Or the well-known fact that the CIA has its fingers all over Facebook.
Along with every single Facebook developer. Which is why I don't allow any applications "access" to my data.
Do you suckers believe for one instant that everything you do and write isn't being scribbled into some Internal Security goon's harddrive somewhere? I have a friend who worked for Juniper, and he personally knew that AT&T was buying their equipment to route all its traffic through NSA spook territory before hitting the rest of the web. East Germany represent!
Ah. You've convinced me. I had no idea. Now I know!...
Nust choose one of the zillions of existing exploits and be happy.
This could just as easily be used as an argument for Windows according to Slashdot, which would argue against NSA trying to put a backdoor into Windows.
OP is still right, though, isn't he? Hundreds of highly skilled Windows developers know exactly what is going on inside Windows just as much as the hundreds of Debian developers know about Debian. Except there are probably more Windows developers. Not all of them "like or trust the US government" and certainly not all of them have been paid off, like it seems people think (on Slashdot, somehow Windows is this evil corporate blob of non-personal entities... I am fairly certain that many, many, many decent people work for Microsoft - in fact, I'm fairly certain that there are Microsoft employees that are just as decent as aforementioned Debian developers...).
Also, if the NSA is interested in buying off Microsoft... wouldn't it be cheaper to buy off an open source group/app? Like, as you mentioned, php... or maybe RedHat, etc... and introduce a backdoor thing from a very high-up developer who can argue it away? It's not like there aren't ever any disputes amongst the open source community about whether or not something is a good idea.
Hum. What's your machine like and what are these games? I haven't seen a VM that runs with the same performance as the native OS. For some games, that doesn't matter. For others, it definitely does.
Yes, that would work too. You'd likely have to "sign your life away" since you're saying you *don't* want to be notified in the event of a disaster, which seems kinda stupid, but I suppose you should be free to say "don't bother me, I'll handle the tornado myself and not sue you for not telling me" if you want.
Except that I'm not sure 90% of home users have network connectivity 100% of the time with no down time. Not everyone likes not being able to edit their documents just because Verizon flaked out for a day.
Unless they're doing a Google Gears thing, where you can edit your online documents offline...
In which case they are trying to make a thick client out of a thin client in an effort to promote a thin client... which... is confusing and seems to be a convoluted way to do things.
It seems every time a natural disaster (or any other disaster) hits, there are always people that complain that they didn't know about it or something like that...
And any time we try to get ways to let everyone know about it, people complain about that, too.
Seems you can't have it both ways... seems like we have to choose to have either opt-in or no-opt. If no-opt, which seems to be the way it is now ("beeeeeep, this is only a test..."), then they have to continue to do things like this. Seems we should argue about the system itself, not the implementation, here...
On the other hand, what do you do with countries/people/rulers/dictators/societies that decide they want to take over the world, they want to kill all western civilization, they want to kill all the Jews/get rid of Israel, they want everyone to be communist, etc...?
Not just "Islam," but Islam, North Korea, "crazy" Communism, "crazy" Christianity (the crusades), "crazy" Mongolia, etc. There are a lot of beliefs in the world that apparently will lead entire countries to think they need to wipe some other country or people group off the globe, or conquer them to spread their belief, or whatever. Should we only perpetually be on defense and not try to get rid of the problem at its source?
I'm not trying to defend any particular war here or looking for a politically charged answer (i.e., I'm not defending or attacking Bush, Obama, etc.), I'm asking for what you think countries should do in situations like that.
By "take games seriously" are you referring to the people in their 20s that still spend all their spare time playing games? They need to grow up?
Or do you mean the people that think games have are extremely influential on people... you think they need to grow up?
Whether or not PvP is good or bad is one argument, but arguing that games don't really influence people is ridiculous. If nothing else, it consumes their time, for better or worse. Games - and all entertainment - is not a neutral activity, just as reading a book isn't. Movies, games, and books (and TV, radio, etc) all influence people; game creators, movie producers, and authors can push behaviors, points, agendas, etc. It's not the medium that makes something "neutral" or non-influential.
Since natural world seems to be relatively well-behaved, it might be expected that objects which can be well-defined accurately model the natural world.
That doesn't get at the mystery, though. The mystery isn't really that "math can model well-behaved systems." The mystery is that the natural world appears to be well-behaved, as you put it. Nobody argues - that I've heard, anyway - that math can't be applied to a consistent and logical system... but why the natural world is consistent and logical can be quite a mystery, depending on how you think it came about, "who" is behind it, why it still exists, etc.
Lest anyone think I'm simply arguing for "religion," I would like to mention that the Greeks and Romans were quite religious - and very pagan - and had some rather ridiculous theories about why things happened that tied into their religion. I'm certainly not arguing simply "for religion." I am actually trying to argue rather neutrally and simply pose the question, while having very distinct beliefs about these things.:)
It seems to me that calling it a mystery implies you're not really sure why math can accurately model the natural world.
So, if you can explain it, it wouldn't be a mystery.
It seems that many scientists and mathematicians were confident that it could accurately model the natural world for one reason: it was "designed."
Basically, what I'm getting at is this: if your worldview includes a Creator/Designer/whatever of some sort (i.e., God) who created/designed and/or sustains the "natural" world, then it is actually not very surprising or mysterious that it is logical and consistent and able to be accurately modeled.
If your worldview tends toward thinking there was no design aside from what "design" evolution (by chance) "gives" it, then it would seem that accurately modeling the natural world would indeed by a mystery, as it... does not entirely make sense. Laws do not really make "sense" unless there is an authoritative entity that put those laws in place... that entity could be God, a social construct, a human being, etc. But "laws of nature" don't really make sense if there is nothing actually consistent behind nature.
Don't know why you got modded troll. Stupid mods.:)
Several points in your post such as this indicate that the benefit of imprisonment to you is that it makes you (as you put yourself in the role of the victim) feel better. I'm not sure revenge is a motive for imprisonment that I agree with necessarily.
Not exactly. I agree, it probably did sound like that, but that wasn't my point. I view imprisonment as an attempt at giving a just payment for the wrong they have done. Society places "weights" or values certain things an associates the "badness" of a crime based on how much they value what that crime did to what they value. Based on this, "justice" is "served" (quotes because it sounds so cliche, hehe) by payment that is appropriate to what the crime is. What's appropriate? Well, that seems to be generally decided by society. But rehabilitation does not really seem to be any sort of payment for a crime. It's more trying to keep over-payment for a crime from happening, it seems.
very circumstances when they come out, that led them to commit the crimes
I think we differ a bit in our view of human nature. Circumstances my lead the person to the crime, so to speak, but doesn't force him to do it. Circumstances can never be blamed for crime, IMO. Perhaps taken into account, but not blamed. Especially in the case of things like rape. What, you were forced to rape a girl? OK, so maybe there are certain circumstances where they could be blamed partially... i.e., you were put at gunpoint and told to do it or something like that.
I suspect from your post that you see a large difference between yourself and criminals, whereas I see the difference between criminals and non-criminals to be in large part the circumstances people find themselves in.
You'd be surprised at my worldview, perhaps I didn't explain/show it well enough. On that topic, my view could be summed up with a quaint religious phrase: There but for the grace of God go I. In other words, there's on difference between us as far as being human beings go. Choices definitely differ. Circumstances certainly do, too, but that doesn't explain the many crimes committed by people whose circumstances were either chosen by them or certainly weren't the typical "he was in a slum, he had to" reasons.
You may disagree but if that's the case, you must explain the disparity in crime rates between different demographics to me.
And you have to explain the huge crimes that happen by millionaires and other wealthy people who have everything they want, or can buy it if they don't have, too, right?:)
These people are not "allowed" to live off taxpayers. They are forced to do so.
That is a good point. Touche. With the accent that I'm too lazy to put on it.
You would find very few indeed that wouldn't stop doing this and leave were they allowed to.
Heh, that's not what I meant, but that's true.:)
It is a common complaint that prisoners get to live off taxpayers but it is logically incorrect to blame someone for that which you yourself force upon them.
Also true. I'm in favor of changing what they are forced to do - how about that?
You need to consider what portion of inmates are actually there for such crimes as opposed to those who are in for theft, drug use, and other less emotive things.
I agree... which is the whole point about being just and having punishments that fit - not exceeding is included - the crime.
My point is that prison produces worse criminals than they otherwise would be and this is backed up by numerous studies.
Then we need to figure out how to both be just - to victim and cr
But socialist, capitalist or anything else, we all agree that corruption is bad.
Yup.
I also think that it seems easier to be corrupt in a socialistic system... or, perhaps, harder to get out.
Cleaning house sounds like a great idea. As far as the health care thing, the proposed health care "reform" is worse than the current, it would seem...
Conservatives would like to know the answer to that, too.
Yes, unfortunately, questioning Bush got similar critiques. Seems the "my way is right, it's so obvious... you don' think it's right so you must be [insert something bad]!" sentiment is unfortunately rampant. Which makes it wrong no matter which group employs it. Including now. "Bush did it" and "Obama did it" aren't excuses, they're fingers.
Spend a few years locked up in a confined, overcrowded place with a lot of other moderately violent people and no contact with women, and you'll bet people come out keyed for violence and with trouble relating to women.
So what caused their "trouble relating to women" in the first place?
Rape isn't having "trouble relating to women," by the way. It's having no respect for women (or men, or children, or whatever).
I'm all for rehabilitation, if possible. I'm also for justice. Rehabilitation should occur after justice. Rehabilitation does not negate justice. Sexually violating a woman, scarring her emotionally (and physically, for that matter) for life, completely messing up her life, etc... that's a lot to be punished for. Now, if the problem is that you fundamentally don't think punishing for a crime is the issue, that's a different topic...
I personally don't think people in prisons should be allowed to simply live off taxpayers (in other words, have some sort of labor that they can do to help the country in some way. No, not concentration camp style). I think rehabilitation should come after you have paid for your crimes - rehabilitation is not justice. Basically... if you punishment for rape (as the example here) is low, then it shows what society thinks about women (or rape victims in general) and what respect society as a whole has for their fellow humans. And if "oh, but he shows good behavior now" lowers your punishment, then that means that society has deemed the "wellbeing" of the victimizer to be somehow more important than justice for the victim.
I have very little sympathy for murderers and rapists. Probably about as much sympathy as they had for their victims. Just reading about what they are willing to do, especially men to women, sickens me... and reading about so-and-so getting out after 15 years (or less, on good behavior) is very sickening. It brings up, hm, feelings of injustice.
You wouldn't want to run for US President, would you?:P
Seriously though, it's true. I think we were pretty good at other times in the past 200 years, but I really dislike the "Europe is where it's happening, why can't we make America more like [insert European country]?" Europe is why people CAME to America...
Not to say anything a European country does is automatically bad, of course. I guess the main push right now is socialism, which some European countries have *ahem* presumably *ahem* implemented with some success. But just because it is successful doesn't mean it's good. I don't think socialistic government is the way to go. However, that's just being a stick in the mud, I'm told.
Did the Brits call us sticks in the mud back in the 18th century, too?;)
I was with you until there. I'm not sure some offenders actually want to be rehabilitated. Seems repeat-offenses, especially of violent or sexual crimes, is pretty high...
Slashdot Mirror
Or the well-known fact that the CIA has its fingers all over Facebook.
Along with every single Facebook developer. Which is why I don't allow any applications "access" to my data.
Do you suckers believe for one instant that everything you do and write isn't being scribbled into some Internal Security goon's harddrive somewhere? I have a friend who worked for Juniper, and he personally knew that AT&T was buying their equipment to route all its traffic through NSA spook territory before hitting the rest of the web. East Germany represent!
Ah. You've convinced me. I had no idea. Now I know! ...
Nust choose one of the zillions of existing exploits and be happy.
This could just as easily be used as an argument for Windows according to Slashdot, which would argue against NSA trying to put a backdoor into Windows.
OP is still right, though, isn't he? Hundreds of highly skilled Windows developers know exactly what is going on inside Windows just as much as the hundreds of Debian developers know about Debian. Except there are probably more Windows developers. Not all of them "like or trust the US government" and certainly not all of them have been paid off, like it seems people think (on Slashdot, somehow Windows is this evil corporate blob of non-personal entities... I am fairly certain that many, many, many decent people work for Microsoft - in fact, I'm fairly certain that there are Microsoft employees that are just as decent as aforementioned Debian developers...).
Also, if the NSA is interested in buying off Microsoft... wouldn't it be cheaper to buy off an open source group/app? Like, as you mentioned, php ... or maybe RedHat, etc... and introduce a backdoor thing from a very high-up developer who can argue it away? It's not like there aren't ever any disputes amongst the open source community about whether or not something is a good idea.
But you know... when in Rome...
Oh, oh... I know this one... ummm.... go to the opera?
Hum. What's your machine like and what are these games? I haven't seen a VM that runs with the same performance as the native OS. For some games, that doesn't matter. For others, it definitely does.
That story is patently absurd.
Whatever. You're just a patent troll.
where all eyes in the world are watching what they do
I have never looked at the SELinux code.... have you?
Yes, that would work too. You'd likely have to "sign your life away" since you're saying you *don't* want to be notified in the event of a disaster, which seems kinda stupid, but I suppose you should be free to say "don't bother me, I'll handle the tornado myself and not sue you for not telling me" if you want.
Except that I'm not sure 90% of home users have network connectivity 100% of the time with no down time. Not everyone likes not being able to edit their documents just because Verizon flaked out for a day.
Unless they're doing a Google Gears thing, where you can edit your online documents offline...
In which case they are trying to make a thick client out of a thin client in an effort to promote a thin client ... which ... is confusing and seems to be a convoluted way to do things.
Just wait until your network goes down. ;)
It seems every time a natural disaster (or any other disaster) hits, there are always people that complain that they didn't know about it or something like that...
And any time we try to get ways to let everyone know about it, people complain about that, too.
Seems you can't have it both ways... seems like we have to choose to have either opt-in or no-opt. If no-opt, which seems to be the way it is now ("beeeeeep, this is only a test..."), then they have to continue to do things like this. Seems we should argue about the system itself, not the implementation, here...
When we stop invading other countries?
On one hand, I agree. People react to invasion.
On the other hand, what do you do with countries/people/rulers/dictators/societies that decide they want to take over the world, they want to kill all western civilization, they want to kill all the Jews/get rid of Israel, they want everyone to be communist, etc...?
Not just "Islam," but Islam, North Korea, "crazy" Communism, "crazy" Christianity (the crusades), "crazy" Mongolia, etc. There are a lot of beliefs in the world that apparently will lead entire countries to think they need to wipe some other country or people group off the globe, or conquer them to spread their belief, or whatever. Should we only perpetually be on defense and not try to get rid of the problem at its source?
I'm not trying to defend any particular war here or looking for a politically charged answer (i.e., I'm not defending or attacking Bush, Obama, etc.), I'm asking for what you think countries should do in situations like that.
By "take games seriously" are you referring to the people in their 20s that still spend all their spare time playing games? They need to grow up?
Or do you mean the people that think games have are extremely influential on people... you think they need to grow up?
Whether or not PvP is good or bad is one argument, but arguing that games don't really influence people is ridiculous. If nothing else, it consumes their time, for better or worse. Games - and all entertainment - is not a neutral activity, just as reading a book isn't. Movies, games, and books (and TV, radio, etc) all influence people; game creators, movie producers, and authors can push behaviors, points, agendas, etc. It's not the medium that makes something "neutral" or non-influential.
... does China pay >50% of your revenue?
Since natural world seems to be relatively well-behaved, it might be expected that objects which can be well-defined accurately model the natural world.
That doesn't get at the mystery, though. The mystery isn't really that "math can model well-behaved systems." The mystery is that the natural world appears to be well-behaved, as you put it. Nobody argues - that I've heard, anyway - that math can't be applied to a consistent and logical system... but why the natural world is consistent and logical can be quite a mystery, depending on how you think it came about, "who" is behind it, why it still exists, etc.
Lest anyone think I'm simply arguing for "religion," I would like to mention that the Greeks and Romans were quite religious - and very pagan - and had some rather ridiculous theories about why things happened that tied into their religion. I'm certainly not arguing simply "for religion." I am actually trying to argue rather neutrally and simply pose the question, while having very distinct beliefs about these things. :)
It seems to me that calling it a mystery implies you're not really sure why math can accurately model the natural world.
So, if you can explain it, it wouldn't be a mystery.
It seems that many scientists and mathematicians were confident that it could accurately model the natural world for one reason: it was "designed."
Basically, what I'm getting at is this: if your worldview includes a Creator/Designer/whatever of some sort (i.e., God) who created/designed and/or sustains the "natural" world, then it is actually not very surprising or mysterious that it is logical and consistent and able to be accurately modeled.
If your worldview tends toward thinking there was no design aside from what "design" evolution (by chance) "gives" it, then it would seem that accurately modeling the natural world would indeed by a mystery, as it ... does not entirely make sense. Laws do not really make "sense" unless there is an authoritative entity that put those laws in place... that entity could be God, a social construct, a human being, etc. But "laws of nature" don't really make sense if there is nothing actually consistent behind nature.
There's the long-winded version. :)
Don't know why you got modded troll. Stupid mods. :)
Several points in your post such as this indicate that the benefit of imprisonment to you is that it makes you (as you put yourself in the role of the victim) feel better. I'm not sure revenge is a motive for imprisonment that I agree with necessarily.
Not exactly. I agree, it probably did sound like that, but that wasn't my point. I view imprisonment as an attempt at giving a just payment for the wrong they have done. Society places "weights" or values certain things an associates the "badness" of a crime based on how much they value what that crime did to what they value. Based on this, "justice" is "served" (quotes because it sounds so cliche, hehe) by payment that is appropriate to what the crime is. What's appropriate? Well, that seems to be generally decided by society. But rehabilitation does not really seem to be any sort of payment for a crime. It's more trying to keep over-payment for a crime from happening, it seems.
very circumstances when they come out, that led them to commit the crimes
I think we differ a bit in our view of human nature. Circumstances my lead the person to the crime, so to speak, but doesn't force him to do it. Circumstances can never be blamed for crime, IMO. Perhaps taken into account, but not blamed. Especially in the case of things like rape. What, you were forced to rape a girl? OK, so maybe there are certain circumstances where they could be blamed partially ... i.e., you were put at gunpoint and told to do it or something like that.
I suspect from your post that you see a large difference between yourself and criminals, whereas I see the difference between criminals and non-criminals to be in large part the circumstances people find themselves in.
You'd be surprised at my worldview, perhaps I didn't explain/show it well enough. On that topic, my view could be summed up with a quaint religious phrase: There but for the grace of God go I. In other words, there's on difference between us as far as being human beings go. Choices definitely differ. Circumstances certainly do, too, but that doesn't explain the many crimes committed by people whose circumstances were either chosen by them or certainly weren't the typical "he was in a slum, he had to" reasons.
You may disagree but if that's the case, you must explain the disparity in crime rates between different demographics to me.
And you have to explain the huge crimes that happen by millionaires and other wealthy people who have everything they want, or can buy it if they don't have, too, right? :)
These people are not "allowed" to live off taxpayers. They are forced to do so.
That is a good point. Touche. With the accent that I'm too lazy to put on it.
You would find very few indeed that wouldn't stop doing this and leave were they allowed to.
Heh, that's not what I meant, but that's true. :)
It is a common complaint that prisoners get to live off taxpayers but it is logically incorrect to blame someone for that which you yourself force upon them.
Also true. I'm in favor of changing what they are forced to do - how about that?
You need to consider what portion of inmates are actually there for such crimes as opposed to those who are in for theft, drug use, and other less emotive things.
I agree... which is the whole point about being just and having punishments that fit - not exceeding is included - the crime.
My point is that prison produces worse criminals than they otherwise would be and this is backed up by numerous studies.
Then we need to figure out how to both be just - to victim and cr
wearing a mustache
wearing a moustache? What about if you are growing one? ;)
But socialist, capitalist or anything else, we all agree that corruption is bad.
Yup.
I also think that it seems easier to be corrupt in a socialistic system... or, perhaps, harder to get out.
Cleaning house sounds like a great idea. As far as the health care thing, the proposed health care "reform" is worse than the current, it would seem...
Racist? How so?
Conservatives would like to know the answer to that, too.
Yes, unfortunately, questioning Bush got similar critiques. Seems the "my way is right, it's so obvious... you don' think it's right so you must be [insert something bad]!" sentiment is unfortunately rampant. Which makes it wrong no matter which group employs it. Including now. "Bush did it" and "Obama did it" aren't excuses, they're fingers.
The fact that mathematics, even very abstract mathematics, accurately models the natural world is a deep mystery.
That depends on your worldview.
Spend a few years locked up in a confined, overcrowded place with a lot of other moderately violent people and no contact with women, and you'll bet people come out keyed for violence and with trouble relating to women.
So what caused their "trouble relating to women" in the first place?
Rape isn't having "trouble relating to women," by the way. It's having no respect for women (or men, or children, or whatever).
I'm all for rehabilitation, if possible. I'm also for justice. Rehabilitation should occur after justice. Rehabilitation does not negate justice. Sexually violating a woman, scarring her emotionally (and physically, for that matter) for life, completely messing up her life, etc... that's a lot to be punished for. Now, if the problem is that you fundamentally don't think punishing for a crime is the issue, that's a different topic...
I personally don't think people in prisons should be allowed to simply live off taxpayers (in other words, have some sort of labor that they can do to help the country in some way. No, not concentration camp style). I think rehabilitation should come after you have paid for your crimes - rehabilitation is not justice. Basically... if you punishment for rape (as the example here) is low, then it shows what society thinks about women (or rape victims in general) and what respect society as a whole has for their fellow humans. And if "oh, but he shows good behavior now" lowers your punishment, then that means that society has deemed the "wellbeing" of the victimizer to be somehow more important than justice for the victim.
I have very little sympathy for murderers and rapists. Probably about as much sympathy as they had for their victims. Just reading about what they are willing to do, especially men to women, sickens me... and reading about so-and-so getting out after 15 years (or less, on good behavior) is very sickening. It brings up, hm, feelings of injustice.
At least he's not Anonymous Cowardon anymore. ;)
You wouldn't want to run for US President, would you? :P
Seriously though, it's true. I think we were pretty good at other times in the past 200 years, but I really dislike the "Europe is where it's happening, why can't we make America more like [insert European country]?" Europe is why people CAME to America...
Not to say anything a European country does is automatically bad, of course. I guess the main push right now is socialism, which some European countries have *ahem* presumably *ahem* implemented with some success. But just because it is successful doesn't mean it's good. I don't think socialistic government is the way to go. However, that's just being a stick in the mud, I'm told.
Did the Brits call us sticks in the mud back in the 18th century, too? ;)
Hope?
I hear he is currently President and came from Chicago.
;)
vocational rehabilitation of offenders.
I was with you until there. I'm not sure some offenders actually want to be rehabilitated. Seems repeat-offenses, especially of violent or sexual crimes, is pretty high...