Which logical fallacy was it where you stand up a situation and then silently remove a piece of that situation? You've claimed "appropriate situations", and then removed the concept.
It *is* appropriate to kill in self-defense where other alternatives are significantly less profitable. If you have a 90% likelihood of death in self-defense by non-lethal means and a 90% likelihood of survival by applying lethal self-defense, it is more profitable to apply lethal self-defense. You are not morally obligated to take a severe risk of death to avoid harming a man who is trying to kill you and has damn good chance of succeeding.
Dividends are created in stocks, yes. They don't get paid in from company bank accounts which are credited the total dividend debited into the market; the money simply appears out of the ether.
In two weeks, they can decide if they need to stay execution longer.
People like to absolve themselves for what they do not do. How is putting a man in jail for 20 years not killing him? When he comes out, he is a ruined man. He may be a hardened criminal, and may then commit violent crimes again--not because it's his nature, but because he has had 20 years in prison to be forged into a man who has much lower inhibitions for murder. Now his crimes are on your head, and the blood of the innocents who die are on your hands.
Punishment as a deterrent is a complex topic. In cases where executions are not deterrent, we inevitably execute 1 innocent man for 0 innocent lives saved, a ratio of 1/0 or infinite failure. In cases where executions are deterrent, we have a 1/X ratio; if X is positive, we are successfully saving lives overall. We want two things: the fewest innocent people executed per guilty executed (a fraction, i.e. 1 per 99 or 1/99), and the most innocent lives saved by deterrent (also a ratio, i.e. 1 innocent lost per 10 saved or 1/10).
Even if we execute 1 innocent per 10,000 murderers, if we save no innocents by deterrent then we are failing. If we execute 1 innocent per 1 murderer, but save 10 innocents by deterrent for every 1 executed, there will be 10 times as much blood on our hands if we stop; this system is as acceptable as the former and, be it 1/1 or 1/10000, we should strive to reduce the number of innocents lost by incorrect judgment. Although we should target our efforts at the worst ones, we can never consider a system where one innocent is lost as more acceptable; it simply has less need.
I don't see how my constitutional rights free me from morality here at all.
"Cruel and unusual punishment" is interpreted by the observer.
We should bring back medieval punishment. We should quarter people we execute: tie a rope to their head and body, ensure the head severs first--and have a bolt smash the back of the skull besides--such that the transition to death is not noticed. We should flog and cane people for minor offenses. We should do so publicly, on occasion, but on so little occasion so as to not desensitize the crowd to it.
A brutal, gruesome execution may be swift and painless yet incredibly upsetting to the observer. This is good. The observer should hold the resolve that what is done need doing. He should face the consequences of what need doing, so that his senses sicken him and so that he will have no eagerness to have such a thing done. A peaceful execution does not disturb the observer, and he readily accepts the causality of trail and execution; a brutal, disturbing execution forces the observer to grasp for justice, to demand that execution follow *crime*, to question the competence of trial and demand certainty about that which we do.
We have likewise grown too accustomed to the ideal imprisonment, a peaceful alternative to medieval torture. We have forgotten the true nature of torture, the crushing psychological force of long, unending terror for the coming, unending pain. Floggings are swift; the agony does not go on for hours or days on end, although the pain lingers. Prison destroys a man; a petty thief does not deserve weeks or months rotting while his finances dwindle, while his relationships fall apart, while his home is reclaimed by his landlord for lack of payment. Doubtless we wrongly absolve ourselves of this ideal of murder by placing an innocent man in prison, claiming that we can release him in ten or fifteen years if he proves innocent; doubtless we release nothing more than a walking corpse.
We have become a despicable people who claim ourselves civilized because we have painted over all of the offensive things we do in bright pastels.
Say it with me: Writing passwords down is not a security problem.
Writing passwords down in a place where they can be obtained within the bounds of your threat model is a security problem. My passwords are written in invisible ink in a book kept inside a locked filing cabinet at my desk; likewise, I have a password safe that double-encrypts with a long password (all lower case and spaces) as a symmetric key for the real key used in two passes of AES+Blowfish. If someone is in here looking through my cabinet with the foresight to bring a UV flashlight, locate my password book, shine the light on it, and interpret the passwords (i.e. know what to use them for), we have other problems.
Now if I were to take the book from the office and lose it somewhere, that's different. In fact, the book should not leave the office. Any password list which travels should contain only passwords; it should not contain an explanation that they are passwords, or what system they're for, or to what entity they belong. Depending on security needs, it may be inappropriate to ever move a password list.
I'm quite used to a threat model where losing my card results in compromise. I know how to handle that. Having the PIN written on the card is the same threat model; it's acceptable to me.
In this case, it's more like someone asked for a flower bed and you gave them sculpted topiary. Everything is cut to precise structure, rather than natural and fluid. Jar-Jar stands out because he is natural and fluid; the cast doesn't react to him well at all; but they react just as flatly to everything else, so their poor acting appears good and Jar-Jar's more dynamic character appears disruptive.
He stands out too much. I don't think the character's actually bad, just that modern cinematic performance cannot keep up. Like wearing a $400 blazer over some clothes from The Gap.
Sure, but in the meantime, the PIN prevents the card from being used since the thief doesn't know what it is.
As I said above: This is an extreme minority case. It would be as if you prepared your house with steel doors and barred windows and turrets and artillery so as to prepare for invasion by an armed mob of rioters. It happens once in a while, every several decades; but now it is inconvenient to get into your house, and your house is expensive and needs much maintenance. This is not worth doing.
It also prevents the card from being cloned (assuming that's possible) and used elsewhere even though you have your card in your wallet.
It's not possible in the model I described. You can't copy the card. The card has a data channel which you send input and it returns output; the contents of the card cannot be cloned except by physically prying off the chip, using acid to dissolve the case, and then using a scanning electron microscope to examine the integrated circuitry. At this point, you don't have the card in your wallet.
My point was that inaction is not moral absolution.
Punishments act as a deterrent when the punishment is effective--that is, when the punishment is both the most likely thing to occur as a consequence *and* when the punishment is perceived as severe.
For example: in peaceful, low-crime suburbs where the population is not acclimated to violence, a violent crime is unlikely to end in justifiable homicide (self defense by killing), and so whatever the state hands out as sentence is the most likely consequence. Conversely, in violent ghettos plagued by gang turf wars, the most common practical consequence of violent crime is hazard: gang criminals are killed more often in gang wars than they're arrested. The difference between a fine, jail time, and execution in the first group is what actually happens as consequence; in the second group, it's just a bunch of bullshit they don't have time to worry about because they're more concerned with the immediate risk of death than some abstract idea of state execution..
Likewise, in rich towns, fines are bullshit; in poor towns, people can be crippled and destroyed by a $40 parking ticket. The same punishment is more or less effective depending on the culture. Community service works well where people are generally law-abiding and afraid of the legal process itself; imprisonment and executions--both exceedingly harmful--are necessary when dealing with people who have no appreciation for the law. Executions are appropriate where capital criminals do not fear long imprisonment.
We posit two situations from the above: the situation where execution is not a deterrent; and the situation in which it is.
In the situation where execution is not a deterrent, executions do not save lives. Executing an innocent man is a loss of innocent life, which is harmful and to be avoided. We are morally obligated to this.
In the situation where execution is a deterrent, executions save lives. The effectiveness of executions has two parameters: Ratio of criminals to innocents and ratio of innocents executed to innocents saved. A good system may execute 99 criminals and 1 innocent while deterring enough murder as to save the lives of 10 innocents for every 1 innocent executed. A poor system may execute 1 criminal per 1 innocent, or save 2 innocents per 1 executed.
In either case where execution is a deterrent, withdrawing execution means more innocent people die in violent crime. Where it is not a deterrent, the error factor is infinite: any 1 innocent executed has a share in 0 lives saved, 1/0 is infinite, and we cannot justify this. Thus, where it is a deterrent, we are morally obligated to have state executions; where it is not a deterrent, we are morally obligated to not have state executions.
This does not go away when execution is not a deterrent. Imprisonment is harmful: a man imprisoned during a critical part of his life will lose or never develop his family and career, while becoming distant with his friends and financially ruined. We thus face the same: rather than executed versus save, the numbers are imprisoned versus saved: a poor system may imprison as many innocent people as criminals!
We cannot solve this by eliminating state execution. We must instead improve our system, both in swiftness and in accuracy. Some believe we execute 1 innocent man for every 24 violent criminals; this should become 1 innocent man for every 99 violent criminals, and then even higher. We should likewise attempt to stay execution where we feel it not to be a deterrent, and carry it out where we feel it is; this will increase the overall effectiveness, saving more innocent lives per execution, of which inadvertently executed innocents have a share.
We can improve in this way by improving the stricture of evidence required for execution; but we would gain the most benefit from improving the system wholesale. Such improvement will reduce the number of innocents in prison as well as the number of innocents exec
It's political when you're "going to do it" for years and then, the moment you can lord it over someone you don't like and show off how great you are, you finally pull the trigger and shout out to everyone how great you are.
Politics, like Go, is not about the precise action; it's about the timing of that action.
It's a matter of timing. This has been in the pipeline for a while; it got pushed through with immediacy as a political move. Reread the whole statement: this has been a long time coming, but it only happens at a critical political moment. Like Congress sitting on an important bill to provide mental healthcare and treatment for pedophiles for 8 years until there's a high-profile child murder-rape by an individual who obviously caved under the stress of his urge, and then passing it in a powerful show of strong, effective leadership.
It's a video which presents logical information. In conversation, 7% of information is verbal; but in informational writing--reviews, mathematics texts, descriptions of the contents of tea and their pharmacological effects--100% of the information is verbal. Presenting this information as a video is not informational; it's entertainment at best, persuasive at worst.
Let's emphasize: A primary reason to make a review as a video is to deliver a persuasive speech so that people agree with you.
I can crunch through hundreds of Amazon reviews for dozens of products in ten minutes. If each were a video, they'd be 1-3 minutes each and it would take me several hours; I usually watch one such review if present, purely to see the operation of a device, and then avoid such slowly-delivered ranting. A common comment on Fark for links to videos with no article is, "Where's the transcript?" The US Government publishes both video and transcript of SOTU and Congressional sessions.
So when you can get me a source I can ingest at 800wpm and/or skip over the meaningless fluff in, I'll be interested. This is, however, not an interesting form of entertainment for me.
Is Ceph a transactional system with an operations log for the relevant object stores, or just a haphazard backing store with some semblance of synchronization? GlusterFS needs to scan the entire filesystem after it's been offline to heal: if you offline Node 1 and place a file in/mnt/gluster/file.txt, then you must stat()/mnt/gluster/file.txt after Node 1 comes back up to propagate the file to Node 1. This provides much difficulty in auto-healing and conflict resolution.
The primary fraud problem with the current system isn't a window between a stolen card and its deactivation; it's stolen card numbers sold on an open exchange. Bruce Schneier covers ATM pin stealing mechanisms fitted over the card slot fairly often: read the mag stripe, record the pin with a camera, transmit wireless signal to a laptop in a nearby coffee shop.
A hardware verification process removes this possibility entirely: a person must physically gain control of your card to use it. The current system detects when you swipe in New York, then California an hour later; it also detects large geographical changes in gas station use without travel tickets--you won't drive from New York to California without hitting gas stations along the way. A PIN system does nothing to cover the majority threats; it covers a tiny stolen card threat which almost never happens, at the expense of annoying people who swipe credit cards because punching in 3387 or 4129 or whatever the hell the PIN for this card was usually ends in the card being deactivated.
Personally, I've had my HSA deactivated a few times because I couldn't remember the PIN. I had 3 debit cards and an HSA credit/debit card at the time, and the HSA always defaults to debit. The first time, I hadn't actually set a PIN. My solution was to unlock the card (wait an hour--even support can't unlock it) and press "CANCEL" on the PIN pad, then sign.
My solution with C&P will be to write the PIN on the back of the card or, more subtly, use 0(CVV). I don't do this with debit cards because I use them as credit cards to avoid entering a PIN ever.
Watch the film cut of the Rocky Horror Picture Show, with Tim Curry.
Then watch something like Avengers, SWE1, or the like.
You'll notice a lot of modern acting involves standing in a pose, focusing on the active dialogue deliverer or other direct action, then delivering a line of dialogue or taking an action. Opera and theater take this to an extreme: people exchange lines and actions in grand maneuver, conveying a story. Modern acting has made this form of simple delivery more fluid; however, it is not lifelike.
I point out RHPS because the actors appear to live in their roles: they acknowledge the set and the people around them as people in a place of fantasy. When Janet looks to Brad for security, she is Janet looking to Brad for security; she is not an actress executing a practiced motion with a deep inner focus on herself. Tim Curry isn't strutting around singing and acting flamboyant; he is throwing inner urges and rude mannerisms in the face of guests at his castle, largely for his own amusement.
Jar-Jar is so jarring in part because he doesn't feel like he belongs in Star Wars. He doesn't fit in the movie. There are people trying to act, and there's this jackass who hasn't figured out it's all just a show and is running around like it's real. He may be immature and obnoxious, but he's primarily out-of-place in a bland performance.
What exactly was wrong with Jar-Jar? He was one of the most endearing characters in the series. Pretty much everyone has dead, lifeless acting; Jar-Jar's character was animate and dynamic, rather than stoic and prompted.
Chip-And-Pin has the annoying side-effect of requiring a PIN instead of a signature. I don't understand why you need a PIN at all, honestly.
My suggestion nearly a decade ago was straight PKI. An embedded IC would contain a burned, non-readable, unique private key and certificate. The certificate would be bank-signed, and verified dynamically with the bank.
When you insert the card into the reader, a command stream is sent. This includes the transaction, a time stamp, and a block of random data. The bank accepts each data set once (manageable by a bloom filter of large hashes per hourly time stamp and a database indexed by time stamp). The whole block of data [TIME(now),RANDBITS(1024),Transaction[]] goes to the card, gets signed by the private key on the card through a dedicated RSA4096+RC4 specified to avoid weak IVs (bank rejects if the IV is weak), and is returned to the terminal.
In this way, you must physically possess the card to carry out a transaction. Transacting with Amazon? Plug a USB reader into your computer, plug it in. Reader contains a display which can list the charge, the merchant, and the transaction. You see "$315.09 AMAZON" and a listing, can accept that. You see "$45 XXX TOOLBAR EROTIX INC" and you reject that. Nothing goes to the card until you press the "accept" button on the reader.
I don't see a need for a PIN. If someone steals your card, deactivate your card.
Then, in this case, we should not fear what we do. It may disgust us, as it has, but that is good; we are well to understand precisely what we do. We know firmly why we do it, and that we make no mistake.
We find our actions necessary, yet disturbing. We will not take such actions lightly in the future; we will assure their necessity.
Argument's based on psychology and internal systemic simulations. I've linked to papers before that argued the death penalty is a deterrent, and those that argue that it isn't. I linked to one a while back that argued both, without coherence, based on various statistics and seemingly unaware of self-contradiction; its summary didn't conclude anything, nor did it acknowledge the lack of conclusive evidence.
Mostly, I'm just outputting summary knowledge gleaned from a lot of consideration and a lot of information I've come across over the years; I don't keep a running scientific compendium to cite from. If the argument sounds convincing, you can either do your investigation to put it to rest or you can just assume I'm amongst the ranks of Locke and Voltaire. In any case, the argument that an action may or may not have an important effect isn't exactly sweeping: I'm basically telling you that policy involves examining hard the effects of that policy, and that some effects cannot be considered as general patterns. I've made the same argument about gun control.
You indicated a person may deserve something--that it is morally his due to receive it. To decide we do not want to deliver it is based in arbitrary moral grounds. Often such views are held in parallel with the view that we may feel good about such a man experiencing hapless karma (e.g., getting attacked by a bear while standing over a woman he raped and murdered in the woods); while we are above inflicting the same (throwing the man in a cage with an angry bear). We openly hope that bad things happen to these people so that it is not upon our heads.
Such arbitrary morality absolves us from consequences. We concoct a fantasy of no consequences to deal with this, e.g., the insistence that the death penalty or even punishment itself provides no deterrent. Reality is both less pleasant and less simple: punishments provide deterrents based on a large array of factors, each of which varies with the local culture. In some places, execution provides no deterrent; in others, execution provides a major deterrent. Even in the latter, we absolve ourselves from the consequences of more innocent blood by convincing ourselves we are civilized; and besides, that particular blood is not on our hands, so it is not our concern.
I care more about suffering as a matter of totality and spread than a matter of the individual. Boundaries balanced with count of affected.
For example: UBI will increase suffering by taxing people and harming the economy, over the alternative of no welfare system (my proposed UBI system requires a lower tax than our current welfare system, so it's not a real trade-off on the large scale); but it also ensures that nobody will be homeless and nobody will be hungry, even though the poor and unemployed will fall into a situation of terrible housing and food and a hellish life. (It also provides for easier upward mobility by eliminating the welfare trap...)
On the other hand, I prefer a partial public healthcare system to a full one. Supplying clinical services for free has a small economic impact (infliction of general suffering), but a huge economic gain (alleviation of general suffering). Improvement of the general baseline health affects the poor greatly. Failing to supply a public health system for cancer and HIV maintenance--expensive services--results in a few people suffering greatly; however, attempting to supply a complete system bears a huge weight on all, pushing more into these situations of managed suffering, and significantly harming everyone else.
UBI: Less suffering. Inflated welfare system as ours: More suffering. Full clinical healthcare: Less suffering. Full healthcare: More suffering. It's more complex than a cherrypick.
In the same way, making people face death makes them more sensitive to death. We've comforted ourselves by making death appear peaceful with a slow, terrifying numbness that cannot be expressed by a dying man. The sickening crack of a man's neck or the image of his head being severed from his body would remind us of the fatally destructive thing we do. Perhaps we would then be less sensitive to the idea of execution seeming uncivilized and more sensitive to the idea of execution occupying a place in society which we find disturbing, a place where we send a man only on the strictest confidence that it is just, and regret doing so even before we enact the decision.
Look at the discussions on execution. People want to lock someone up "because he might be innocent", and talk as if they could throw a man in jail for 20 years and it's okay because if they're wrong they just let him out. Imagine... between 25 and 35 you're in jail. Imagine the social disconnect, the trauma. If you have a family, it's been destroyed; if you have kids, you miss seeing them grow up. If you have no family, you've missed the prime time of your life to secure a mate and raise one. Your career has been destroyed. Your finances are destroyed. Your friends have moved on.
Just as people do not acknowledge execution correctly, so do they fail to acknowledge incarceration correctly.
Actually, providing for education creates a consistently oversupplied workforce, leading to unemployment and a crop of cheap skilled labor for businesses to choose from. Imagine if there were 300,000 CEOs out there and 15,000 companies. You have 30,000 well-above-average CEOs, and about 150,000 that are average or better, and 250,000 who are workable. Just give them $80k/year, if they bitch then throw them out and get another cheap CEO. No multi-million-dollar salaries.
We get this sort of setup with whatever's the "hot, high-paying job" of the day. You should be an accountant, because accountants are in demand. Everyone go to school, become an accountant. Now there's way more accountants, and the demand slumps, and we laugh at all you people and hire a few of you for $50k while you wonder where those $200,000 starting salaries went.
People do not want to face what they do. They want an execution to appear peaceful so that they can say justice was served, but so that they do not have to concern themselves with what that justice is.
Sometimes, a man deserves to die. This is unfortunate; people do not wish to feel this, instead opting to feel just. A good hanging, or injection with a burning poison to a slow, screaming, retching death, this makes the people recoil in disgust. It is good to look upon the horror of what you have done, understand why it needed to be done, and regret that it had to be.
Your Constitutional Rights have freed you from morality.
Oklahoma didn't realize anything wouldn't pass muster. They were shocked and horrified by a gruesome sight. They are afraid to face the reality of what they do; lethal injection is a long, slow, terrifying process which appears peaceful to the observer so that he may absolve himself of the commission of murder.
An execution should be quick and gruesome. It should be visible death, not peaceful rest. A hanging, a beheading, shooting, a beating to death. A thing that shows us what we do so that we may face it and understand it is terrible but it is just. The more zeal a people have for a punishment, the more visible and terrible it should be so that the people are shocked and sickened back into the understanding of what it is they do.
Slashdot Mirror
Which logical fallacy was it where you stand up a situation and then silently remove a piece of that situation? You've claimed "appropriate situations", and then removed the concept.
It *is* appropriate to kill in self-defense where other alternatives are significantly less profitable. If you have a 90% likelihood of death in self-defense by non-lethal means and a 90% likelihood of survival by applying lethal self-defense, it is more profitable to apply lethal self-defense. You are not morally obligated to take a severe risk of death to avoid harming a man who is trying to kill you and has damn good chance of succeeding.
Dividends are created in stocks, yes. They don't get paid in from company bank accounts which are credited the total dividend debited into the market; the money simply appears out of the ether.
In two weeks, they can decide if they need to stay execution longer.
People like to absolve themselves for what they do not do. How is putting a man in jail for 20 years not killing him? When he comes out, he is a ruined man. He may be a hardened criminal, and may then commit violent crimes again--not because it's his nature, but because he has had 20 years in prison to be forged into a man who has much lower inhibitions for murder. Now his crimes are on your head, and the blood of the innocents who die are on your hands.
Punishment as a deterrent is a complex topic. In cases where executions are not deterrent, we inevitably execute 1 innocent man for 0 innocent lives saved, a ratio of 1/0 or infinite failure. In cases where executions are deterrent, we have a 1/X ratio; if X is positive, we are successfully saving lives overall. We want two things: the fewest innocent people executed per guilty executed (a fraction, i.e. 1 per 99 or 1/99), and the most innocent lives saved by deterrent (also a ratio, i.e. 1 innocent lost per 10 saved or 1/10).
Even if we execute 1 innocent per 10,000 murderers, if we save no innocents by deterrent then we are failing. If we execute 1 innocent per 1 murderer, but save 10 innocents by deterrent for every 1 executed, there will be 10 times as much blood on our hands if we stop; this system is as acceptable as the former and, be it 1/1 or 1/10000, we should strive to reduce the number of innocents lost by incorrect judgment. Although we should target our efforts at the worst ones, we can never consider a system where one innocent is lost as more acceptable; it simply has less need.
I don't see how my constitutional rights free me from morality here at all.
"Cruel and unusual punishment" is interpreted by the observer.
We should bring back medieval punishment. We should quarter people we execute: tie a rope to their head and body, ensure the head severs first--and have a bolt smash the back of the skull besides--such that the transition to death is not noticed. We should flog and cane people for minor offenses. We should do so publicly, on occasion, but on so little occasion so as to not desensitize the crowd to it.
A brutal, gruesome execution may be swift and painless yet incredibly upsetting to the observer. This is good. The observer should hold the resolve that what is done need doing. He should face the consequences of what need doing, so that his senses sicken him and so that he will have no eagerness to have such a thing done. A peaceful execution does not disturb the observer, and he readily accepts the causality of trail and execution; a brutal, disturbing execution forces the observer to grasp for justice, to demand that execution follow *crime*, to question the competence of trial and demand certainty about that which we do.
We have likewise grown too accustomed to the ideal imprisonment, a peaceful alternative to medieval torture. We have forgotten the true nature of torture, the crushing psychological force of long, unending terror for the coming, unending pain. Floggings are swift; the agony does not go on for hours or days on end, although the pain lingers. Prison destroys a man; a petty thief does not deserve weeks or months rotting while his finances dwindle, while his relationships fall apart, while his home is reclaimed by his landlord for lack of payment. Doubtless we wrongly absolve ourselves of this ideal of murder by placing an innocent man in prison, claiming that we can release him in ten or fifteen years if he proves innocent; doubtless we release nothing more than a walking corpse.
We have become a despicable people who claim ourselves civilized because we have painted over all of the offensive things we do in bright pastels.
Writing passwords down is not a security problem.
Say it with me: Writing passwords down is not a security problem.
Writing passwords down in a place where they can be obtained within the bounds of your threat model is a security problem. My passwords are written in invisible ink in a book kept inside a locked filing cabinet at my desk; likewise, I have a password safe that double-encrypts with a long password (all lower case and spaces) as a symmetric key for the real key used in two passes of AES+Blowfish. If someone is in here looking through my cabinet with the foresight to bring a UV flashlight, locate my password book, shine the light on it, and interpret the passwords (i.e. know what to use them for), we have other problems.
Now if I were to take the book from the office and lose it somewhere, that's different. In fact, the book should not leave the office. Any password list which travels should contain only passwords; it should not contain an explanation that they are passwords, or what system they're for, or to what entity they belong. Depending on security needs, it may be inappropriate to ever move a password list.
I'm quite used to a threat model where losing my card results in compromise. I know how to handle that. Having the PIN written on the card is the same threat model; it's acceptable to me.
In this case, it's more like someone asked for a flower bed and you gave them sculpted topiary. Everything is cut to precise structure, rather than natural and fluid. Jar-Jar stands out because he is natural and fluid; the cast doesn't react to him well at all; but they react just as flatly to everything else, so their poor acting appears good and Jar-Jar's more dynamic character appears disruptive.
He stands out too much. I don't think the character's actually bad, just that modern cinematic performance cannot keep up. Like wearing a $400 blazer over some clothes from The Gap.
Sure, but in the meantime, the PIN prevents the card from being used since the thief doesn't know what it is.
As I said above: This is an extreme minority case. It would be as if you prepared your house with steel doors and barred windows and turrets and artillery so as to prepare for invasion by an armed mob of rioters. It happens once in a while, every several decades; but now it is inconvenient to get into your house, and your house is expensive and needs much maintenance. This is not worth doing.
It also prevents the card from being cloned (assuming that's possible) and used elsewhere even though you have your card in your wallet.
It's not possible in the model I described. You can't copy the card. The card has a data channel which you send input and it returns output; the contents of the card cannot be cloned except by physically prying off the chip, using acid to dissolve the case, and then using a scanning electron microscope to examine the integrated circuitry. At this point, you don't have the card in your wallet.
My point was that inaction is not moral absolution.
Punishments act as a deterrent when the punishment is effective--that is, when the punishment is both the most likely thing to occur as a consequence *and* when the punishment is perceived as severe.
For example: in peaceful, low-crime suburbs where the population is not acclimated to violence, a violent crime is unlikely to end in justifiable homicide (self defense by killing), and so whatever the state hands out as sentence is the most likely consequence. Conversely, in violent ghettos plagued by gang turf wars, the most common practical consequence of violent crime is hazard: gang criminals are killed more often in gang wars than they're arrested. The difference between a fine, jail time, and execution in the first group is what actually happens as consequence; in the second group, it's just a bunch of bullshit they don't have time to worry about because they're more concerned with the immediate risk of death than some abstract idea of state execution..
Likewise, in rich towns, fines are bullshit; in poor towns, people can be crippled and destroyed by a $40 parking ticket. The same punishment is more or less effective depending on the culture. Community service works well where people are generally law-abiding and afraid of the legal process itself; imprisonment and executions--both exceedingly harmful--are necessary when dealing with people who have no appreciation for the law. Executions are appropriate where capital criminals do not fear long imprisonment.
We posit two situations from the above: the situation where execution is not a deterrent; and the situation in which it is.
In the situation where execution is not a deterrent, executions do not save lives. Executing an innocent man is a loss of innocent life, which is harmful and to be avoided. We are morally obligated to this.
In the situation where execution is a deterrent, executions save lives. The effectiveness of executions has two parameters: Ratio of criminals to innocents and ratio of innocents executed to innocents saved. A good system may execute 99 criminals and 1 innocent while deterring enough murder as to save the lives of 10 innocents for every 1 innocent executed. A poor system may execute 1 criminal per 1 innocent, or save 2 innocents per 1 executed.
In either case where execution is a deterrent, withdrawing execution means more innocent people die in violent crime. Where it is not a deterrent, the error factor is infinite: any 1 innocent executed has a share in 0 lives saved, 1/0 is infinite, and we cannot justify this. Thus, where it is a deterrent, we are morally obligated to have state executions; where it is not a deterrent, we are morally obligated to not have state executions.
This does not go away when execution is not a deterrent. Imprisonment is harmful: a man imprisoned during a critical part of his life will lose or never develop his family and career, while becoming distant with his friends and financially ruined. We thus face the same: rather than executed versus save, the numbers are imprisoned versus saved: a poor system may imprison as many innocent people as criminals!
We cannot solve this by eliminating state execution. We must instead improve our system, both in swiftness and in accuracy. Some believe we execute 1 innocent man for every 24 violent criminals; this should become 1 innocent man for every 99 violent criminals, and then even higher. We should likewise attempt to stay execution where we feel it not to be a deterrent, and carry it out where we feel it is; this will increase the overall effectiveness, saving more innocent lives per execution, of which inadvertently executed innocents have a share.
We can improve in this way by improving the stricture of evidence required for execution; but we would gain the most benefit from improving the system wholesale. Such improvement will reduce the number of innocents in prison as well as the number of innocents exec
It's political when you're "going to do it" for years and then, the moment you can lord it over someone you don't like and show off how great you are, you finally pull the trigger and shout out to everyone how great you are.
Politics, like Go, is not about the precise action; it's about the timing of that action.
It's a matter of timing. This has been in the pipeline for a while; it got pushed through with immediacy as a political move. Reread the whole statement: this has been a long time coming, but it only happens at a critical political moment. Like Congress sitting on an important bill to provide mental healthcare and treatment for pedophiles for 8 years until there's a high-profile child murder-rape by an individual who obviously caved under the stress of his urge, and then passing it in a powerful show of strong, effective leadership.
It's a video which presents logical information. In conversation, 7% of information is verbal; but in informational writing--reviews, mathematics texts, descriptions of the contents of tea and their pharmacological effects--100% of the information is verbal. Presenting this information as a video is not informational; it's entertainment at best, persuasive at worst.
Let's emphasize: A primary reason to make a review as a video is to deliver a persuasive speech so that people agree with you.
I can crunch through hundreds of Amazon reviews for dozens of products in ten minutes. If each were a video, they'd be 1-3 minutes each and it would take me several hours; I usually watch one such review if present, purely to see the operation of a device, and then avoid such slowly-delivered ranting. A common comment on Fark for links to videos with no article is, "Where's the transcript?" The US Government publishes both video and transcript of SOTU and Congressional sessions.
So when you can get me a source I can ingest at 800wpm and/or skip over the meaningless fluff in, I'll be interested. This is, however, not an interesting form of entertainment for me.
Still throwing a tantrum I see. Funny that this has been a long time coming, but it only happens when it's fashionable to bash OpenSSL.
Is Ceph a transactional system with an operations log for the relevant object stores, or just a haphazard backing store with some semblance of synchronization? GlusterFS needs to scan the entire filesystem after it's been offline to heal: if you offline Node 1 and place a file in /mnt/gluster/file.txt, then you must stat() /mnt/gluster/file.txt after Node 1 comes back up to propagate the file to Node 1. This provides much difficulty in auto-healing and conflict resolution.
I scanned it briefly. It was square, and black; I saw no useful content, and so closed it. One of the most poorly-written reviews I've seen by far.
The primary fraud problem with the current system isn't a window between a stolen card and its deactivation; it's stolen card numbers sold on an open exchange. Bruce Schneier covers ATM pin stealing mechanisms fitted over the card slot fairly often: read the mag stripe, record the pin with a camera, transmit wireless signal to a laptop in a nearby coffee shop.
A hardware verification process removes this possibility entirely: a person must physically gain control of your card to use it. The current system detects when you swipe in New York, then California an hour later; it also detects large geographical changes in gas station use without travel tickets--you won't drive from New York to California without hitting gas stations along the way. A PIN system does nothing to cover the majority threats; it covers a tiny stolen card threat which almost never happens, at the expense of annoying people who swipe credit cards because punching in 3387 or 4129 or whatever the hell the PIN for this card was usually ends in the card being deactivated.
Personally, I've had my HSA deactivated a few times because I couldn't remember the PIN. I had 3 debit cards and an HSA credit/debit card at the time, and the HSA always defaults to debit. The first time, I hadn't actually set a PIN. My solution was to unlock the card (wait an hour--even support can't unlock it) and press "CANCEL" on the PIN pad, then sign.
My solution with C&P will be to write the PIN on the back of the card or, more subtly, use 0(CVV). I don't do this with debit cards because I use them as credit cards to avoid entering a PIN ever.
Watch the film cut of the Rocky Horror Picture Show, with Tim Curry.
Then watch something like Avengers, SWE1, or the like.
You'll notice a lot of modern acting involves standing in a pose, focusing on the active dialogue deliverer or other direct action, then delivering a line of dialogue or taking an action. Opera and theater take this to an extreme: people exchange lines and actions in grand maneuver, conveying a story. Modern acting has made this form of simple delivery more fluid; however, it is not lifelike.
I point out RHPS because the actors appear to live in their roles: they acknowledge the set and the people around them as people in a place of fantasy. When Janet looks to Brad for security, she is Janet looking to Brad for security; she is not an actress executing a practiced motion with a deep inner focus on herself. Tim Curry isn't strutting around singing and acting flamboyant; he is throwing inner urges and rude mannerisms in the face of guests at his castle, largely for his own amusement.
Jar-Jar is so jarring in part because he doesn't feel like he belongs in Star Wars. He doesn't fit in the movie. There are people trying to act, and there's this jackass who hasn't figured out it's all just a show and is running around like it's real. He may be immature and obnoxious, but he's primarily out-of-place in a bland performance.
I peer down an alley.
A 13 year old girl is being raped by three large, muscular men.
I have a gun.
I go about my business. I am not responsible for this, and there is no weight of morality on my head for doing nothing with the power I possess.
What exactly was wrong with Jar-Jar? He was one of the most endearing characters in the series. Pretty much everyone has dead, lifeless acting; Jar-Jar's character was animate and dynamic, rather than stoic and prompted.
Chip-And-Pin has the annoying side-effect of requiring a PIN instead of a signature. I don't understand why you need a PIN at all, honestly.
My suggestion nearly a decade ago was straight PKI. An embedded IC would contain a burned, non-readable, unique private key and certificate. The certificate would be bank-signed, and verified dynamically with the bank.
When you insert the card into the reader, a command stream is sent. This includes the transaction, a time stamp, and a block of random data. The bank accepts each data set once (manageable by a bloom filter of large hashes per hourly time stamp and a database indexed by time stamp). The whole block of data [TIME(now),RANDBITS(1024),Transaction[]] goes to the card, gets signed by the private key on the card through a dedicated RSA4096+RC4 specified to avoid weak IVs (bank rejects if the IV is weak), and is returned to the terminal.
In this way, you must physically possess the card to carry out a transaction. Transacting with Amazon? Plug a USB reader into your computer, plug it in. Reader contains a display which can list the charge, the merchant, and the transaction. You see "$315.09 AMAZON" and a listing, can accept that. You see "$45 XXX TOOLBAR EROTIX INC" and you reject that. Nothing goes to the card until you press the "accept" button on the reader.
I don't see a need for a PIN. If someone steals your card, deactivate your card.
Then, in this case, we should not fear what we do. It may disgust us, as it has, but that is good; we are well to understand precisely what we do. We know firmly why we do it, and that we make no mistake.
We find our actions necessary, yet disturbing. We will not take such actions lightly in the future; we will assure their necessity.
Argument's based on psychology and internal systemic simulations. I've linked to papers before that argued the death penalty is a deterrent, and those that argue that it isn't. I linked to one a while back that argued both, without coherence, based on various statistics and seemingly unaware of self-contradiction; its summary didn't conclude anything, nor did it acknowledge the lack of conclusive evidence.
Mostly, I'm just outputting summary knowledge gleaned from a lot of consideration and a lot of information I've come across over the years; I don't keep a running scientific compendium to cite from. If the argument sounds convincing, you can either do your investigation to put it to rest or you can just assume I'm amongst the ranks of Locke and Voltaire. In any case, the argument that an action may or may not have an important effect isn't exactly sweeping: I'm basically telling you that policy involves examining hard the effects of that policy, and that some effects cannot be considered as general patterns. I've made the same argument about gun control.
Crime is a legal thing.
You indicated a person may deserve something--that it is morally his due to receive it. To decide we do not want to deliver it is based in arbitrary moral grounds. Often such views are held in parallel with the view that we may feel good about such a man experiencing hapless karma (e.g., getting attacked by a bear while standing over a woman he raped and murdered in the woods); while we are above inflicting the same (throwing the man in a cage with an angry bear). We openly hope that bad things happen to these people so that it is not upon our heads.
Such arbitrary morality absolves us from consequences. We concoct a fantasy of no consequences to deal with this, e.g., the insistence that the death penalty or even punishment itself provides no deterrent. Reality is both less pleasant and less simple: punishments provide deterrents based on a large array of factors, each of which varies with the local culture. In some places, execution provides no deterrent; in others, execution provides a major deterrent. Even in the latter, we absolve ourselves from the consequences of more innocent blood by convincing ourselves we are civilized; and besides, that particular blood is not on our hands, so it is not our concern.
I care more about suffering as a matter of totality and spread than a matter of the individual. Boundaries balanced with count of affected.
For example: UBI will increase suffering by taxing people and harming the economy, over the alternative of no welfare system (my proposed UBI system requires a lower tax than our current welfare system, so it's not a real trade-off on the large scale); but it also ensures that nobody will be homeless and nobody will be hungry, even though the poor and unemployed will fall into a situation of terrible housing and food and a hellish life. (It also provides for easier upward mobility by eliminating the welfare trap...)
On the other hand, I prefer a partial public healthcare system to a full one. Supplying clinical services for free has a small economic impact (infliction of general suffering), but a huge economic gain (alleviation of general suffering). Improvement of the general baseline health affects the poor greatly. Failing to supply a public health system for cancer and HIV maintenance--expensive services--results in a few people suffering greatly; however, attempting to supply a complete system bears a huge weight on all, pushing more into these situations of managed suffering, and significantly harming everyone else.
UBI: Less suffering. Inflated welfare system as ours: More suffering. Full clinical healthcare: Less suffering. Full healthcare: More suffering. It's more complex than a cherrypick.
In the same way, making people face death makes them more sensitive to death. We've comforted ourselves by making death appear peaceful with a slow, terrifying numbness that cannot be expressed by a dying man. The sickening crack of a man's neck or the image of his head being severed from his body would remind us of the fatally destructive thing we do. Perhaps we would then be less sensitive to the idea of execution seeming uncivilized and more sensitive to the idea of execution occupying a place in society which we find disturbing, a place where we send a man only on the strictest confidence that it is just, and regret doing so even before we enact the decision.
Look at the discussions on execution. People want to lock someone up "because he might be innocent", and talk as if they could throw a man in jail for 20 years and it's okay because if they're wrong they just let him out. Imagine ... between 25 and 35 you're in jail. Imagine the social disconnect, the trauma. If you have a family, it's been destroyed; if you have kids, you miss seeing them grow up. If you have no family, you've missed the prime time of your life to secure a mate and raise one. Your career has been destroyed. Your finances are destroyed. Your friends have moved on.
Just as people do not acknowledge execution correctly, so do they fail to acknowledge incarceration correctly.
Actually, providing for education creates a consistently oversupplied workforce, leading to unemployment and a crop of cheap skilled labor for businesses to choose from. Imagine if there were 300,000 CEOs out there and 15,000 companies. You have 30,000 well-above-average CEOs, and about 150,000 that are average or better, and 250,000 who are workable. Just give them $80k/year, if they bitch then throw them out and get another cheap CEO. No multi-million-dollar salaries.
We get this sort of setup with whatever's the "hot, high-paying job" of the day. You should be an accountant, because accountants are in demand. Everyone go to school, become an accountant. Now there's way more accountants, and the demand slumps, and we laugh at all you people and hire a few of you for $50k while you wonder where those $200,000 starting salaries went.
People do not want to face what they do. They want an execution to appear peaceful so that they can say justice was served, but so that they do not have to concern themselves with what that justice is.
Sometimes, a man deserves to die. This is unfortunate; people do not wish to feel this, instead opting to feel just. A good hanging, or injection with a burning poison to a slow, screaming, retching death, this makes the people recoil in disgust. It is good to look upon the horror of what you have done, understand why it needed to be done, and regret that it had to be.
Your Constitutional Rights have freed you from morality.
Oklahoma didn't realize anything wouldn't pass muster. They were shocked and horrified by a gruesome sight. They are afraid to face the reality of what they do; lethal injection is a long, slow, terrifying process which appears peaceful to the observer so that he may absolve himself of the commission of murder.
An execution should be quick and gruesome. It should be visible death, not peaceful rest. A hanging, a beheading, shooting, a beating to death. A thing that shows us what we do so that we may face it and understand it is terrible but it is just. The more zeal a people have for a punishment, the more visible and terrible it should be so that the people are shocked and sickened back into the understanding of what it is they do.