I wonder how long it would take to reach 25% of c by repeatedly slingshotting a large multi-generation colony ship around the Sun...
A slingshot around the Sun would not in itself change your velocity relative to the Sun. If you do a powered slingshot, it would give you more bang for your thruster buck, so you would reach 25% of c in less time, depending on how much thrust you can manage. But the escape velocity of the Sun is only.2% of c, so I would not expect much help.
I'll be waiting for CSI: Coruscant "We found him in the Academy sewers and the burns on the decapitated corpse indicate lightsaber cuts, which means the killer is probably... *beat* It's not a Jedi that I'm looking for. Please move along. Move along!"
Actually, there is a Coruscant Nights book series written like a noir detective story.
And if you like that idea, I can also recommend The Sword-Edged Blonde, She Murdered Me With Science, and The Case of the Toxic Spell Dump.
If you have a genetic test, test the fetus before birth. If it's positive, abort it. Allowing a child with a serious disease to be born is as bad as intentionally inflicting that disease on an infant.
That is no good as an solution. Or rather, call it the "Final Solution," because I guarantee you'll get comparisons to Hitler and eugenics. A great many people equate abortion to murder, and will equate what you propose to a mercy-killing of someone on life support without consent.
I just think America can reduce healthcare costs and take care of those without insurance without a 2,000-page purely one-party bill put together in secret backroom deals attempting to completely restructure ~20% of the US economy and having the government intruding even more on individual freedom and choice while likely actually increasing healthcare costs and the national debt with a new entitlement, reducing quality-of-care, still not insuring everybody, and not even addressing tort reform.
Shouldn't reform actually...you know...*reform*?
There are those who think the current health-care bill goes too far, because it restructures ~20% of the economy and has the government intruding even more on individual freedom and choice. There are those who think the bill doesn't go far enough, because it does not insure everybody, does not address tort reform, and does not go to a single-payer system. And there are those who think the bill is a bad idea either way, because they think it will increase healthcare costs and the national debt.
And then there's you, who are all three camps in one. You are screwed. It is like the old saying: cheap, fast, good, pick two. Except for heath care reform we have low cost, complete coverage, choice, pick two.
One of the things that pissed me off about the Republican offerings — where they weren't smoke and mirrors altogether — was that they were very corporation-centric. The Republicans basically forgot about everyone who is jobless, self-employed, or working for a small independent company (the biggest segment of employees, I hear). That is not universal coverage.
And tort reform is nice, but Christ, you need more than that! There is not enough money to be squeezed from tort reform savings to be the cornerstone of any bill. That's what the CBO says, and I see no reason to doubt them.
If you know what's what about health care, make your suggestion. Send it in to your congressmen, the president, the parties. But if you are like most of us, without a good understanding of the sector, then be prepared to learn that maybe we can't do any better and be prepared to live with compromise.
Refusing to fight back when it is called for is correctly termed 'cowardice' and is 'wrong'. Duking it out, when required, and when proper, can be noble and yes, is 'right'.
I find that mentality rather scary. But then again, so did the Jews during WWII.
A little early for Godwin, isn't it?
I tell you, I find pacifism to be rather scary. How is a society going to be a fit place to live — or a school a fit place to learn — if no one takes responsibility for reining in the bullies, miscreants, etc.? You can't rely on authority figures to do it. It is your responsibility, it is everyone's responsibility, to make the world a better place. The only tools you have, though, are peer pressure, reason, charisma, and punching. Bullies are not amenable to reason, charisma only works if you have it, and peer pressure relies on your ability to influence a bully's peers. Often, only punching is available.
When punching is the only option, a pacifist not only rejects his responsibility as a member of a society, but also claims that taking on the responsibility is morally wrong. I am not okay with that.
Those kind of tactics don't work very well when it's more passive-aggressive bullying, like the shit middle school girls pull (you'd not believe me if I told you.)
This is a good point. I imagine this kind of bullying is becoming more common as more schools implement zero-tolerance policies. I don't know what I could recommend to a kid in this situation, other than to get friends and use them to buff your self-esteem and find a better place in an alternate hierarchy.
Bleach is the nuke that people who are serious about killing bacteria use to clean their counters with. Antibacterial cleaners are the things the amateurs at home use.
I've heard that no common bacteria survives bleach, but many survive antibiotics, and more gain the ability every day.
Reading the forums alot of the apple fans don't seem to like it. They can't figure out what to use it for or they don't like the restrictions. A lot of tablets are coming out this year that are more open.
That Wednesday, someone set up an #ipad channel on IRC. It was almost entirely filled by negative comments. People who like something don't really feel a need to praise or defend it, not nearly as much as people who dislike something feel a need to rag on it.
Haters hate. And there's no such thing as "likers."
Er, yeah. The feature of fewer features generally gets described as "now even easier to use," and a lot of software would benefit from it. (Background apps might not be one of the features that is good to remove, but that is a different question.)
No, but they certainly aren't free, or fit to be free. Not until they can take care of themselves in the big, bad world. And it's best to let the parents decide when their kids can do that and what tools their kids should have in their metaphorical toolbox (beyond a certain minimum set over which the parents should have no say).
The BSIG ought to require those using the Bluetooth logo to specify which profiles a device supports, for the sake of consumer awareness and market pressure.
They have standardized a series of icons indicating support for headsets, input devices, file transfer, etc. If you use those icons, you have to be supporting specific profiles.
It should be fine. All you need is a way to set it at an angle. Apple sells a case that holds it at, I guess, a 30 or 60 angle from the table. There will be other products that are more adjustable.
You think that people get to the point of gay-beating and rape without being massively psychologically damaged? Really?
Sure. All it takes is peer pressure. Some booze. Poor parenting. A very, very bad month. A gang -- or fraternity -- initiation. Any number of things. It's cute how you are so innocent.:-)
I understand where you're coming from - but real and permanent re-socialization does not and cannot come from this sort of psychological warfare.
The whole "break them down, then rebuild them" myth of psychological restructuring is a terrible, ill-founded idea, that has been discredited time and time again.
Could very well be. It does sound reasonable, but many incorrect things do, and I am no psychologist. I think I was arguing more for harsher, shorter sentences than actual "break down and rebuild" like the GGG-etc.-P was talking about, anyway.
Moral issues aside, it's a bad idea. You're dealing largely with damaged and anti-social psychologies to begin with - "organized" crime being a tiny minority of those crimes sentenced in the U.S.
So, you take people who are already psychologically damaged, and subject them to high stress for an extended period of time. Not actually going to help build a stable personality. You might successfully brainwash them, but that's both unethical, and has other lasting problems.
Yeah, this treatment would not be a good idea for someone who already has psychological damage. But for your typical small-time hood, gay-beater, or rapist, the intense disorientation tactics might work well as a disincentive.
And it would not would not be brainwashing. It would be re-socialization, like I said. Encounter groups, counseling, prison ministers, or whatever.
More often than not, when offenders gather like that it is merely a front for exchanging information on stuff going on on the outside, info on rival gangs, plans to hurt or kill other offenders, etc.
Mod up. Parent could be right. Maybe the report got garbled and the GM actually was issuing instructions to gang members.
Any terror loses teeth once you actually experience it. It may still be bad, but it loses that aura of irrational fear. I was scared of heights until I jumped off a roof. Now I just respect heights. I was terror-stricken and panicked that time I nearly drowned. Now, I would handle it much more calmly.
I suppose one consequence of living in such a sheltered society as we do is I have to call the parent's post "insightful" instead of "blindingly obvious." You'd think more people would have experienced something that they greatly feared, but no.
What an interesting concept. Of course, we would need to ensure that it would actually work for the intended purpose. Would you be willing to be the first test subject of your own suggested "solution?"
Of course you know that would not be a valid test. The GP would have to be the sort of person who would and does commit crimes in order to use him as a model to see if that kind of incarceration has the desired effect.
This kind of argument pisses me off. "Oh yeah? Well, if it is such a good idea, why don't you go first?" What you are ignoring is that he is suggesting this punishment for a convict, not for an innocent man.
A legitimate reason for him to undergo that kind of incarceration, though, is to see if it is an intolerable punishment for an innocent man. And of course it is. Any kind of incarceration is. That is why our legal system says it is better to let a hundred criminals go free than to jail an innocent man.
Slashdot Mirror
A slingshot around the Sun would not in itself change your velocity relative to the Sun. If you do a powered slingshot, it would give you more bang for your thruster buck, so you would reach 25% of c in less time, depending on how much thrust you can manage. But the escape velocity of the Sun is only .2% of c, so I would not expect much help.
Actually, there is a Coruscant Nights book series written like a noir detective story.
And if you like that idea, I can also recommend The Sword-Edged Blonde, She Murdered Me With Science, and The Case of the Toxic Spell Dump.
"This is blasphemy! This is madness!"
"Madness...? This...is...AAPPPLEEE!"
I don't know about Stephen Harper...but those onion rings look pretty good.
Access is totally sweet, because its entire purpose is to flip out and kill the enterprise.
A good game should leave you tired and sore all over not just your ass.
Uh, what? I hesitate to ask which game you were playing. The Wii controller does NOT go there!
That is no good as an solution. Or rather, call it the "Final Solution," because I guarantee you'll get comparisons to Hitler and eugenics. A great many people equate abortion to murder, and will equate what you propose to a mercy-killing of someone on life support without consent.
There are those who think the current health-care bill goes too far, because it restructures ~20% of the economy and has the government intruding even more on individual freedom and choice. There are those who think the bill doesn't go far enough, because it does not insure everybody, does not address tort reform, and does not go to a single-payer system. And there are those who think the bill is a bad idea either way, because they think it will increase healthcare costs and the national debt.
And then there's you, who are all three camps in one. You are screwed. It is like the old saying: cheap, fast, good, pick two. Except for heath care reform we have low cost, complete coverage, choice, pick two.
One of the things that pissed me off about the Republican offerings — where they weren't smoke and mirrors altogether — was that they were very corporation-centric. The Republicans basically forgot about everyone who is jobless, self-employed, or working for a small independent company (the biggest segment of employees, I hear). That is not universal coverage.
And tort reform is nice, but Christ, you need more than that! There is not enough money to be squeezed from tort reform savings to be the cornerstone of any bill. That's what the CBO says, and I see no reason to doubt them.
If you know what's what about health care, make your suggestion. Send it in to your congressmen, the president, the parties. But if you are like most of us, without a good understanding of the sector, then be prepared to learn that maybe we can't do any better and be prepared to live with compromise.
A little early for Godwin, isn't it?
I tell you, I find pacifism to be rather scary. How is a society going to be a fit place to live — or a school a fit place to learn — if no one takes responsibility for reining in the bullies, miscreants, etc.? You can't rely on authority figures to do it. It is your responsibility, it is everyone's responsibility, to make the world a better place. The only tools you have, though, are peer pressure, reason, charisma, and punching. Bullies are not amenable to reason, charisma only works if you have it, and peer pressure relies on your ability to influence a bully's peers. Often, only punching is available.
When punching is the only option, a pacifist not only rejects his responsibility as a member of a society, but also claims that taking on the responsibility is morally wrong. I am not okay with that.
This is a good point. I imagine this kind of bullying is becoming more common as more schools implement zero-tolerance policies. I don't know what I could recommend to a kid in this situation, other than to get friends and use them to buff your self-esteem and find a better place in an alternate hierarchy.
I've heard that no common bacteria survives bleach, but many survive antibiotics, and more gain the ability every day.
That Wednesday, someone set up an #ipad channel on IRC. It was almost entirely filled by negative comments. People who like something don't really feel a need to praise or defend it, not nearly as much as people who dislike something feel a need to rag on it.
Haters hate. And there's no such thing as "likers."
Has removing features ever been a good feature?
Er, yeah. The feature of fewer features generally gets described as "now even easier to use," and a lot of software would benefit from it. (Background apps might not be one of the features that is good to remove, but that is a different question.)
Children aren't property.
No, but they certainly aren't free, or fit to be free. Not until they can take care of themselves in the big, bad world. And it's best to let the parents decide when their kids can do that and what tools their kids should have in their metaphorical toolbox (beyond a certain minimum set over which the parents should have no say).
The BSIG ought to require those using the Bluetooth logo to specify which profiles a device supports, for the sake of consumer awareness and market pressure.
They have standardized a series of icons indicating support for headsets, input devices, file transfer, etc. If you use those icons, you have to be supporting specific profiles.
Holding down the Home button is for killing off the current running app.
I'm guessing that was the joke.
It should be fine. All you need is a way to set it at an angle. Apple sells a case that holds it at, I guess, a 30 or 60 angle from the table. There will be other products that are more adjustable.
I meant that it should first be tested to make sure that the suggested "solution" would not just drive the inmate insane.
Oh. Carry on, then.
You think that people get to the point of gay-beating and rape without being massively psychologically damaged? Really?
Sure. All it takes is peer pressure. Some booze. Poor parenting. A very, very bad month. A gang -- or fraternity -- initiation. Any number of things. It's cute how you are so innocent. :-)
I understand where you're coming from - but real and permanent re-socialization does not and cannot come from this sort of psychological warfare.
The whole "break them down, then rebuild them" myth of psychological restructuring is a terrible, ill-founded idea, that has been discredited time and time again.
Could very well be. It does sound reasonable, but many incorrect things do, and I am no psychologist. I think I was arguing more for harsher, shorter sentences than actual "break down and rebuild" like the GGG-etc.-P was talking about, anyway.
Yeah, this treatment would not be a good idea for someone who already has psychological damage. But for your typical small-time hood, gay-beater, or rapist, the intense disorientation tactics might work well as a disincentive.
And it would not would not be brainwashing. It would be re-socialization, like I said. Encounter groups, counseling, prison ministers, or whatever.
More often than not, when offenders gather like that it is merely a front for exchanging information on stuff going on on the outside, info on rival gangs, plans to hurt or kill other offenders, etc.
Mod up. Parent could be right. Maybe the report got garbled and the GM actually was issuing instructions to gang members.
What do you do with that sort of psychopath other than seperate them from society? ... in her case there is no rational alternative to confinement.
It used to be that the rational alternative was Australia. :-)
deterrence, protection, rehabilitation, and vindication
I think you mean "revenge." "Vindication" means "ha ha I was right after all."
Mod up insightful.
Any terror loses teeth once you actually experience it. It may still be bad, but it loses that aura of irrational fear. I was scared of heights until I jumped off a roof. Now I just respect heights. I was terror-stricken and panicked that time I nearly drowned. Now, I would handle it much more calmly.
I suppose one consequence of living in such a sheltered society as we do is I have to call the parent's post "insightful" instead of "blindingly obvious." You'd think more people would have experienced something that they greatly feared, but no.
What an interesting concept. Of course, we would need to ensure that it would actually work for the intended purpose. Would you be willing to be the first test subject of your own suggested "solution?"
Of course you know that would not be a valid test. The GP would have to be the sort of person who would and does commit crimes in order to use him as a model to see if that kind of incarceration has the desired effect.
This kind of argument pisses me off. "Oh yeah? Well, if it is such a good idea, why don't you go first?" What you are ignoring is that he is suggesting this punishment for a convict, not for an innocent man.
A legitimate reason for him to undergo that kind of incarceration, though, is to see if it is an intolerable punishment for an innocent man. And of course it is. Any kind of incarceration is. That is why our legal system says it is better to let a hundred criminals go free than to jail an innocent man.