Care to explain the difference? All spammers are criminals, not all criminals are spammers. If he was talking about spammers then what he said doesn't necessarily apply to murderers. If, however, he was talking about criminals, then it clearly applies to both spammers and murderers. I was simply requesting clarification which I got:)
1. Rehabilitation has happened. It simply doesn't happen often enough for our liking.
2. If islamic terrorists can brainwash people into flying planes into buildings and martyring themselves, I think American can convince a few criminals not to kill other people. Now if the choices are murdering the criminal, or brainwashing them through any means necessary, I'm open to giving the criminal the option of choosing their punishment. But then again I'm not in favor of the death penalty, and not truly in favor of what would be required to brainwash a murderer. Simply put, rehabilitation is possible without going to such extremes, we just need to get better at it.
You and your friends use p2p to share songs between each other? You do realize there's more efficient, easier and legal ways to share with your friends, right?
Public hanging is a deterrent. I would rather deter crime than help people who commit it. I mean hey, it's my money. I'm sure your president thanks you for buying into the Captialist ideal so much, comrade.
about for 1/5th of the price too (compared to Vista Ultimate, here around). And able to be run on less the 1/5th of modern computers. I guess you get what you pay for.
While your solution is simpler, is it the right thing to do? Me, I believe in rehabilitation. I don't think we do it very well under the current system, but I do believe it is possible and that we need to get better at doing it.
While that might satisfy our need for revenge as individuals, as a society aren't we suppose to seek the rehabilitation of criminals such as Robert Soloway? If so, I doubt very much punishing him in such a manner would rehabilitate him. It would simply urge him not to get caught next time, although it is of course quite impossible for him to do it hence the silly moderation. Although I imagine many people are thinking "Yeah! We should do that! Really make him suffer!"
I think we need more behaviour modification specialists (including psychiatrists) over the simple cry for vengence when we make laws against spamming. Otherwise we simply get laws that say a spammer should be put in jail for 65 years rather then laws which actually seek to rehabilitate the spammer.
I apply a very simple test: "What does the average murderer/rapist/pedophile get when convicted?" If the answer is less then the person in question I ask "What's worse, what this person did or what they did?" If murder, rape and pedophilia are worse, then I say either those crimes need to have harsher sentences or this is way too excessive.
The trick is, do you decrease what spammers get or increase what murderers, rapists and pedophiles get?
Why not just create a desktop app that talks to the webapp Getting my school to download a PonieDocs app just for me and a SoKewlDocs app just for Bob and a FakeDocs app just for Jim might not be easy. Convincing them to install one plugin for 3 people though, is 3 times more likely to get them to do it then 3 different apps for only 1 person each.
Due to Google's abuse of the word beta this argument no longer applies for their services. Which is a shame because there are valid times for Google to use it.
What this solves:
* Location dependence
* Online dependence
* Needing to lug hardware around (such as a USB thumbdrive)
I'm having trouble understanding what about this is insane.
I use Google Docs (for non-important data) along with Gmail and Google Personal Homepage. I like the UI in all and have no problem with my computer or the page being "sluggish." Perhaps its time you updated your computer? Because mine is hardly cutting edge and has no problem. So I can only imagine how old your computer must be to be having these problems.
Slashdot Mirror
So you're saying that all of Robert Soloway's crimes aggregated is worse then the taking of one single life? Please tell me I'm wrong.
1. Rehabilitation has happened. It simply doesn't happen often enough for our liking.
2. If islamic terrorists can brainwash people into flying planes into buildings and martyring themselves, I think American can convince a few criminals not to kill other people. Now if the choices are murdering the criminal, or brainwashing them through any means necessary, I'm open to giving the criminal the option of choosing their punishment. But then again I'm not in favor of the death penalty, and not truly in favor of what would be required to brainwash a murderer. Simply put, rehabilitation is possible without going to such extremes, we just need to get better at it.
You and your friends use p2p to share songs between each other? You do realize there's more efficient, easier and legal ways to share with your friends, right?
Yes, I'm sure Ghandi was quite wrong when he pointed out the problem with seeking vengence. After all, India and Pakistan did so well by ignoring him.
Well I'm certainly glad the Australian criminal system disagrees with you.
"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." - Ghandi
So all those things aggregated is worse then a single life is it? Wow. I'm sure glad I don't live in your world.
While your solution is simpler, is it the right thing to do? Me, I believe in rehabilitation. I don't think we do it very well under the current system, but I do believe it is possible and that we need to get better at doing it.
While that might satisfy our need for revenge as individuals, as a society aren't we suppose to seek the rehabilitation of criminals such as Robert Soloway? If so, I doubt very much punishing him in such a manner would rehabilitate him. It would simply urge him not to get caught next time, although it is of course quite impossible for him to do it hence the silly moderation. Although I imagine many people are thinking "Yeah! We should do that! Really make him suffer!" I think we need more behaviour modification specialists (including psychiatrists) over the simple cry for vengence when we make laws against spamming. Otherwise we simply get laws that say a spammer should be put in jail for 65 years rather then laws which actually seek to rehabilitate the spammer.
I apply a very simple test: "What does the average murderer/rapist/pedophile get when convicted?" If the answer is less then the person in question I ask "What's worse, what this person did or what they did?" If murder, rape and pedophilia are worse, then I say either those crimes need to have harsher sentences or this is way too excessive. The trick is, do you decrease what spammers get or increase what murderers, rapists and pedophiles get?
I thought this was going to be about some robot arrested on the subway :(
Ethically a similar argument could be made. Legally, unfortunately, no it can't. Unfortunately the two often don't coincide.
Yeah, everyone knows Australia isn't a sovereign country. Or perhaps not all of us are warhawks like you Americans.
If I was silly enough (which I'm not) to use Google docs for university work I would need offline access for the few times my internet dies.
Yes this is a problem if you're constantly sharing data. Many people aren't, hence this isn't a problem for us but instead solves many other problems.
Due to Google's abuse of the word beta this argument no longer applies for their services. Which is a shame because there are valid times for Google to use it.
I doubt it
What this solves: * Location dependence * Online dependence * Needing to lug hardware around (such as a USB thumbdrive) I'm having trouble understanding what about this is insane.
I use Google Docs (for non-important data) along with Gmail and Google Personal Homepage. I like the UI in all and have no problem with my computer or the page being "sluggish." Perhaps its time you updated your computer? Because mine is hardly cutting edge and has no problem. So I can only imagine how old your computer must be to be having these problems.