I get it, but that's no excuse. You're right, though, that it's hardly the only consideration.
Since the point of this article was to bring up crazy ideas to reevaluate our current systems, why we use them, and what we might do instead - I have a crazy proposal for evaluation. This isn't something that I know will work, but something I'd like to see thought through. It does have a controversial aspect.
There has already been some research done into treating crime like an epidemic. Why not study it like an addiction? People participate in both because they get something out of it emotionally. They are less likely to feel shame and reform if their peers/family accept the behavior. They both breed distrust for societal norms which disapprove of the behavior, socially isolating them from those who might help.
So, how do we deal with addiction? It's not easy to do, but it is something that we have made progress with over the years. Locking people up in rehab for a period of time does help. But it is wholly insufficient on it's own. One of the best ways to quit is some type of 12-step-like program. Criminals today are told that they cannot associate with other felons, as a condition of their parole. This makes sense, but is it really the best way? What if there was an semi-anonymous sponsor program? Felons helping felons to stay out of jail by staying straight?
You're using the wrong perspective. Granted, they buried the lead. The end of the summary:
When we ask that question, the goal isn't simply to imagine a bunch of futuristic punishments — the goal is to look at today's punishments through the lens of the future.
It's meant to be a conversation starter. Locking up prisoners for long periods of time isn't a good way to handle things, but I haven't seen one better. We might get there eventually. I see 3 distinct benefits, only one of which may be deemed punishment.
(1) Deterrence, both of recidivism and of new crime. Our current system does measurably bad on the former, and it's pretty hard to estimate the latter.
(2) Most critically, a locked up criminal can't commit more crime while they're behind bars (widely speaking). Playing the law of averages, this means crime is lower, and there are fewer victims.
(3) It gives time for victims to heal emotionally without being harassed by the perpetrator. Also in this category, it makes it harder to enact revenge, and helps prevent most blood feuds. (It only lightens gang wars, but we'd have far more Hatfield/McCoy problems without physically isolating perpetrators from their victims.)
Probably still be required to buy it through a dealer though...
Can someone explain why that is the way it is?
It is a joke relevant to some of the political hijinks that car dealerships have been pulling lately to subvert Tesla. There are several states that now require any car sales to go through a dealer, specifically to prevent direct sales by Tesla.
Oscrivellodds was trying to moderate the position of Denzacar by stages. Denzacar, on the other hand, seemed ridiculous, and I can't be sure just how serious he was trying to be*. I'm not worried so much about Oscrivellodds' post, as he was actively trying to move the conversation toward moderation and tolerance (or at least, live and let live). Even if he was being facetious, Denzacar's was a more dangerous post, as it contains actively wrong information, probably heard across some other church's pulpit, if I were to take a guess.
*("And yet nobody is rounding them up into prisons and concentration camps under suspicion of conspiracy to kill everyone on the planet!" - the over use of exclamation marks in the vicinity is telling, probably of sarcasm, but not necessarily)
I think I am lacking context. I cannot tell if your post is profound, sarcastic, inane, or "pun-ny".
To give context back, one of the central tenets of our faith is given in AoF 1:11 - "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."
Thus, if someone is wholly opposed to my belief system, yet they still consider me a harmless nut, they will be capable of honoring my agency to choose how I worship. It is a minimum state that permits inter-faith (and intercultural) cooperation.
This does not preclude calm, rational (preferably friendly) religious discussion (and even very sensitive debate), but it does absolutely require respect.
(Addendum: "Bible bashing" does not show respect, and is a really bad idea. The devil can quote scripture - Matt 4:6. Even if what is said is true, he enjoys conflict. Any two godly people who disagree should be able to do so with civility. The Internet makes that a bit harder because any disagreement is often read in an angry voice, even if the writer didn't so intend.)
"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." - Matt 24:36-37, reaffirmed in D&C 49:7
But since it could be just about any time, there's no sense in being caught unprepared. As the saying goes, a broken clock is right twice a day. (not strictly true, but whatever) We'll be right eventually. Until then, people can just chalk it up to eccentricity.
They are actively fulfilling a Biblical prophecy ONLY by determining genealogical lineage AND then baptizing the dead.
Simply baptizing them just makes them Mormon. In the minds of the LDS followers.
No, no, no, no, no.
http://mormon.org/faq/proxy-baptisms
Jesus Christ taught that baptism is essential to the salvation of all who have lived on earth (see John3:5). Many people, however, have died without being baptized. Others were baptized without proper authority. Because God is merciful, He has prepared a way for all people to receive the blessings of baptism. By performing proxy baptisms in behalf of those who have died, Church members offer these blessings to deceased ancestors. These individuals in the next life can then choose to accept or decline what has been done in their behalf.
You're missing a very, very key element here. Nobody is making anybody else Mormon. That would violate agency. Baptism is a covenant, like a contract. It is a two sided promise. It is valid if, and only if the deceased accepts it. Thus, they are NOT recorded as becoming Mormon, but as having had the saving ordinances performed on their behalf. It is up to them to decide whether the ordinance is valid or not.
This misunderstanding has lead to a lot of unnecessary anger (and heated rhetoric) over the years. Please don't perpetuate it.
Further, it is widely accepted that there will be a thousand years of peace, called the millennium after the return of Christ during which angelic messengers will facilitate cleaning up records that are inaccurate, or no longer exist on behalf of those who still want ordinances performed. The reason to not wait stems from the desire not to make those who are eagerly awaiting the work wait any longer.
For more information on the motivation for Temple proxy work, see:D&C 137. (Note that the Biblical term "prison" is understood as a spiritual state regarding sin, and not a literal one, that baptism facilitates freedom from.)
The implication that proxy work is being done for these individuals is unfounded. If they were to do so for the ancient pharaohs, they certainly wouldn't need a tissue sample! That's just ridiculous. No, BYU is studying the genetics, fair and square.
Of course not, but even without a will, legal documentation should not be hard to get, nor should the family be charged by courts, lawyers, appraiser, etc. It should be routine. It's not like nobody ever dies. Instead, the judicial system uses it as a revenue stream (fees), and then the legislature uses it again in the form of estate taxes.
It's only when family members are bickering and can't settle the issues among themselves that the full weight of the judicial system should be brought to bear. But lawyers just can't see life happening without their involvement.
Court Fees... Personal Representative Fees... Attorney's Fees... Accounting Fees... Appraisal and Business Valuation Fees... Bond Fees... Miscellaneous Fees... After adding up all of these fees and costs, you can count on probate taking anywhere from 3%-8% of your assets away from your beneficiaries... [quoting from about.com]
Vultures, the lot of them.
Everyone pays taxes, and everyone dies. There ought to be no court fees. (There are now places where you need to pay the fire department if they every come to your property, despite paying taxes. Same thing.) Probate should not be an especially difficult process, nor should it involve fees or necessitate lawyers. Those should be for unusual circumstances.
The government exists to serve the governed, not the other way around. We have forgotten that and let bureaucrats and politicians "restructure" our society to please their own egos and line their pockets.
This is definitely part of the problem, but I think it runs deeper. There seems to be a philosophy that law should govern everything. And because only lawyers understand the law, they should be involved in every facet of life. It's sickening.
Throughout most of civilization, the average person couldn't afford a lawyer, and we managed inter-personal relationships just fine. Now, we can occasionally afford lawyers, but we can't sneeze without one?
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them...
I didn't, actually. But not everything in real life is like a TV show. There are still plenty of families that manage to make it through the death of a loved one without tearing the family apart.
People who think that Lawyers need to be involved for each and every death must either have terrible family lives, or have friends and neighbors who do. (Or put too much stock into television episodes)
The children either want to avoid full probate because of the expense or need to get a new attorney familiar with whatever the affidavit of small estate alternative process is for their jurisdiction.
Sometimes, I just don't understand the Lawyer outlook of the world. If everything is working smoothly between family members, there ought to be no reason whatsoever to involve lawyers, courts, and extra expenses. Yes, there will always be some people who need a legal mediator... but there will always be people who don't need the extra expense and headache.
The idea that the world runs because lawyers exist, and that we must therefore thank them for making life difficult, is perverse and detrimental to society. Sometimes, in order to be helpful, the profession just needs to get out of the way.
[L]eveling is something that takes dozens if not over 100 hours in many cases and people have put serious time and effort into that, and we don't want to diminish that.
I don't know anybody who values 100s of hours of their time at $60. They might not want to diminish that effort, but they have a poor way of showing it. If I played WoW, I'd be insulted.
The moon is tide-locked to the Earth, not to the sun. The so-called "dark side of the moon" gets just as much sunlight, but it never faces us. Moon based solar collection will have most of the problems that Earth based collection has... and a whole host of new problems.
First, I'm not sure what to think about the climate change political debate (which has so thoroughly obscured good science through funding bias - in both directions - and social pressure as to make actual scientific discussion practically impossible). So I'm only going to parrot for a bit.
It is all about heat, both change AND absolute. The planet is a complex system that deals with fluctuating carbon quite nicely. But those subsystems only operate well at particular temperatures. As the absolute temperature increases, less carbon gets sequestered, and green house gasses that are already sequestered get released. Thus, absolute heat drives a change in heat.
Or at least, the very loud theories say this. IANAC
Agent Orange damage can be permanent, and debilitating (at least, as it was used in Vietnam). If some of those planes lasted until 2010, and if the residue in question is at all dangerous, then it's not outrageous to imagine ongoing diagnosis.
In fact, military preparation for decommissioning / dismantling might dramatically increase the risk of airborne particulates containing the substance. (For instance: asbestos is generally quite safe until you stir it up doing remodeling, etc.) It's still a dose that pales in comparison to what happened during the war, but it would be the highest dose encountered from those planes in decades.
I can't conceive of a toolchain or stack is going to tell me that I miscalculated a total because I left out a variable.
But can you conceive of an IDE that displays expressions in a clear and understandable way? Compare the following:
a=2
b=10
c=30
(x^(a*c/30)-2^(bx))/(5a)
To the following pasted into Desmos:
a=2
b=10
c=30
$\frac{x^{a\cdot \frac{c}{30}}-2^{bx}}{5a}$
(Note that Desmos doesn't do copy/paste particularly well, but it does make it really easy to enter formulas from the keyboard.)
Which is easier to read? The mess of parenthesis, or the formula? Which one are you more likely to make a mistake, and leave out a variable? And that's really low hanging fruit. While I agree that we aren't going to get away from text programming, that doesn't mean that all of our real-time coding tools need to be austere and display everything on straight uniform lines. We're stuck in a very old paradigm, compared to the things we're creating.
Anyone who thinks all software has bugs has never written "Hello World" in assembly.
Perfect, trivial software is clearly possible. Perfect software that's slightly more complex is also clearly possible. We haven't yet accepted that perfect software is possible, but we should demand it (for moderately expensive software, or where bugs will cost you money, for instance). A reasonably intelligent programmer writing a modestly complex program should be able to do so perfectly. That he can't, (because his tools don't help him do so) is infuriating.
Yes, almost all software has bugs. We are way too comfortable with the idea. Software doesn't need to have bugs. We just don't have toolchains and development stacks that encourage perfect software. It's as if engineers decided to only use modeling clay for buildings, because nobody sells steel, and it's too cumbersome to smelt their own.
The profession really is no better off for accepting this sorry state.
Because of our voting system (first-past-the-post), we've devolved into a two-party system (see Duverger's Law). Because the two big parties cannot be challenged (without an unbelievable amount of outrage), they rarely field candidates that are good for the voters, only candidates that are good for the parties. Why vote when none of the candidates represent you, or will do the things you wish to see happen?
Unfortunately, the idea that voting is useless only occurs to those of us who have two brain cells to rub together. I'd be fine with only a few voters, if they were the more intelligent population. I can draw an analogy to jury duty. Those who are smart enough to get out of it, shouldn't. Those who are smart enough to see how the voting system is broken, should vote. It may be disheartening, but we're not going to right this ship any other way.
(Which won't correct the vote rigging, but that's another topic.)
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, to a layman such as myself, the summary seems to make good sense.
For instance, I've been wondering for the last few weeks if PvNP might be related to the Arrow of Time.
I get it, but that's no excuse. You're right, though, that it's hardly the only consideration.
Since the point of this article was to bring up crazy ideas to reevaluate our current systems, why we use them, and what we might do instead - I have a crazy proposal for evaluation. This isn't something that I know will work, but something I'd like to see thought through. It does have a controversial aspect.
There has already been some research done into treating crime like an epidemic. Why not study it like an addiction? People participate in both because they get something out of it emotionally. They are less likely to feel shame and reform if their peers/family accept the behavior. They both breed distrust for societal norms which disapprove of the behavior, socially isolating them from those who might help.
So, how do we deal with addiction? It's not easy to do, but it is something that we have made progress with over the years. Locking people up in rehab for a period of time does help. But it is wholly insufficient on it's own. One of the best ways to quit is some type of 12-step-like program. Criminals today are told that they cannot associate with other felons, as a condition of their parole. This makes sense, but is it really the best way? What if there was an semi-anonymous sponsor program? Felons helping felons to stay out of jail by staying straight?
You're using the wrong perspective. Granted, they buried the lead. The end of the summary:
It's meant to be a conversation starter. Locking up prisoners for long periods of time isn't a good way to handle things, but I haven't seen one better. We might get there eventually. I see 3 distinct benefits, only one of which may be deemed punishment.
(1) Deterrence, both of recidivism and of new crime. Our current system does measurably bad on the former, and it's pretty hard to estimate the latter.
(2) Most critically, a locked up criminal can't commit more crime while they're behind bars (widely speaking). Playing the law of averages, this means crime is lower, and there are fewer victims.
(3) It gives time for victims to heal emotionally without being harassed by the perpetrator. Also in this category, it makes it harder to enact revenge, and helps prevent most blood feuds. (It only lightens gang wars, but we'd have far more Hatfield/McCoy problems without physically isolating perpetrators from their victims.)
Probably still be required to buy it through a dealer though...
Can someone explain why that is the way it is?
It is a joke relevant to some of the political hijinks that car dealerships have been pulling lately to subvert Tesla. There are several states that now require any car sales to go through a dealer, specifically to prevent direct sales by Tesla.
Oscrivellodds was trying to moderate the position of Denzacar by stages. Denzacar, on the other hand, seemed ridiculous, and I can't be sure just how serious he was trying to be*. I'm not worried so much about Oscrivellodds' post, as he was actively trying to move the conversation toward moderation and tolerance (or at least, live and let live). Even if he was being facetious, Denzacar's was a more dangerous post, as it contains actively wrong information, probably heard across some other church's pulpit, if I were to take a guess.
*("And yet nobody is rounding them up into prisons and concentration camps under suspicion of conspiracy to kill everyone on the planet!" - the over use of exclamation marks in the vicinity is telling, probably of sarcasm, but not necessarily)
I think I am lacking context. I cannot tell if your post is profound, sarcastic, inane, or "pun-ny".
To give context back, one of the central tenets of our faith is given in AoF 1:11 - "We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may."
Thus, if someone is wholly opposed to my belief system, yet they still consider me a harmless nut, they will be capable of honoring my agency to choose how I worship. It is a minimum state that permits inter-faith (and intercultural) cooperation.
This does not preclude calm, rational (preferably friendly) religious discussion (and even very sensitive debate), but it does absolutely require respect.
(Addendum: "Bible bashing" does not show respect, and is a really bad idea. The devil can quote scripture - Matt 4:6. Even if what is said is true, he enjoys conflict. Any two godly people who disagree should be able to do so with civility. The Internet makes that a bit harder because any disagreement is often read in an angry voice, even if the writer didn't so intend.)
And we're not sure either! ;-)
"But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." - Matt 24:36-37, reaffirmed in D&C 49:7
But since it could be just about any time, there's no sense in being caught unprepared. As the saying goes, a broken clock is right twice a day. (not strictly true, but whatever) We'll be right eventually. Until then, people can just chalk it up to eccentricity.
I dunno, harmless nut is an upgrade from what most angry people call us. I'll take it.
Oops, D&C 138, the link is correct, the reference is not.
They are actively fulfilling a Biblical prophecy ONLY by determining genealogical lineage AND then baptizing the dead. Simply baptizing them just makes them Mormon. In the minds of the LDS followers.
No, no, no, no, no.
http://mormon.org/faq/proxy-baptisms
Jesus Christ taught that baptism is essential to the salvation of all who have lived on earth (see John3:5). Many people, however, have died without being baptized. Others were baptized without proper authority. Because God is merciful, He has prepared a way for all people to receive the blessings of baptism. By performing proxy baptisms in behalf of those who have died, Church members offer these blessings to deceased ancestors. These individuals in the next life can then choose to accept or decline what has been done in their behalf.
You're missing a very, very key element here. Nobody is making anybody else Mormon. That would violate agency. Baptism is a covenant, like a contract. It is a two sided promise. It is valid if, and only if the deceased accepts it. Thus, they are NOT recorded as becoming Mormon, but as having had the saving ordinances performed on their behalf. It is up to them to decide whether the ordinance is valid or not.
This misunderstanding has lead to a lot of unnecessary anger (and heated rhetoric) over the years. Please don't perpetuate it.
Further, it is widely accepted that there will be a thousand years of peace, called the millennium after the return of Christ during which angelic messengers will facilitate cleaning up records that are inaccurate, or no longer exist on behalf of those who still want ordinances performed. The reason to not wait stems from the desire not to make those who are eagerly awaiting the work wait any longer.
For more information on the motivation for Temple proxy work, see:D&C 137. (Note that the Biblical term "prison" is understood as a spiritual state regarding sin, and not a literal one, that baptism facilitates freedom from.)
The implication that proxy work is being done for these individuals is unfounded. If they were to do so for the ancient pharaohs, they certainly wouldn't need a tissue sample! That's just ridiculous. No, BYU is studying the genetics, fair and square.
Of course not, but even without a will, legal documentation should not be hard to get, nor should the family be charged by courts, lawyers, appraiser, etc. It should be routine. It's not like nobody ever dies. Instead, the judicial system uses it as a revenue stream (fees), and then the legislature uses it again in the form of estate taxes.
It's only when family members are bickering and can't settle the issues among themselves that the full weight of the judicial system should be brought to bear. But lawyers just can't see life happening without their involvement.
Court Fees... Personal Representative Fees... Attorney's Fees... Accounting Fees... Appraisal and Business Valuation Fees... Bond Fees... Miscellaneous Fees... After adding up all of these fees and costs, you can count on probate taking anywhere from 3%-8% of your assets away from your beneficiaries... [quoting from about.com]
Vultures, the lot of them.
Everyone pays taxes, and everyone dies. There ought to be no court fees. (There are now places where you need to pay the fire department if they every come to your property, despite paying taxes. Same thing.) Probate should not be an especially difficult process, nor should it involve fees or necessitate lawyers. Those should be for unusual circumstances.
The government exists to serve the governed, not the other way around. We have forgotten that and let bureaucrats and politicians "restructure" our society to please their own egos and line their pockets.
This is definitely part of the problem, but I think it runs deeper. There seems to be a philosophy that law should govern everything. And because only lawyers understand the law, they should be involved in every facet of life. It's sickening.
Throughout most of civilization, the average person couldn't afford a lawyer, and we managed inter-personal relationships just fine. Now, we can occasionally afford lawyers, but we can't sneeze without one?
One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them...
Sound familiar?
I didn't, actually. But not everything in real life is like a TV show. There are still plenty of families that manage to make it through the death of a loved one without tearing the family apart.
People who think that Lawyers need to be involved for each and every death must either have terrible family lives, or have friends and neighbors who do. (Or put too much stock into television episodes)
The children either want to avoid full probate because of the expense or need to get a new attorney familiar with whatever the affidavit of small estate alternative process is for their jurisdiction.
Sometimes, I just don't understand the Lawyer outlook of the world. If everything is working smoothly between family members, there ought to be no reason whatsoever to involve lawyers, courts, and extra expenses. Yes, there will always be some people who need a legal mediator... but there will always be people who don't need the extra expense and headache.
The idea that the world runs because lawyers exist, and that we must therefore thank them for making life difficult, is perverse and detrimental to society. Sometimes, in order to be helpful, the profession just needs to get out of the way.
[L]eveling is something that takes dozens if not over 100 hours in many cases and people have put serious time and effort into that, and we don't want to diminish that.
I don't know anybody who values 100s of hours of their time at $60. They might not want to diminish that effort, but they have a poor way of showing it. If I played WoW, I'd be insulted.
Yes, but it's not always the same half. :-P
The moon is tide-locked to the Earth, not to the sun. The so-called "dark side of the moon" gets just as much sunlight, but it never faces us. Moon based solar collection will have most of the problems that Earth based collection has... and a whole host of new problems.
Really...?
First, I'm not sure what to think about the climate change political debate (which has so thoroughly obscured good science through funding bias - in both directions - and social pressure as to make actual scientific discussion practically impossible). So I'm only going to parrot for a bit.
It is all about heat, both change AND absolute. The planet is a complex system that deals with fluctuating carbon quite nicely. But those subsystems only operate well at particular temperatures. As the absolute temperature increases, less carbon gets sequestered, and green house gasses that are already sequestered get released. Thus, absolute heat drives a change in heat.
Or at least, the very loud theories say this. IANAC
Agent Orange damage can be permanent, and debilitating (at least, as it was used in Vietnam). If some of those planes lasted until 2010, and if the residue in question is at all dangerous, then it's not outrageous to imagine ongoing diagnosis.
In fact, military preparation for decommissioning / dismantling might dramatically increase the risk of airborne particulates containing the substance. (For instance: asbestos is generally quite safe until you stir it up doing remodeling, etc.) It's still a dose that pales in comparison to what happened during the war, but it would be the highest dose encountered from those planes in decades.
I can't conceive of a toolchain or stack is going to tell me that I miscalculated a total because I left out a variable.
But can you conceive of an IDE that displays expressions in a clear and understandable way? Compare the following:
a=2
b=10
c=30
(x^(a*c/30)-2^(bx))/(5a)
To the following pasted into Desmos:
a=2
b=10
c=30
$\frac{x^{a\cdot \frac{c}{30}}-2^{bx}}{5a}$
(Note that Desmos doesn't do copy/paste particularly well, but it does make it really easy to enter formulas from the keyboard.)
Which is easier to read? The mess of parenthesis, or the formula? Which one are you more likely to make a mistake, and leave out a variable? And that's really low hanging fruit. While I agree that we aren't going to get away from text programming, that doesn't mean that all of our real-time coding tools need to be austere and display everything on straight uniform lines. We're stuck in a very old paradigm, compared to the things we're creating.
Anyone who thinks all software has bugs has never written "Hello World" in assembly.
Perfect, trivial software is clearly possible. Perfect software that's slightly more complex is also clearly possible. We haven't yet accepted that perfect software is possible, but we should demand it (for moderately expensive software, or where bugs will cost you money, for instance). A reasonably intelligent programmer writing a modestly complex program should be able to do so perfectly. That he can't, (because his tools don't help him do so) is infuriating.
Yes, almost all software has bugs. We are way too comfortable with the idea. Software doesn't need to have bugs. We just don't have toolchains and development stacks that encourage perfect software. It's as if engineers decided to only use modeling clay for buildings, because nobody sells steel, and it's too cumbersome to smelt their own.
The profession really is no better off for accepting this sorry state.
And even most of the data more than a few decades back is pretty suspect.
I vote, but it's easy to see why people don't.
Because of our voting system (first-past-the-post), we've devolved into a two-party system (see Duverger's Law). Because the two big parties cannot be challenged (without an unbelievable amount of outrage), they rarely field candidates that are good for the voters, only candidates that are good for the parties. Why vote when none of the candidates represent you, or will do the things you wish to see happen?
Unfortunately, the idea that voting is useless only occurs to those of us who have two brain cells to rub together. I'd be fine with only a few voters, if they were the more intelligent population. I can draw an analogy to jury duty. Those who are smart enough to get out of it, shouldn't. Those who are smart enough to see how the voting system is broken, should vote. It may be disheartening, but we're not going to right this ship any other way.
(Which won't correct the vote rigging, but that's another topic.)
And then that name will be co-opted, and then the next... ad infinitum.