What should his age (the Wilson case) have to do with his sentencing? He was the older one, so he was the guilty one. She was just as harmed by the act as she would have been if he was 17, 27, 37 or 47. The law was put in place under the presupposition that minors are unable to consent as they can't comprehend the harmful consequences of the act. So, logically, it makes sense - if you're going to punish the older person for hurting somebody, you should punish the older person regardless of that persons age. I guess he should be cut some slack since he's a minor (just as if he had, say, robbed a liquor store or stolen a car), but if the law is out there, he should have been punished.
Actually, I'm pretty sure they're going to jump to the real last step, which is execution without trial upon accusation. Ron Paul will vote against it, but he'll be the only one.
I've seen this logic posited many times in the past, and I don't get where you're coming from - perhaps you can explain. You seem to be saying that it's not harmful if the other person is also underage, but that it is harmful if the other person is overage. This doesn't make sense - if it's harmful, it's harmful, and that's that. Logically, it's actually more harmful if the other person is underage because the other person is less likely to be responsible about safety/birth control. Right?
Well, ok, but... how do you "design" without coding? I spent many, many years studying the "rational unified process", wherein one was supposed to make lots of use case diagrams (which the customer would sign off on), from which you would create lots of static structure diagrams (the part of UML that everybody's most familiar with), which programmers could discuss and agree upon, from which you would then create lots of sequence interaction diagrams and from there, finally, the code.
Of course, the Rational people didn't want to admit they'd reinvented the waterfall method, so they *claimed* that this was supposed to be an iterative process - so you were supposed to *then* go back and modify your use case diagrams, which would trigger modifications in your structure diagrams, and then your sequence diagrams, and finally modifications in your code... so, after only a few short decades, you might have a functioning product.
The thing is - I know what you mean. The "design time" is the "figuring out what the hell they're trying to get me to program" time. Unfortunately, without some direction, that ends up being wasted time (as in, you can't go back and justify that time later).
Yes, the boss probably knows a thing or two - that's why he's the boss. Yes, the client probably knows their business, because it's their business. What nobody seems to understand is that every requirements change impacts the delivery date. I don't mean this facetiously; they really don't seem to understand this at a fundamental level. They're always full of "helpful" suggestions to try to keep the project on target no matter what changes they make to its definition. Adding manpower to a late project makes it later. Overtime = 10x the bugs, longer QA, later delivery. Removing features is still changing requirements.
I wouldn't mind constant requirements shift if they could deal with constant delivery date shift.
But your code, of course, draws gasps of admiration and awe from all who look upon it.
Come on. When was the last time you had anything good to say about anybody else's code? Ever? All programmers say all other programmers are incompetent. And typically, management believes us.
"Having special knowledge of" is quite a ways from "incapable of objective reasoning regarding." I have two kids of my own - I'm sure I'd lose the capacity for rational thought if something happened to them. At which point it would be your patriotic duty to ignore me and look for opinions from more level-headed, less emotionally invested folks.
Re-read the comments in this thread. It appears that a lot of people are *HUGE* fans of censorship. And if this many people are cheering for censorship on Slashdot, I can only imagine how happy the "Jesus statue" crowd is about it.
That a person can be thrown in prison for many, many years because he or she possesses a picture and nothing else is astonishing. And depressing.
That so many people (even here on the internet, of all places) find this state of affairs so obvious, necessary and reasonable that any other possibility is absurd to the point of nonsense is even more astonishing. And more depressing.
the reason he is so nuts on the issue is that his son John was abducted and killed
And that's exactly why he shouldn't be part of actual public policy debate. There's a reason they throw people incapable of objective reasoning off of juries - it's not so that they can be mean to them, it's because they're so blinded that they can't perform their duties.
If I read correctly, it also means you have to save a copy so you can produce it on request... which is kind of bizarre seeing as how the goal is to get it off of everybody's computer.
Fire. Crowded theatre. No fire. People get trampled.
Actually, if I had a wild urge to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater that was not on fire, and people actually got trampled, and I was actually arrested for it and forced to stand trial, my defense would be, "I thought I saw a fire. I must have been mistaken. Sorry."
Slashdot Mirror
What should his age (the Wilson case) have to do with his sentencing? He was the older one, so he was the guilty one. She was just as harmed by the act as she would have been if he was 17, 27, 37 or 47. The law was put in place under the presupposition that minors are unable to consent as they can't comprehend the harmful consequences of the act. So, logically, it makes sense - if you're going to punish the older person for hurting somebody, you should punish the older person regardless of that persons age. I guess he should be cut some slack since he's a minor (just as if he had, say, robbed a liquor store or stolen a car), but if the law is out there, he should have been punished.
Ok, then - why charge the guy if he's 30? or 40? or 50? What's the difference? Either way she was harmed by it, whether he was 16 or 60.
Actually, I'm pretty sure they're going to jump to the real last step, which is execution without trial upon accusation. Ron Paul will vote against it, but he'll be the only one.
I've seen this logic posited many times in the past, and I don't get where you're coming from - perhaps you can explain. You seem to be saying that it's not harmful if the other person is also underage, but that it is harmful if the other person is overage. This doesn't make sense - if it's harmful, it's harmful, and that's that. Logically, it's actually more harmful if the other person is underage because the other person is less likely to be responsible about safety/birth control. Right?
And you've most likely never been killed, so it's pretty much even.
If that's "what's coming to him", why isn't it an actual law, decided by a jury of twelve, and carried out in a controlled environment?
Well, ok, but... how do you "design" without coding? I spent many, many years studying the "rational unified process", wherein one was supposed to make lots of use case diagrams (which the customer would sign off on), from which you would create lots of static structure diagrams (the part of UML that everybody's most familiar with), which programmers could discuss and agree upon, from which you would then create lots of sequence interaction diagrams and from there, finally, the code.
Of course, the Rational people didn't want to admit they'd reinvented the waterfall method, so they *claimed* that this was supposed to be an iterative process - so you were supposed to *then* go back and modify your use case diagrams, which would trigger modifications in your structure diagrams, and then your sequence diagrams, and finally modifications in your code... so, after only a few short decades, you might have a functioning product.
The thing is - I know what you mean. The "design time" is the "figuring out what the hell they're trying to get me to program" time. Unfortunately, without some direction, that ends up being wasted time (as in, you can't go back and justify that time later).
Yes, the boss probably knows a thing or two - that's why he's the boss. Yes, the client probably knows their business, because it's their business. What nobody seems to understand is that every requirements change impacts the delivery date. I don't mean this facetiously; they really don't seem to understand this at a fundamental level. They're always full of "helpful" suggestions to try to keep the project on target no matter what changes they make to its definition. Adding manpower to a late project makes it later. Overtime = 10x the bugs, longer QA, later delivery. Removing features is still changing requirements.
I wouldn't mind constant requirements shift if they could deal with constant delivery date shift.
But your code, of course, draws gasps of admiration and awe from all who look upon it.
Come on. When was the last time you had anything good to say about anybody else's code? Ever? All programmers say all other programmers are incompetent. And typically, management believes us.
Actually, first you get to prove that it wasn't you who did it (Which is impossible. Lucky you).
"Having special knowledge of" is quite a ways from "incapable of objective reasoning regarding." I have two kids of my own - I'm sure I'd lose the capacity for rational thought if something happened to them. At which point it would be your patriotic duty to ignore me and look for opinions from more level-headed, less emotionally invested folks.
Re-read the comments in this thread. It appears that a lot of people are *HUGE* fans of censorship. And if this many people are cheering for censorship on Slashdot, I can only imagine how happy the "Jesus statue" crowd is about it.
That so many people (even here on the internet, of all places) find this state of affairs so obvious, necessary and reasonable that any other possibility is absurd to the point of nonsense is even more astonishing. And more depressing.
And that's exactly why he shouldn't be part of actual public policy debate. There's a reason they throw people incapable of objective reasoning off of juries - it's not so that they can be mean to them, it's because they're so blinded that they can't perform their duties.
If I read correctly, it also means you have to save a copy so you can produce it on request... which is kind of bizarre seeing as how the goal is to get it off of everybody's computer.
Actually, if I had a wild urge to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater that was not on fire, and people actually got trampled, and I was actually arrested for it and forced to stand trial, my defense would be, "I thought I saw a fire. I must have been mistaken. Sorry."
See? Constitutional crisis averted!
Well, unless there's a fire, of course...
Obviously not as much as you think.
As a computer technician I say yes, absolutely.
I thought dead you were, Master Yoda.
Actually, anybody caught running an ISP 200 years ago would probably be burned at the stake as a witch.
I've got your back.
They'd have me as an exclusive customer for life.
Ah, thanks, I stand corrected - I haven't looked at BitTorrent's source in a while.
What makes being wrong worse is that my QOTD is "He who knows, does not speak. He who speaks, does not know. -- Lao Tsu".