison.
Unfortunately Konica Minlota hasn't got any SLRs above six megapixels, but if they did this new lens system could allow for some very nice night-time photography when in conjunction with their anti-shake system. Something to keep one's eyes open for, for sure.
Let's just hope Sony doesn't screw KM over, since they seem to have some business going together. DRMed RAW files would just spoil this all.
But as usual, the average Finn doesn't give a damn about the law. It just becomes yet another matter not to talk loudly about.
Re:fiber's great, till your lasers start burning o
on
Fiber Optic vs Copper
·
· Score: 1
I've hear about weird stuff happening with fibers. Something like it during some malfunction burning at intervals along its length, and then somehow repairing itself. - What's that about?
No, mods. Not Funny. This is Insightful. It's just a matter looking at the big picture. The universe will keep moving for as long as it exists, and is therefore as far as we're concered a "perpetual motion device".
My brain tells me that B would accelerate for the amount of time A was switched on, but then decelerate after that time runs out. So B would be in a different place, but the amount of energy in the system would remain the same.
The atmosphere is already saturated with water vapour. If it increases, we have what is called "rain", and then the water vapour level returns to normal.
Slashdot Mirror
If your goal is to practice arguing, I'll leave the discussion now. If you want to seriously debate whether the justice system worked in this particular case--including the definition of "worked"--I might continue on.
I never did nor do I now wish to debate if the justice system worked in this particular case. And I did not do so. If you believe I did, you are mistaken.
The whole point of what I've written here is to say, what I said in my first post, that no, it is not obvious (especially so to the people asked; slashdotters) that this man should be "thrown in jail". We are not omniscient. We are merely domesticated animals.
Now finally, I leave you by pointing out that law and justice are two seperate things. Ethics and moral. Jus and Fas.
I believe he admitted his guilt. Even if he didn't, we are concerned with his guilt or innoncence relative to our justice system. The case was tried and a verdict returned. He's guilty.
Assumption. You say he 'is' guilty when all we've done is to find him guilty relative to the law.
That's a matter of opinion. I think it does.
So punishing someone arbitrarily is OK with you?
Not relevant.
If he's covering up for someone else, it's not relevant?
It depends on what's available. I assume he will not go to a maximum security prison and so he won't be thrown in with murderers.
You're digressing from the mode of conversation. This was a question which had not been aswered at the time judgement was passed, so it's a bit late now.
For the length of his sentence or until existing rules and guidelines that apply to all similar criminals reduce it to something less.
And how long is that?
Not relevant. This was a criminal case, not a civil case.
Not relevant. Justice is justice.
Not relevant. In my opionion, however, it acts as a deterrent to other people who might consider doing something similar.
Will shooting children save the world from over-population? - Not relevant.
You cannot take measure without knowing what consequence that measure has.
Again, mind boggling, skin crawling.
Well, first off I ditch formality...
Then I question his motives. Why he wants this job. Why we should hire him. Then I move on to casual conversation. Simply getting to know him. Eventually I try to get him engaged in a subject he's passionate about. Maybe politics. If I find him to lack ethics or morals, he doesn't get the job. Amongst the applicants I should be able to find at least one trustworthy fellow.
That's not a quick leaving-day "fuck-you" to the Man, that's premeditated and deliberate.
Ah, see, you don't know that. That's an assumption. You assume he's guilty of everyting you accuse him of because he probably is guilty of some of it. You can only punish him for what you can prove he did, and you can never prove his intention even if he announces what his intentions were. Similarly there are a lot of other things you cannot prove. Thousands of them.
A court of law makes educated guesses. They are not sure about anything. Therefore nothing about this case is "obvious". That someone thinks it is obvious indicates a prejudice inconsiderate of the possibility of undue suffering of their fellow man.
Had the grandparent said "He should probably be thrown in jail", then I would not have argued. However, saying that is inconsequential and qould likely get modded 'Redunadnt'. Saying that he should obviously be thrown in jail sounds something akin to the exaggerated mode of speak some people resort to in casual conversations. Since people have an annoying tendency to go "yeah" to anything anyone in their surrounding says, there's the potential that a lot of people arbitrarily decide that 'this should be done' and form a mob. A contigency, of course, but it has happened before. Humans are not rational beings, but pack animals. By merely saying that no, it isn't obvious, I automatically provoke a retort by disagreeing. I can skip this by saying it's because "A thousand factors". Now someone either uses his wit and thinks for himself or is provoked to attack that statement. A statement which I have already enforced in my last reply in this thread.
If I'm dumb enough not to spot someone deliberately malicious at job interview, I don't stand in a very good position with or without him.
Does his conviction exclude the possibility of him being innocent?
Does punishment the fit the crime?
Is there another explanation for why he did it?
In what jail should he be thrown in to?
How long should he be forced to stay there?
How will throwing him in jail compensate the victim of his crime?
What problem does jail-time solve?
...good luck finding a new tech job with that on your record...
I'd hire him. He's unlikely to make the same mistake twice, meaning I've got an employee who will be careful to stay out of trouble.
No. No it isn't obvious in the least. That you think it is makes my skin crawl in disgust. There were thousands of factors you were unaware of when you judged him, yet you are absolutely sure of yourself. My mind boggles. My mind boggles and my skin crawls.
Sounds like a call for AI if I've ever heard one...
I, for one, have long coveted my own personal librarian.
switching it from suck, to blow.
Overclock it and maybe it'll fly! =D
I run Opteron on my destop and tested the 64bit version of Breezy on it some time ago. There's a lot of packages missing, so the apt-get niceness is often useless.
While desktop use is grealy different from server use, it does stand to show what the situation is like ATM. If the 64 bit version of Breezy came with full support for 32 bit packages then all would be OK, but for some reason one has to set up the compability manually, and how to do that is far from obvious.
I wouldn't be surpised if some dev decided not to include 32 bit support natively as to prompt people to supply 64 bit code instead of relying on the 32 bit support. However, this sort of strong-arming doesn't work well with people who supply time an effort voluntarily.
AMD's idea was to run 64 bit and 32 bit simultaneously until the 32 bit applications are no longer useful. There's no need to force 64 bit on anyone.
(Note. This paragraph is a big IF. I'm not saying this is the way things are.)
I switched back to 32 bit Breezy for my desktop after I noticed how hopeless the situation was. Sad to say, it was Macromedia's lack of support for 64 bit Flash that was the last drop. Can't have a desktop without Flash these days, it seems. =(
I call BS on this one. The code needed to remove negative things about something would be at least as complex as the speech recognition software.
Not all of us need it.
UFO means Unidentified Flying Object. We as geeks respect original definitions. Unidentified extraterrestrial spacecraft in flight are a subcategory of UFOs, if they exist.
The existense of UFOs is not doubted, but claiming a UFO is extraterrestrial is unfounded.
While at it, there's no reason to claim extraterrestrial life is intelligent either when we're yet to communicate with any.
We have no reason to say that something intelligent necessarily is alive either. Our own development of AI should at the very least indicate this.
We have no reason to beleive a hypothetic extraterrestrial intelligence has biological needs we can relate to, so we can't assume they would act like we do. For example, we have no reason to assume that if they had any interest in this planet we would be the center of their attention.
Being a skeptic is all fine and dandy, but jumping to unfounded conclusions isn't, even when the jump is miniscule. There are lots of things we simply don't know yet, and we should absolutely not prentend we do.
Wait until the offline generations enter retirement. They're not as much Luddites as unwilling to invest the effort to learn to use a new system.
And the fortune at the bottom of this page:
State the problem in words as clearly as possible
Konica Minolta has got an anti-shake system that moves the CCD instead of the optics. They even have cheap cameras with this feature.
An experienced photographer can shoot at 1/4 second shutter speed using their AS. Normal flash photography is maybe 1/150 second, for comparison.
Unfortunately Konica Minlota hasn't got any SLRs above six megapixels, but if they did this new lens system could allow for some very nice night-time photography when in conjunction with their anti-shake system. Something to keep one's eyes open for, for sure.
Let's just hope Sony doesn't screw KM over, since they seem to have some business going together. DRMed RAW files would just spoil this all.
"...users can only view it for up to 24 hours before it expires."
I was expecting to read "explodes" rather than "expires". I'm glad I was wrong.
But now I worry that by posting this I might give them ideas.
But as usual, the average Finn doesn't give a damn about the law. It just becomes yet another matter not to talk loudly about.
I've hear about weird stuff happening with fibers. Something like it during some malfunction burning at intervals along its length, and then somehow repairing itself. - What's that about?
No, mods. Not Funny. This is Insightful. It's just a matter looking at the big picture. The universe will keep moving for as long as it exists, and is therefore as far as we're concered a "perpetual motion device".
An EM field is easily shaped. It's just a matter of retaining focus.
An electric field on the other hand... I dunno.
Uh... derr...
My brain tells me that B would accelerate for the amount of time A was switched on, but then decelerate after that time runs out. So B would be in a different place, but the amount of energy in the system would remain the same.
I think my brain needs a vacation. =(
The atmosphere is already saturated with water vapour. If it increases, we have what is called "rain", and then the water vapour level returns to normal.
...But we are conscious and we are observing.
I must be missing something. - What position does the observer hold in this infinite universes hypothesis?