Beating you to death for cutting me off in traffic affects you. Beating you to death for being of a certain ethnicity or sexual orientation or religion affects you and everyone else in the region who shares whatever it was that made me want to harm you who is now threatened and intimidated by your actions. That is how they differ and it is significant.
Whether it is reasonably applicable in practice is another question as it is often impossible to clearly discern someone's motivations. Of course, if they're a member of the KKK and wearing a shirt with a swastika and shooting up the church of a black congregation, it's not exactly rocket science to identify it.
You have a tiny little mind and live a tiny insignificant life if you harbor hatred and dislike over people for what they do on their own that in absolutely no way affects you or has anything to do with you. If you don't like "bein' gay" then don't be gay. STFU and let people live their lives as they see fit, so long as their actions do not directly negatively impact you, by, say, bashing your brains in with a bat for not liking you or something about you.
While that is true in many cases, it is not true in all of them.
It is vague in many circumstances and therefore should not be applied. Just because there are differences between the person committing the crime and the victim. However, in many circumstances it is absolutely clear. For example, if a couple neo-nazi's or KKK members have a couple of beers and go out on town and bash a couple of black guys, well.. it's not exactly hard to dissect that and find the motivation. A person's associations, behavior, and their actions and words during the time of the assault can often clearly isolate their motivation. And in such cases, I can see it reasonably being applied as per the crime's ripple effect on the community.
What needs to be considered when drawing up such legislation is whether the risk that comes with such criminal modification -- discerning someone's thoughts and intentions -- both in the immediate sentencing and the greater scope of law and justice over the years that may draw from that precedent to set worse laws. On the other hand, we already discern someone's thoughts and intentions and motivations when we modify their punishment because they are found insane or were not in their right mind at the moment or committed a crime of passion.
That must be a UK only thing, because in America you are allowed freedom of speech. However, if you go out and bash some guy's head in as he leaves a gay bar or chain a black or muslim man to your truck and drag him down the road to his death (yes this still goes on in the 21st century, disgustingly enough), that is a hate crime. At least, it's considered a hate crime if your motivation is clearly determined to be the person's race or sexual preference or religion or other elements. Why is a hate crime a separate level from the standard not hate-modified act? Well, the assertion is that a hate crime threatens and intimidates the entire group of people that identify with that person. Therefore, if you kill someone for their religion, you are impacting everyone in the region who shares that religion.
However, in the states, you are generally allowed to *say* whatever you want. It's your right as a citizen to be as ignorant and stupid and full of shit as you want and to let everyone know that you are. You just can't act on it. That's why the KKK is allowed to march through the streets in Idaho, wearing sheets and pointy hats and swastikas.
There are a lot of hot heads when it comes to hate crime legislation and while I don't necessarily wholly agree with it, those who are so hotly against it tend to significantly fail to comprehend what exactly the hate crime is. Their explanations are "if I kill you, isn't it a hate crime NO MATTER WHAT? I wouldn't kill you if I didn't hate you. Your skin color or sexuality don't make it worse than if I killed someone who wasn't your color or sexuality or religion!".
The reason it is "worse" -- the reason there are attempts to make legal exceptions to adjust the severity of punishment in crimes which are deemed "hate crimes" are that it is asserted hate crimes affect more than just the victim. If I break into your house and kill you in the act of robbing your home, I am committing a murder. But what if I see you walking down the street and the REASON I want to kill you is because of your ethnicity or sexual preference? I am not only killing you, but threatening and intimidating an entire group of people by that action.
The difficulty is in situations where it is not absolutely certain to declare that someone killed or harmed another person because of such things. Quite obviously many crimes occur in which the primary motive is "I hate all of yer kind cuz I'm a stupid ass ignorant dipshit", but that isn't always the case. Sometimes it is clear if that is the motive. Take the Mathew Shephard murder years ago.
So, while I tend to not have a problem with the concept of considering the greater community of people that you are threatening directly by committing a "hate crime", the fluidity and uncertainty of determining with all certainty in a great number of those cases that it is your motivation makes me a little uncomfortable in supporting these legislation attempts.
Of course, where speech is involved, all bets are off. If you beat someone to death on the street because you're a homophobe, then fuck you and I hope you get an extra heaping of punishment for doing so if it's proven beyond doubt that it was your motivation. But saying or writing something vile and hateful and disgusting? That should be your right. Because, in this country at least, you are allowed to discuss and spread all the ignorant bullshit you want to. We're a country of ideas and concepts. Your actions, however, are another matter.
And since that appears to be the case here, it is somewhat frustrating. There should be no criminalization of words and thoughts.
The best way to opt-out is to just use OpenDNS in the first place (as long as you don't do anything that requires a proper DNS response when a location doesn't exist). Functionally the same as Comcast redirecting you, I suppose, but at least they don't get to profit off of it.
Young? The average male lives to something like 72 years. That means that your 30s are your middle age. (30 years on the young side, 30 years on the old side, 10 years in between -- middle age).
So he's not OLD but he's not YOUNG by any stretch of the imagination. Your ability to rapidly learn new things drops drastically after the age of 25 and everything else starts to decay after 30 and 35. Not to mention the progression of time. You wake up tomorrow and suddenly you're 50 and it's too late for everything.
I have to be honest, at 32 and after 13 years in this career, I'm not so much considering whether I'll be forced into management in a decade but whether I'll be caught up in inevitable layoffs as I get older and decide to ditch the tech world and flip burgers for the rest of my life, instead. Despite one's love for technology and dedicated work ethic, you can only deal so much with corporate bullshit and company politics before you just want to spend the rest of your life flipping burgers in place you don't care about with people you don't care about that you have no vested interest in and then go home after the buzzer to drink beer and rot your brain watching some brain-numbing stupid mouth-breathing sit-com or sports team.
I don't know about that. It would appear to me that tech is easier to offshore than management and therefore the place to be. That said, there is no reason they can't start to offshore all of management soon, too.
Likewise, people convince themselves that they're happy with the stupidest simplest things, because the reality is things are shit. But if they can convince themselves that they are content with their lot in life, they can numb their mind into truly thinking "as long as my family loves me" or "as long as I'm in good health" or "as long as I get to play with whiz-bang-gidgy-widgets for a living" is enough in life.
Why do you think every parent has convinced themselves that parenthood is the most selfless and saintly act that deserves the worship of the rest of society and mankind? Because it ISN'T and the only way they can deal with puke on their clothes and trash cans full of shitty diapers and a constantly crying toothing child is by brain-washing themselves.
And what about your 50s? And 60s? Or if you're lucky enough to live longer, your 70s?
Also, having a good time is meaningless if you aren't paid enough. If all that mattered was doing what you loved, EVERYONE would be a videogame designer, painter, writer, actor, musician, porn star, beach bum. Platitudes don't pay bills and they don't allow you to retire or buy a house.
No, I think Slashdot generally seems to consider the reality of the tech world where for the most part technical persons place a high degree of value in their own competency and work ethic and management places a high degree of value in just not becoming unemployed.
That really answers nothing. The question wasn't what he would have more fun doing, but what he would be more employable in. Look, I love videogames and would love to play them for the rest of my life, but I understand as I get older my reaction time and joint pain and eyesight will eventually mean I can't play videogames anymore. Or at least not many of my favorites. Likewise, how much he enjoys tech work is irrelevant if the physical and mental decay brought about by age renders him incapable of performing the functions of his chosen career.
What this survey seems to prove is what we all already know.
Mouth-breathers with limited intellect tend to accept whatever they're told. They're the type who say "he must be guilty of something or they wouldn't be accusing him!" and associate exercise of the fifth and fourth amendments as admissions of guilt and think we have "too much free speech".
Those with higher intellect (and therefore, typically abstract thought which is what I feel is a more important component to perceiving the world and having a rational, intellectual, factual view and interpretation of things) are less likely to just flow with what they have been told by someone "in authority" and apply critical-thinking processes to ration the problem out.
It isn't necessarily that people who are great at MATH would come to this conclusion as intelligent people (capacity for abstract thought) would. I'm sure if you queried people in above the 89th percentile of *anything* that involves some intellect to be above the 89th percentile in, they'd have come largely to the same resolution.
I love how $30 billion for space exploration -- which is important for the future of the human race as well as for making sure we are not just subjected to everything being controlled by the Chinese or something outside of our planet -- is a unthinkably high price to everyone. But hundreds of billions to bail out banks? No sweat! $7.5 trillion dollars total corporate rescue spending? No problem, fella!
I have given up on expecting anything exciting or particularly stirring in a "spirit of human exploration" sort of way during my life time. The generation before me got to see us land on the moon. AT BEST, I'll get to see us.... uh... land on the moon. Again. *yawn*.
I'm as worried about this uSocial crap destroying Twitter as I am someone running over Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps. In fact, I'd view it as equally good news should any of those things happen.
A successfully adopted engine is their only truly viable option considering the not exactly stellar performance and reception of games like Doom 3, Quake 4, and Quake Wars. They need to focus on something. One thing. Regroup. Then come out swinging with that one haymaker rather than increasing the number of projects they're on and diluting their brands with titles that no longer rock the gaming world.
It isn't like they are lacking in fan-base or good-will, if they make such strides.
Also, there is no way they're going to stick with the name "Rage". I believe they learned once before that you need to use your engine as a marketing tool by tying it to your identity as a business and not calling it something obscure.
I'm not really sure why this is newsworthy again. There is a massive bank scam or other fraud or corporate infiltration every couple months in EVE-Online going back a number of years, now. It's a part of the game and happens regularly. Space is a cold and hard place.
It's sad that these people will unfairly do prison time while the woman who pretended to be a teenage boy in order to have sexual conversations with a thirteen year old girl and then devastate her by breaking up with her, therefore driving her to suicide, feels no guilt, no shame, and suffers no consequences.
The weight of our justice system in this country is as ludicrous and imbalanced and irrational as our supposed "morality" (usually imposed on the whole of society by the handful of absurdly religious lunatics who fail to comprehend the principals of self-determination and freedom that the country they live in was founded on).
If you're going to TAKE a year or more of someone's life away from them, there better be an unquestionably valid justification for doing so. Not this "well *I* don't like it so therefore..." bullshit.
I've seen strong reactions from various camps with regard to concern over saying no to SQL. I'm not sure why people freak out over it. First, you have to strike out toward new things if you want to progress the world. Second, SQL hasn't caused people to stop using spreadsheets or Access databases. Third, there are groups that get together to dispute that the earth is round; insisting that it is flat. Or that gray aliens are visiting earth regularly and probing our anuses.
Bring on the next fascinating data technology. SQL will continue to have a major place for many years to come, no matter what happens.
Your faith in humanity wasn't already lost by the fact that a woman who significantly contributed to the death of a child continues -- to this very day -- to be completely devoid of any sense of having done wrong?
You're totally right. It should be a free for all and people should be able to do whatever they want to do to someone who is a child and a quarter of their age and excuse it by say "but your honor, she was already a fucked up mess before I came along".
Brilliant.
I'm not arguing that her family should have been aware of something or perhaps been more attentive and concerned with their daughter's well-being, but their possible lacking in that department doesn't exonerate the actions someone else also committed.
None the less, imagine what the response would be (both as far as all of us in the public and from a legal standpoint) if a MAN had done exactly what Lori Drew did. That is, pretending to be a teenager in order to engage in sexual discussions with a thirteen year old girl (or however old she was).
This is a really fucked up situation, because the accused is clearly a bad person who did some vile, evil, revolting shit. Unfortunately, it seems the only way to properly punish her involves unfairly criminalizing nearly all of society for far lesser things.
It's difficult to take a side in this, because even those of us who approach things analytically and try to extract emotion from the process have a difficult time doing so due to the heinous nature of this person's acts.
Slashdot Mirror
Beating you to death for cutting me off in traffic affects you. Beating you to death for being of a certain ethnicity or sexual orientation or religion affects you and everyone else in the region who shares whatever it was that made me want to harm you who is now threatened and intimidated by your actions. That is how they differ and it is significant.
Whether it is reasonably applicable in practice is another question as it is often impossible to clearly discern someone's motivations. Of course, if they're a member of the KKK and wearing a shirt with a swastika and shooting up the church of a black congregation, it's not exactly rocket science to identify it.
You have a tiny little mind and live a tiny insignificant life if you harbor hatred and dislike over people for what they do on their own that in absolutely no way affects you or has anything to do with you. If you don't like "bein' gay" then don't be gay. STFU and let people live their lives as they see fit, so long as their actions do not directly negatively impact you, by, say, bashing your brains in with a bat for not liking you or something about you.
While that is true in many cases, it is not true in all of them.
It is vague in many circumstances and therefore should not be applied. Just because there are differences between the person committing the crime and the victim. However, in many circumstances it is absolutely clear. For example, if a couple neo-nazi's or KKK members have a couple of beers and go out on town and bash a couple of black guys, well.. it's not exactly hard to dissect that and find the motivation. A person's associations, behavior, and their actions and words during the time of the assault can often clearly isolate their motivation. And in such cases, I can see it reasonably being applied as per the crime's ripple effect on the community.
What needs to be considered when drawing up such legislation is whether the risk that comes with such criminal modification -- discerning someone's thoughts and intentions -- both in the immediate sentencing and the greater scope of law and justice over the years that may draw from that precedent to set worse laws. On the other hand, we already discern someone's thoughts and intentions and motivations when we modify their punishment because they are found insane or were not in their right mind at the moment or committed a crime of passion.
That must be a UK only thing, because in America you are allowed freedom of speech. However, if you go out and bash some guy's head in as he leaves a gay bar or chain a black or muslim man to your truck and drag him down the road to his death (yes this still goes on in the 21st century, disgustingly enough), that is a hate crime. At least, it's considered a hate crime if your motivation is clearly determined to be the person's race or sexual preference or religion or other elements. Why is a hate crime a separate level from the standard not hate-modified act? Well, the assertion is that a hate crime threatens and intimidates the entire group of people that identify with that person. Therefore, if you kill someone for their religion, you are impacting everyone in the region who shares that religion.
However, in the states, you are generally allowed to *say* whatever you want. It's your right as a citizen to be as ignorant and stupid and full of shit as you want and to let everyone know that you are. You just can't act on it. That's why the KKK is allowed to march through the streets in Idaho, wearing sheets and pointy hats and swastikas.
There are a lot of hot heads when it comes to hate crime legislation and while I don't necessarily wholly agree with it, those who are so hotly against it tend to significantly fail to comprehend what exactly the hate crime is. Their explanations are "if I kill you, isn't it a hate crime NO MATTER WHAT? I wouldn't kill you if I didn't hate you. Your skin color or sexuality don't make it worse than if I killed someone who wasn't your color or sexuality or religion!".
The reason it is "worse" -- the reason there are attempts to make legal exceptions to adjust the severity of punishment in crimes which are deemed "hate crimes" are that it is asserted hate crimes affect more than just the victim. If I break into your house and kill you in the act of robbing your home, I am committing a murder. But what if I see you walking down the street and the REASON I want to kill you is because of your ethnicity or sexual preference? I am not only killing you, but threatening and intimidating an entire group of people by that action.
The difficulty is in situations where it is not absolutely certain to declare that someone killed or harmed another person because of such things. Quite obviously many crimes occur in which the primary motive is "I hate all of yer kind cuz I'm a stupid ass ignorant dipshit", but that isn't always the case. Sometimes it is clear if that is the motive. Take the Mathew Shephard murder years ago.
So, while I tend to not have a problem with the concept of considering the greater community of people that you are threatening directly by committing a "hate crime", the fluidity and uncertainty of determining with all certainty in a great number of those cases that it is your motivation makes me a little uncomfortable in supporting these legislation attempts.
Of course, where speech is involved, all bets are off. If you beat someone to death on the street because you're a homophobe, then fuck you and I hope you get an extra heaping of punishment for doing so if it's proven beyond doubt that it was your motivation. But saying or writing something vile and hateful and disgusting? That should be your right. Because, in this country at least, you are allowed to discuss and spread all the ignorant bullshit you want to. We're a country of ideas and concepts. Your actions, however, are another matter.
And since that appears to be the case here, it is somewhat frustrating. There should be no criminalization of words and thoughts.
The best way to opt-out is to just use OpenDNS in the first place (as long as you don't do anything that requires a proper DNS response when a location doesn't exist). Functionally the same as Comcast redirecting you, I suppose, but at least they don't get to profit off of it.
Young? The average male lives to something like 72 years. That means that your 30s are your middle age. (30 years on the young side, 30 years on the old side, 10 years in between -- middle age).
So he's not OLD but he's not YOUNG by any stretch of the imagination. Your ability to rapidly learn new things drops drastically after the age of 25 and everything else starts to decay after 30 and 35. Not to mention the progression of time. You wake up tomorrow and suddenly you're 50 and it's too late for everything.
I have to be honest, at 32 and after 13 years in this career, I'm not so much considering whether I'll be forced into management in a decade but whether I'll be caught up in inevitable layoffs as I get older and decide to ditch the tech world and flip burgers for the rest of my life, instead. Despite one's love for technology and dedicated work ethic, you can only deal so much with corporate bullshit and company politics before you just want to spend the rest of your life flipping burgers in place you don't care about with people you don't care about that you have no vested interest in and then go home after the buzzer to drink beer and rot your brain watching some brain-numbing stupid mouth-breathing sit-com or sports team.
I don't know about that. It would appear to me that tech is easier to offshore than management and therefore the place to be. That said, there is no reason they can't start to offshore all of management soon, too.
I get joy out of having a high dollar-to-time-spent ratio. I couldn't care less what it is I have to do as long as the ratio is high.
Likewise, people convince themselves that they're happy with the stupidest simplest things, because the reality is things are shit. But if they can convince themselves that they are content with their lot in life, they can numb their mind into truly thinking "as long as my family loves me" or "as long as I'm in good health" or "as long as I get to play with whiz-bang-gidgy-widgets for a living" is enough in life.
Why do you think every parent has convinced themselves that parenthood is the most selfless and saintly act that deserves the worship of the rest of society and mankind? Because it ISN'T and the only way they can deal with puke on their clothes and trash cans full of shitty diapers and a constantly crying toothing child is by brain-washing themselves.
And what about your 50s? And 60s? Or if you're lucky enough to live longer, your 70s?
Also, having a good time is meaningless if you aren't paid enough. If all that mattered was doing what you loved, EVERYONE would be a videogame designer, painter, writer, actor, musician, porn star, beach bum. Platitudes don't pay bills and they don't allow you to retire or buy a house.
No, I think Slashdot generally seems to consider the reality of the tech world where for the most part technical persons place a high degree of value in their own competency and work ethic and management places a high degree of value in just not becoming unemployed.
That really answers nothing. The question wasn't what he would have more fun doing, but what he would be more employable in. Look, I love videogames and would love to play them for the rest of my life, but I understand as I get older my reaction time and joint pain and eyesight will eventually mean I can't play videogames anymore. Or at least not many of my favorites. Likewise, how much he enjoys tech work is irrelevant if the physical and mental decay brought about by age renders him incapable of performing the functions of his chosen career.
What this survey seems to prove is what we all already know.
Mouth-breathers with limited intellect tend to accept whatever they're told. They're the type who say "he must be guilty of something or they wouldn't be accusing him!" and associate exercise of the fifth and fourth amendments as admissions of guilt and think we have "too much free speech".
Those with higher intellect (and therefore, typically abstract thought which is what I feel is a more important component to perceiving the world and having a rational, intellectual, factual view and interpretation of things) are less likely to just flow with what they have been told by someone "in authority" and apply critical-thinking processes to ration the problem out.
It isn't necessarily that people who are great at MATH would come to this conclusion as intelligent people (capacity for abstract thought) would. I'm sure if you queried people in above the 89th percentile of *anything* that involves some intellect to be above the 89th percentile in, they'd have come largely to the same resolution.
I love how $30 billion for space exploration -- which is important for the future of the human race as well as for making sure we are not just subjected to everything being controlled by the Chinese or something outside of our planet -- is a unthinkably high price to everyone. But hundreds of billions to bail out banks? No sweat! $7.5 trillion dollars total corporate rescue spending? No problem, fella!
I have given up on expecting anything exciting or particularly stirring in a "spirit of human exploration" sort of way during my life time. The generation before me got to see us land on the moon. AT BEST, I'll get to see us.... uh... land on the moon. Again. *yawn*.
I'm as worried about this uSocial crap destroying Twitter as I am someone running over Pat Robertson or Fred Phelps. In fact, I'd view it as equally good news should any of those things happen.
A successfully adopted engine is their only truly viable option considering the not exactly stellar performance and reception of games like Doom 3, Quake 4, and Quake Wars. They need to focus on something. One thing. Regroup. Then come out swinging with that one haymaker rather than increasing the number of projects they're on and diluting their brands with titles that no longer rock the gaming world.
It isn't like they are lacking in fan-base or good-will, if they make such strides.
Also, there is no way they're going to stick with the name "Rage". I believe they learned once before that you need to use your engine as a marketing tool by tying it to your identity as a business and not calling it something obscure.
You have already evolved at least one step above most of society, where the norm is to be married and have children *and* be broke.
I'm not really sure why this is newsworthy again. There is a massive bank scam or other fraud or corporate infiltration every couple months in EVE-Online going back a number of years, now. It's a part of the game and happens regularly. Space is a cold and hard place.
It's sad that these people will unfairly do prison time while the woman who pretended to be a teenage boy in order to have sexual conversations with a thirteen year old girl and then devastate her by breaking up with her, therefore driving her to suicide, feels no guilt, no shame, and suffers no consequences.
The weight of our justice system in this country is as ludicrous and imbalanced and irrational as our supposed "morality" (usually imposed on the whole of society by the handful of absurdly religious lunatics who fail to comprehend the principals of self-determination and freedom that the country they live in was founded on).
If you're going to TAKE a year or more of someone's life away from them, there better be an unquestionably valid justification for doing so. Not this "well *I* don't like it so therefore..." bullshit.
I've seen strong reactions from various camps with regard to concern over saying no to SQL. I'm not sure why people freak out over it. First, you have to strike out toward new things if you want to progress the world. Second, SQL hasn't caused people to stop using spreadsheets or Access databases. Third, there are groups that get together to dispute that the earth is round; insisting that it is flat. Or that gray aliens are visiting earth regularly and probing our anuses.
Bring on the next fascinating data technology. SQL will continue to have a major place for many years to come, no matter what happens.
Your faith in humanity wasn't already lost by the fact that a woman who significantly contributed to the death of a child continues -- to this very day -- to be completely devoid of any sense of having done wrong?
You're totally right. It should be a free for all and people should be able to do whatever they want to do to someone who is a child and a quarter of their age and excuse it by say "but your honor, she was already a fucked up mess before I came along".
Brilliant.
I'm not arguing that her family should have been aware of something or perhaps been more attentive and concerned with their daughter's well-being, but their possible lacking in that department doesn't exonerate the actions someone else also committed.
None the less, imagine what the response would be (both as far as all of us in the public and from a legal standpoint) if a MAN had done exactly what Lori Drew did. That is, pretending to be a teenager in order to engage in sexual discussions with a thirteen year old girl (or however old she was).
This is a really fucked up situation, because the accused is clearly a bad person who did some vile, evil, revolting shit. Unfortunately, it seems the only way to properly punish her involves unfairly criminalizing nearly all of society for far lesser things.
It's difficult to take a side in this, because even those of us who approach things analytically and try to extract emotion from the process have a difficult time doing so due to the heinous nature of this person's acts.
*sigh*