How about the fact that their methods of "protesting" are consistently as suppressive as what they're trying to protest?
Uh, yeah, that's the point, Sherlock. "You censor us, we censor you. Sucks, doesn't it? This is the internet. You don't make the rules here, we do. You stop, we stop."
Good for you - if your boss: a) doesn't hold you to that estimate (e.g. requires you to kill yourself in overtime to meet it, even after the project's requirements have changed completely) and b) lets you come up with the estimate in the first place, rather than rejecting every estimate you supply until you come up with the "right" one.
Sure, any one of those things, no problem, but his previous conviction combined with 1, 2, and 3 are enough
So, you're saying that, although he hasn't actually done anything wrong or hurt anybody yet, it's clear that he's going to, so he should be locked up pre-emptively before he gets a chance to go through with it? You're right, he does seem to be clearly guilty of pre-crime.
Really? "Whatever he gets"? What if what he gets is chemical castration (I know they don't do that in Australia, but you did say he deserves "whatever he gets")? What if it's death? "What he gets" is going to be pretty severe, if it's handed out by the criminal justice system (and will probably involve, ironically, some nonconsensual homosexuality). I think there's a middle ground between "defending" somebody and saying, "wow, that may be a little harsh, all things considered".
Well... is that your advice for a teenager, just looking at his college career choices right now, in 2010? Because that's exactly the sort of (good) advice they were giving kids back in '99, except it was "get you CS degree and do programming". It made sense 10 years ago, but that was 10 years ago.
So, if forced to choose between a system where innocent people are punished to avoid
letting the guilty go free vs. a system where the guilty go free to avoid punishing
the innocent, you would choose the former? Personally, I'd rather live in fear of
criminals and what criminals can do to me than in fear of what the government can do
to me. At least with criminals it's possible to fight back.
The serfs were taxed upon getting married, taxed for the birth of each child and for every death in the family. They were taxed for planting a tree in their yard and for keeping animals. They were taxed for religious festivals and for public dancing and drumming, for being sent to prison and upon being released. Those who could not find work were taxed for being unemployed, and if they traveled to another village in search of work, they paid a passage tax.
Hell, we're not that far off. Give Obama another 7 years...
I can't imagine this law being used on its own to prosecute somebody.
Nobody imagined that teenage girls would be prosecuted for sending naked pictures of themselves to their boyfriends (except for us "inflammatory alarmists" who told you this would happen ten years ago when the law started going overboard).
Slashdot Mirror
Ah, whatever would us men do without women to come along and tell us how "real mean" behave...
No, in other words, "See how it feels?"
Idiot.
You know, I always thought you looked more like a #3627482.
Uh, yeah, that's the point, Sherlock. "You censor us, we censor you. Sucks, doesn't it? This is the internet. You don't make the rules here, we do. You stop, we stop."
Taken axiomatically, of course. No proof given, no proof needed.
Not that Bush was any better, mind you. And not that whoever follows Obama is going to be any better, mind you.
If you can't tell the difference between "your" and "you're", your just going to look like an idiot.
Icky people don't deserve as much justice as the rest of us "normal" people.
Good for you - if your boss: a) doesn't hold you to that estimate (e.g. requires you to kill yourself in overtime to meet it, even after the project's requirements have changed completely) and b) lets you come up with the estimate in the first place, rather than rejecting every estimate you supply until you come up with the "right" one.
a) You spent more time "breaking the program into it's component parts" than you would have spent just writing the damned thing.
b) The component parts you came up with aren't the component parts you actually end up needing.
Them: "How long is it going to take?"
Me: "Well, I can't estimate it until the specs are finished."
Them: "Well, then how long will it take until the specs are finished?"
Me: "Ah-ha..."
Hofstadter's law: It always takes longer than you expect, even after accounting for Hofstadter's law.
That's the beauty of it - it's an accusation you can level at anybody, for any random reason, and somebody will take it seriously.
So, you're saying that, although he hasn't actually done anything wrong or hurt anybody yet, it's clear that he's going to, so he should be locked up pre-emptively before he gets a chance to go through with it? You're right, he does seem to be clearly guilty of pre-crime.
I was watching a re-run of "Law and Order: SVU" a couple of nights ago, and there was a snippet of dialog:
Goodguy(girl) cop: "You were hiding his kiddie porn!"
Evil child-molester-abetting wife: "It's not kiddie porn! It's just clippings from fashion magazines!"
Good cop, protecting the children: "It is to a pedophile! Intent is what matters!"
I'm not fucking kidding... sometimes I feel like I've stepped into bizzaro world.
Well, she will now, big mouth.
Really? "Whatever he gets"? What if what he gets is chemical castration (I know they don't do that in Australia, but you did say he deserves "whatever he gets")? What if it's death? "What he gets" is going to be pretty severe, if it's handed out by the criminal justice system (and will probably involve, ironically, some nonconsensual homosexuality). I think there's a middle ground between "defending" somebody and saying, "wow, that may be a little harsh, all things considered".
Well... is that your advice for a teenager, just looking at his college career choices right now, in 2010? Because that's exactly the sort of (good) advice they were giving kids back in '99, except it was "get you CS degree and do programming". It made sense 10 years ago, but that was 10 years ago.
Post worded as intended. I have no sense of humor.
Fixed that for you.
So, if forced to choose between a system where innocent people are punished to avoid letting the guilty go free vs. a system where the guilty go free to avoid punishing the innocent, you would choose the former? Personally, I'd rather live in fear of criminals and what criminals can do to me than in fear of what the government can do to me. At least with criminals it's possible to fight back.
Ruh-roh, raggy!
Whoa... I think I agree with you... just let me go get my dictionary first...
Hell, we're not that far off. Give Obama another 7 years...
Nobody imagined that teenage girls would be prosecuted for sending naked pictures of themselves to their boyfriends (except for us "inflammatory alarmists" who told you this would happen ten years ago when the law started going overboard).
I don't know what that is, but it sounds like terrorism to me, so I'm with you.