I think you hit the nail right on the head when you said this:
Okay lets get this straight here, we aren't talking about effects. You are talking about the reasoning behind the law, I am talking about the basic structure of the law.
That's exactly what's going on here. I'm talking about the intent of the law and working forward from that to criticize the current implementation of it, and you're talking about the laws and their implementation and using that to make a declaration about what the intent must be. Perhaps there are points here that we can both agree on:
* We'd be better off collectively if prisons were focused more on reform than punishment * Individuals seem to care more often about punishment than reform, making the above idea a very hard sell.
You have to take a pretty narrow reading of "law", and use a pretty wide definition of "revenge", to make things as simple as that.
Actually, it is as simple as that. It may not suit modern sensibilities to see it in those terms, but the underlying foundation of all laws and structures of law is revenge, or rather to take the mandate for revenge out of the hands of individuals and put it in the hands of the leaders.
All laws? You include things like safety-hemlet laws and gambling laws? That reading is still way too broad. It's also telling that you point out that it is against "modern sensibilities". There's a good reason for that...
It is about a system of protecting a given society's interests.
This is a secondary effect, a symptom or knock-on effect rather than cause. That is merely the threat of vengeance acting as a deterrent to potential criminals.
No, it's the primary effect. It's "revenge" that's the secondary effect. Look at it on your own terms: If the threat of revenge wasn't a deterrent in at least some small way, it wouldn't serve society's interests, and there would therefore not be any reason to codify it into law. Saying that it's better when the law does it as opposed to individuals just because it breaks some pursuable chain of "revenge" between families or gangs is yet another way of saying that it pursues an interest of society: Keeping society cohesive.
I repeat, the basis of criminal law is not revenge. The basis of criminal law is to protect society, which from one time to another has had a greater or lesser correlation with satisfying some victim's need for revenge, but was not formed merely to serve it.
Current prison conditions make rehabilitation much, much harder - and for relatively little gain.
Have you ever wondered why this glaringly obvious fact has escaped the attention of law and policy makers for so long? Its because they aren't meant to rehabilitate, they are meant to punish.
No, it's because, plain and simple, nobody gives a shit about prisoners. Though they should, because many facets of the current prison system actually act like a spinning cyclotron, breeding nastier and nastier criminals and then hurling them back out into the world - an effect that serves no one. Why would you send criminals to a place where they can hang out with other criminals, and learn from one another? TO SAVE MONEY, that's why. And that's the only reason why, and that reason is apparently good enough for most people, because they don't give a shit about prisoners. At their peril.
If someone robs your house, steals your car, or beats up your grandmother, wouldn't you love to have a chat with that guy in the company of a heavy implement and a half an hour of privacy? Of course you would.
Actually, no, I wouldn't. It would be a waste of my time. I wouldn't care to see him/her punished in some other way, either. My interest is in protecting myself, not damaging others. That interest is not served by revenge - except as a deterrent, which is a tenuous connection. That interest is better served by rehabilitation, or indentured servitude. Put the guy to work making license plates for $8.00 an hour, until he buys back his freedom. If they cannot be rehabilitated, keep 'em in prison forever, deport them, or put them to death. But not in the interest of revenge. In the interest of safety.
And then his family and friends come after you, and yours go after them, and we have anarchy.
Sounds like the middle-east conflict, or a gang war. A situation where the police and legal system are absent, or useless, in serving the interests of the public. You seem to think that the only reason violent crime could go down is if we take out harsher revenge on people. That makes no sense, and is a rather dangerous attitude (was re: illegal abortions, drug laws, anti-prostitution laws, reparations for war, etc). Our interest is better served b
You have to take a pretty narrow reading of "law", and use a pretty wide definition of "revenge", to make things as simple as that. A better way of putting it would be to say that law is not about a system of revenge. It is about a system of protecting a given society's interests. And rehabilitation falls very neatly under that umbrella - if it's cheaper to rehabilitate a criminal back into a productive citizen, then everybody wins.
Current prison conditions make rehabilitation much, much harder - and for relatively little gain. Criminals consorting with criminals, torturing each other, forming their own bonds? Sounds stupid, actually. How much more would it cost - and how much more effective would it be - to just keep each criminal in solitary confinement? Hose 'em off through the bars when they get dirty? I'd like to see a few case studies about this!
Oh yeah, makes sense, if you think like a typical corn-fed homophobe American, and assume tha
1. Your average gay man is also a sexual predator.
2. The crusade to keep the male-bonding that occurs in the scouts "non-sexual" is anything but a lost cause and a damaging wild goose-chase.
What are you going to do, you poor fearful soul, when it's not the scoutmaster who's gay or bi-curious or experimenting, but THE SCOUTS doing it, groping each other in dark tents, sharing the occasional experimental kiss out in a fishing boat, as they slowly learn about sexuality? Where will you hide them then? Seriously, your only good solution in these conflicts is to realize that homosexual behavior is not a big deal. If you make it one, you're bound to alienate and/or destroy a fair percentage of your own offspring.
P.S.: The Catholic Church's official stance on this is damaging, and indefensible. I'm through talking with them.
Mapplethorpe was the easiest/most recognizable name I could come up with - I also disagree with My Tax Dollars buying Chihuly's works at what he charges for them, though in that case it's more about amount than about content/subject matter.
World-class? "De gustibus non disputandem" - you like his work, *you* buy it - don't spend My Tax Dollars supporting it or exhibiting it.
Oh look at me! I have OPINIONS!
I suggest you take both of these complaints to a town meeting or senator, instead of whoring them around on this forum in order to toot your own horn.
Sorry, was using the definition that Aethiesm wasn't a religion. But since you say it is, maybe we should start applying seperation of church and state to it as well?
This statement doesn't make any sense. Church and state? Atheists vs. a private organization? What kind of point are you trying to make?
Using the PC terms means that you *intend* the impolite/racist term, but think that you are better than that, whereas the reality is you aren't - you've just #defined the original.
riiiiiiight. I bet you're real popular on dates, when you're in the fancy restaurant, and the woman you're with says "I need to visit the ladies' room", and you reply, "Oh call a spade a spade. You're off to drop a shit, maybe fart some while you do it, or maybe change out a bloody tampon, or maybe pick your nose. Just say so. We'd all feel a lot better if you did."
Now this conversation reminds me of a scene in 'Jurassic Park': "Oh wait, I know this! This is UNIX!" (child navigates over klunky wireframe landscape showing map of security system)
"I'm a bitch, I'm a lover, I'm a child, I'm a mother, I'm a sinner, I'm a saint,"
Every time I hear that song I want to smash furniture. I don't know why. Just makes my hands twitch. I'm quite surprised that someone has managed to connect OS X, which I adore, with that song. This is truly a crazy forum.:)
Because Unix sucks. And our opinion is that it's a heck of a lot better than Unix.
Actually, your opinion just sucks. How many people trust OS X to power their air traffic control systems? The answer, (zero) is surprisingly fewer than the number of ATC systems running on top of Windows software.
How would you marketroids go about convincing these hapless people running Windows that your OS is a superior option? Why, you'd blow the "stable UNIX core" trumpet just as loud and long at you could, until your little lungs gave out. "OS X is UNIX based" and "OS X is a UNIX" ring just about the same in my ears, and I can't figure out why you're laboring so dramatically to separate the two phrases - when it's that same sentiment that you'd best leverage when hawking OS X to $big_corporation.
ASOTV sounds like a marketroid blowing off steam. He's probably using with you all the words that he has to bite back on over the course of a day of meetings.
His constant use of "we" supports this as well. Even the core engineers responsible for the most vital code in OS X don't refer to Apple as "we". They're engineers. Improper references are anathema.
Boys, boys, quit your haranguing and settle down. 99% of computer owners don't give a shit how you define "UNIX". You know what my yardstick is? If I can get a directory listing by typing "ls", it's a UNIX. It I have to type "dir" or "CATALOG,S6,D1", it's not. See how easy that was? Now go play nice, the both of you.
I've had "iChatAgent (Not Responding)" sitting around in my activity monitor for almost a week now, through multiple reboots, on 10.4. It goes red shortly after I launch it - whether from rebooting, or from killing the process by hand and relaunching iChat. GOOD J0RB, WHAPPLE.
They also still haven't fixed their "direct connections go sour after sending an image" thing, either.
Given that attitude, you have no basis to assert that we have "not found" water ice anywhere in the universe other than our own planet, either. We've seen it streaming off the ass-ends of comets for centuries, and you're doing the Clintonian "it depends on what you mean by 'found' " two-step. Got an ego problem?
Basically, the reason is this: Comprehensive RAM tests don't just run through addressing space sequentially. RAM is written to and read from in several different patterns several different times. There's no safe place to put running code in the meantime.
This isn't really a problem for most people, anyway, since RAM tests are only done upon "cold boot" (turning the computer on after a complete power-off).
True - Safari has only a border along the top, and the border along the bottom can be hidden entirely. That's a Good Thing, because the bottom border is also the "status bar", which conveys useful information in a place I've grown to expect it (From using Mozilla, Netscape, etc).
What's irked me about brushed metal is the other uses for which it is employed around the OS. In the past I thought there was a definite pattern to it's usage: Any application that is providing an interface into a database, instead of rendered content from external (possibly multiple) documents, has the metal border. The thicker border is meant to underscore the separation between the data embedded in the app, and the "outside world" so to speak.
That's not a definition I just pulled out of my ass: It makes conceptual sense and fits the pattern for iTunes, iPhoto, Remote Desktop, iSync, Sherlock, iCal, Keychain Access, Font Book, AND the Address Book. The contents of each of these apps is _meant_ to be managed through the app, not as a series of separate documents. Multi-document or document-rendering programs do not use metal - like Safari, Pages, Stickies, TextEdit, Terminal, and the Console.
The problem is, the metaphor has been slapped silly by inconsistencies, some arbitrary, some inevitable because the separation between a multi-document situation and a database situation is not clear. iMovie, iDVD, KeyNote, THE FINDER, etc.
BUT. Even if the metaphor were perfectly clear, and perfectly applied in all situations, the big grey non-functional border at the edge of the various apps I use daily is taking up valuable space. Why in the hell does the Finder have grey metal on the SIDES of every window, for example? How come it all vanishes when I hide the TOOLBAR of all things, but NOT THE SIDEBAR? At least apps with drawers could have the drawers hidden! (rant rant, rave rave, et cereta).
See, this is the great new thing about the internet: Before, when something we didn't like came on TV, we would sit in our living rooms and grumble "How did shit like this get on TV?"
Now, when the same thing happens on the internet, we can all GO ON THE INTERNET AND SAY "How did shit like this get on the internet?" >:)
iPhoto gets slow when your numbers increase - I started having trouble at around the 9000-photo mark. For most folks the solution at that point is to break their collection into multiple iPhoto libraries, which is an irritating hack.
Unfortunately, that's also the only way to maintain active iPhoto libraries across multiple disks. You can stick a library anywhere, even on a subfolder of an iPod, but since iPhoto doesn't allow "import in place", you can't have photos from multiple drives show up in the same library. Inserting burned media with albums on it works great - the keyword assignments and dates all merge nicely together with the current library and un-merge when you eject the disk - but of course those are archives, not active libraries, so it's not the same thing.
As an aside, if you're interested in making more meaningful filenames from your digital pictures automatically, check out "jhead".
I invoke it on everything I drag off the media cards, like so:
"jhead -exonly -nf%Y%m%d-%H%M%S-%f *.JPG"
Funny you should mention 'cornflower blue' -- the new mail app's folder tree is just that.:) If there was a way to change it, I would - it totally clashes with my r4dx0r desktop background.
iPhoto organizes by date. A folder for year, a folder for month, and a folder for day. Older versions of iPhoto even maintained a tree of alias files, separated according to album name, that pointed to the originals in the first tree. It must have been painful to maintain, especially since iPhoto wasn't using it internally, but instead just to make it easy for folks to browse their library in the Finder. The latest iPhoto has done away with the aliases but keeps the date-based folder tree.
In addition, it writes out an XML file containing an easily-parsed facsimile of the contents of the database, so that other programs, even third-party programs, can access iPhoto's data very easily in a read-only fashion. You could write (and I have written) a Perl program to generate your own webpage photo albums by slurping the XML into a bunch of hashes. In this regard, iPhoto makes it _easier_ for you to access your photos by outside means -- not harder!
I think the idea behind iPhoto is that, once all your pictures are in, you can use search tools on them, and browse them by looking at the actual picture, laid out against the others. (Browsing pictures via the Finder, sorting them by filename, is behavior that makes a tacit assumption: That the filenames are always more important than the visual appearance of the picture, in helping you locate what you want. Clearly, when you think of a picture you want to find, you think of the picture! Not a string of letters and digits!)
> Order should be cumulative. iTunes lets me add order to the >folders of MP3 files; iPhoto takes away order from the folders of JPEG files.
If you want, you can recreate your folder tree by making subfolders in the iPhoto 5 interface, and then dropping your single folders into an open spot of the folder-tree pane, which will make a new album for each folder. So you can still organize the photos exactly the way you want. That layout won't be 100% reflected in a similar folder tree in the filesystem, but... is that really a problem? (And if it is, why use iPhoto at all?)
Slashdot Mirror
Out copying files. :)
I've still got half a dozen "intel inside" stickers plastered on the case for my Palm Vx. Darn thing doesn't seem to go any faster. Heh heh heh.
Okay lets get this straight here, we aren't talking about effects. You are talking about the reasoning behind the law, I am talking about the basic structure of the law.
That's exactly what's going on here. I'm talking about the intent of the law and working forward from that to criticize the current implementation of it, and you're talking about the laws and their implementation and using that to make a declaration about what the intent must be. Perhaps there are points here that we can both agree on:
* We'd be better off collectively if prisons were focused more on reform than punishment
* Individuals seem to care more often about punishment than reform, making the above idea a very hard sell.
Sound good?
Actually, it is as simple as that. It may not suit modern sensibilities to see it in those terms, but the underlying foundation of all laws and structures of law is revenge, or rather to take the mandate for revenge out of the hands of individuals and put it in the hands of the leaders.
All laws? You include things like safety-hemlet laws and gambling laws? That reading is still way too broad. It's also telling that you point out that it is against "modern sensibilities". There's a good reason for that...
It is about a system of protecting a given society's interests.
This is a secondary effect, a symptom or knock-on effect rather than cause. That is merely the threat of vengeance acting as a deterrent to potential criminals.
No, it's the primary effect. It's "revenge" that's the secondary effect. Look at it on your own terms: If the threat of revenge wasn't a deterrent in at least some small way, it wouldn't serve society's interests, and there would therefore not be any reason to codify it into law. Saying that it's better when the law does it as opposed to individuals just because it breaks some pursuable chain of "revenge" between families or gangs is yet another way of saying that it pursues an interest of society: Keeping society cohesive.
I repeat, the basis of criminal law is not revenge. The basis of criminal law is to protect society, which from one time to another has had a greater or lesser correlation with satisfying some victim's need for revenge, but was not formed merely to serve it.
Current prison conditions make rehabilitation much, much harder - and for relatively little gain.
Have you ever wondered why this glaringly obvious fact has escaped the attention of law and policy makers for so long? Its because they aren't meant to rehabilitate, they are meant to punish.
No, it's because, plain and simple, nobody gives a shit about prisoners. Though they should, because many facets of the current prison system actually act like a spinning cyclotron, breeding nastier and nastier criminals and then hurling them back out into the world - an effect that serves no one. Why would you send criminals to a place where they can hang out with other criminals, and learn from one another? TO SAVE MONEY, that's why. And that's the only reason why, and that reason is apparently good enough for most people, because they don't give a shit about prisoners. At their peril.
If someone robs your house, steals your car, or beats up your grandmother, wouldn't you love to have a chat with that guy in the company of a heavy implement and a half an hour of privacy? Of course you would.
Actually, no, I wouldn't. It would be a waste of my time. I wouldn't care to see him/her punished in some other way, either. My interest is in protecting myself, not damaging others. That interest is not served by revenge - except as a deterrent, which is a tenuous connection. That interest is better served by rehabilitation, or indentured servitude. Put the guy to work making license plates for $8.00 an hour, until he buys back his freedom. If they cannot be rehabilitated, keep 'em in prison forever, deport them, or put them to death. But not in the interest of revenge. In the interest of safety.
And then his family and friends come after you, and yours go after them, and we have anarchy.
Sounds like the middle-east conflict, or a gang war. A situation where the police and legal system are absent, or useless, in serving the interests of the public. You seem to think that the only reason violent crime could go down is if we take out harsher revenge on people. That makes no sense, and is a rather dangerous attitude (was re: illegal abortions, drug laws, anti-prostitution laws, reparations for war, etc). Our interest is better served b
Current prison conditions make rehabilitation much, much harder - and for relatively little gain. Criminals consorting with criminals, torturing each other, forming their own bonds? Sounds stupid, actually. How much more would it cost - and how much more effective would it be - to just keep each criminal in solitary confinement? Hose 'em off through the bars when they get dirty? I'd like to see a few case studies about this!
1. Your average gay man is also a sexual predator.
2. The crusade to keep the male-bonding that occurs in the scouts "non-sexual" is anything but a lost cause and a damaging wild goose-chase.
What are you going to do, you poor fearful soul, when it's not the scoutmaster who's gay or bi-curious or experimenting, but THE SCOUTS doing it, groping each other in dark tents, sharing the occasional experimental kiss out in a fishing boat, as they slowly learn about sexuality? Where will you hide them then? Seriously, your only good solution in these conflicts is to realize that homosexual behavior is not a big deal. If you make it one, you're bound to alienate and/or destroy a fair percentage of your own offspring.
P.S.: The Catholic Church's official stance on this is damaging, and indefensible. I'm through talking with them.
World-class? "De gustibus non disputandem" - you like his work, *you* buy it - don't spend My Tax Dollars supporting it or exhibiting it.
Oh look at me! I have OPINIONS!
I suggest you take both of these complaints to a town meeting or senator, instead of whoring them around on this forum in order to toot your own horn.
Next?
This statement doesn't make any sense. Church and state? Atheists vs. a private organization? What kind of point are you trying to make?
riiiiiiight. I bet you're real popular on dates, when you're in the fancy restaurant, and the woman you're with says "I need to visit the ladies' room", and you reply, "Oh call a spade a spade. You're off to drop a shit, maybe fart some while you do it, or maybe change out a bloody tampon, or maybe pick your nose. Just say so. We'd all feel a lot better if you did."
>:)
Like, say, when I shut the lid of my powerbook? ;)
Now this conversation reminds me of a scene in 'Jurassic Park': "Oh wait, I know this! This is UNIX!" (child navigates over klunky wireframe landscape showing map of security system)
Every time I hear that song I want to smash furniture. I don't know why. Just makes my hands twitch. I'm quite surprised that someone has managed to connect OS X, which I adore, with that song. This is truly a crazy forum. :)
And our opinion is that it's a heck of a lot better than Unix.
Actually, your opinion just sucks. How many people trust OS X to power their air traffic control systems? The answer, (zero) is surprisingly fewer than the number of ATC systems running on top of Windows software.
How would you marketroids go about convincing these hapless people running Windows that your OS is a superior option? Why, you'd blow the "stable UNIX core" trumpet just as loud and long at you could, until your little lungs gave out. "OS X is UNIX based" and "OS X is a UNIX" ring just about the same in my ears, and I can't figure out why you're laboring so dramatically to separate the two phrases - when it's that same sentiment that you'd best leverage when hawking OS X to $big_corporation.
His constant use of "we" supports this as well. Even the core engineers responsible for the most vital code in OS X don't refer to Apple as "we". They're engineers. Improper references are anathema.
Boys, boys, quit your haranguing and settle down. 99% of computer owners don't give a shit how you define "UNIX". You know what my yardstick is? If I can get a directory listing by typing "ls", it's a UNIX. It I have to type "dir" or "CATALOG,S6,D1", it's not. See how easy that was? Now go play nice, the both of you.
They also still haven't fixed their "direct connections go sour after sending an image" thing, either.
Given that attitude, you have no basis to assert that we have "not found" water ice anywhere in the universe other than our own planet, either. We've seen it streaming off the ass-ends of comets for centuries, and you're doing the Clintonian "it depends on what you mean by 'found' " two-step. Got an ego problem?
Er, according to some Hubble-gazing folks, Europa's crust is _made_ of frozen water. Stand corrected.
This isn't really a problem for most people, anyway, since RAM tests are only done upon "cold boot" (turning the computer on after a complete power-off).
Gnahahaa, the way you describe it, it sounds more like it's all about "What you want the hardware to do to you." :)
What's irked me about brushed metal is the other uses for which it is employed around the OS. In the past I thought there was a definite pattern to it's usage: Any application that is providing an interface into a database, instead of rendered content from external (possibly multiple) documents, has the metal border. The thicker border is meant to underscore the separation between the data embedded in the app, and the "outside world" so to speak.
That's not a definition I just pulled out of my ass: It makes conceptual sense and fits the pattern for iTunes, iPhoto, Remote Desktop, iSync, Sherlock, iCal, Keychain Access, Font Book, AND the Address Book. The contents of each of these apps is _meant_ to be managed through the app, not as a series of separate documents. Multi-document or document-rendering programs do not use metal - like Safari, Pages, Stickies, TextEdit, Terminal, and the Console.
The problem is, the metaphor has been slapped silly by inconsistencies, some arbitrary, some inevitable because the separation between a multi-document situation and a database situation is not clear. iMovie, iDVD, KeyNote, THE FINDER, etc.
BUT. Even if the metaphor were perfectly clear, and perfectly applied in all situations, the big grey non-functional border at the edge of the various apps I use daily is taking up valuable space. Why in the hell does the Finder have grey metal on the SIDES of every window, for example? How come it all vanishes when I hide the TOOLBAR of all things, but NOT THE SIDEBAR? At least apps with drawers could have the drawers hidden! (rant rant, rave rave, et cereta).
Now, when the same thing happens on the internet, we can all GO ON THE INTERNET AND SAY "How did shit like this get on the internet?" >:)
There are a few shareware apps to help this process.
Unfortunately, that's also the only way to maintain active iPhoto libraries across multiple disks. You can stick a library anywhere, even on a subfolder of an iPod, but since iPhoto doesn't allow "import in place", you can't have photos from multiple drives show up in the same library. Inserting burned media with albums on it works great - the keyword assignments and dates all merge nicely together with the current library and un-merge when you eject the disk - but of course those are archives, not active libraries, so it's not the same thing.
As an aside, if you're interested in making more meaningful filenames from your digital pictures automatically, check out "jhead".
I invoke it on everything I drag off the media cards, like so: "jhead -exonly -nf%Y%m%d-%H%M%S-%f *.JPG"
Funny you should mention 'cornflower blue' -- the new mail app's folder tree is just that. :) If there was a way to change it, I would - it totally clashes with my r4dx0r desktop background.
In addition, it writes out an XML file containing an easily-parsed facsimile of the contents of the database, so that other programs, even third-party programs, can access iPhoto's data very easily in a read-only fashion. You could write (and I have written) a Perl program to generate your own webpage photo albums by slurping the XML into a bunch of hashes. In this regard, iPhoto makes it _easier_ for you to access your photos by outside means -- not harder!
I think the idea behind iPhoto is that, once all your pictures are in, you can use search tools on them, and browse them by looking at the actual picture, laid out against the others. (Browsing pictures via the Finder, sorting them by filename, is behavior that makes a tacit assumption: That the filenames are always more important than the visual appearance of the picture, in helping you locate what you want. Clearly, when you think of a picture you want to find, you think of the picture! Not a string of letters and digits!)
> Order should be cumulative. iTunes lets me add order to the
>folders of MP3 files; iPhoto takes away order from the folders of JPEG files.
If you want, you can recreate your folder tree by making subfolders in the iPhoto 5 interface, and then dropping your single folders into an open spot of the folder-tree pane, which will make a new album for each folder. So you can still organize the photos exactly the way you want. That layout won't be 100% reflected in a similar folder tree in the filesystem, but ... is that really a problem? (And if it is, why use iPhoto at all?)