A judge would basically rule life imprisonment without chance of parole, and the convicted could decide if that meant life in prison or their own death.
If I was innocent, convicted wrongly, and I had the choice of a concrete box for the rest of my life or death, I'd probably choose death.
Even better: "Not getting your shorts [sic] threatens the herd immunity concept'. This last one is really a blatant admission that their crap doesn't work in the first place. It shouldn't matter if the person next to you wasn't dumb enough to take their shots, after all you took the vaccine, you're protected, right??
No, you Anonymous Coward dumbass - That's not how herd immunity works.
Imagine everyone in a kindergarten is vaccinated against smallpox but Fred's vaccine didn't work and for whatever reason Fred isn't immune to smallpox (biology is never 100%). However, Fred remains protected against smallpox because the rest of his class ("his herd") is immune, so the virus doesn't get the chance to leap to him.
Now imagine 10 kids in Fred's class are NOT vaccinated against smallpox - Now the virus has a chance to take hold and infect Fred, even though he's vaccinated. Fred has lost the benefit of the immunity of the herd.
Vaccination works because a) the immunity takes hold on the majority and b) we live in herds.
No. 99 percent of people don't bother blocking ads and 90 percent don't even know that you can block ads. This is a ridiculous question to ask, especially since ad blocking has been around for so many years with solutions ranging from a custom hosts file to browser plugins and built-in adblock (opera).
Bingo.
I'm very computer literate, I could block ads, but I don't. Why not?
a) I can't be bothered to invest the time in downloading the software, deploying it and doing whatever else is required.
b) I'm just not that bothered by ads. I know some Slashdotters go ape-shit bananas if even one ad for Capital One or Ford slips in, but I'm like 'meh' - I just tune them out - And from time to time I'm even served up an ad for something I'm interested in.
c) I accept that ads are the price for nifty free content online.
Even for a purely passive RFID this can be tens of metres.
Can you provide a link? I work in the IT Asset Management business and I've never seen an "ID Card"-style passive RFID card that can be read from tens of metres away. Heck, finding one that works from a fixed-reader that's more than a meter away is tough.
Remind me again why we're spending so much on airport security...?
Because
a) American voters like it - It makes them feel "safe."
b) American voters don't care about spending billions running up the deficit and adding to the national debt.
This obsession with subjecting airline passengers to harassment, sexual molestation, and taking away their drinks does very little for security as a whole.
It's not about security, though. It's about making Ma and Pa Kettle feel 'safe' so a) the government looks like it's doing their job and b) people keep flying so the airlines stay in business. Certainly the airlines lose some business due to security (trips that can be done by car), but most people still fly from Des Moines to Disney World, not drive.
Really? In the last year I've travelled on several planes flying from UK Airports with no door between the passenger compartment
Well sure, but if your goal is to fly a small commuter aircraft (like you're describing) into a building just rent / charter a Beech 1900 and be done with it. No need to highjack a plane of that size.
Why can't they just make an XBOX 360 with a TV Tuner built-in?
They do, sort of. I have IP-TV served up over copper wire by my Telco ("Telus Optik TV"). The infrastructure is Cisco (Scientific Atlanta) hardware running software by Microsoft. It works well, and one of the options is to use an Xbox as your set-top box. I don't, because the controller is goofy, but the option is there.
How about instead of spending billions on replacing stolen goods and electric fences and insurance we instead spend millions giving away free crack, heroin and other addictive drugs? You get a card and you can go to a drug store and get free heroin. We'd save a LOT of dollars.
I propose/. split into two sites, one featuring litigation and the other focuses on news for nerds.
So interesting court cases are never news? I don't really have a problem with them turning up here.
The main issue I have with litigation stories are the inane comments threads. You have things that are blatantly wrong written by people who seem to have little understanding of the law (confusing civil and criminal matters, not understanding self-incrimination etc) and lawyers posting saying "I can't comment as it might be construed as legal advice, even though I'm posting as AC and I said this wasn't legal advice."
Decriminalization removes criminal penalties, like jail and record keeping of you being convicted of having drugs. It can still be illegal, but just a minor fine or penalty. Legalization removes all legal penalties.
Perhaps more importantly, legalization provides a framework for the legal *sale* of weed, in the same way booze has a legal framework for its sale. You don't get that with decriminalization.
Obama is moving us in the direction of the nanny state -- a government that aggressively redistributes money is unlikely to respect private property or private freedoms.
Get educated, dude. The Republican party is the nanny state X10. Party of liberty my ass.
Or do you have a different definition for 'Christian'?
Yes. (Well, perhaps not 'different,' but you're missing a key piece.)
A Christian is more than 'one who follows the teachings of Christ.' Lots of non-Christians do that. A Christian also believes the Apostle's Creed.
The Apostle's Creed
I believe in God the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth:
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
Was crucified, dead, and buried:
He descended into the dead;
The third day he rose again;
He ascended into heaven,
And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
The holy Christian Church;
The Communion of Saints;
The Forgiveness of sins;
The Resurrection of the body,
And the Life everlasting.
Amen.
If you don't believe those tenets of the faith, you're not a Christian.
The majority of Christians do not appear to be real Christians so why do you ally yourself with them.
Well, I'm not sure I stated that I was 'allied' with Christians per se (I am not a regular church-goer, although my wife and mother-in-law are. Amusingly, my father-in-law is an atheist.)
That being said, there are a lot of reasons to ally with Christians. When aids first appeared on the scene here in Vancouver in the 80s, it was the hospitals run by Catholic nuns who treated the sick and held the hands of the dying while other hospitals were putting up plastic shields. The 'soldiers' in the Salvation Army feed the hungry and help children all over the world. And on and on... So yeah, there are certainly some Christians I can ally with. They take the word of Jesus to heart and follow his (supposed) teachings.
And how is an outsider to distinguish between a Christian and someone just calling themselves one?
They same way you distinguish anything else in life: Through observation.
If someone claims to be Christian yet fails to follow Christ's teachings then they're not Christian (now certainly there are grey areas in Christian behaviour ["turn the other cheek"] but by and large the rules of Christianity are pretty clear).
To be a Christian you also have to believe the words spoken in The Apostle's Creed, however that's harder to prove through observation - For this you have to take a Christian's word.
Slashdot Mirror
To cause death is an extreme form of violence, but not the most extreme. To jail a person for their entire life is more extreme.
Ask an innocent person on death row which one they'd prefer.
Lots of civilizations do it. Thus, it must be civilized
Sorry, didn't realize English wasn't your first language. Let me help you out -
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/civilized
civilized
civ-i-lized
[siv-uh-lahyzd]
adjective
1. having an advanced or humane culture, society, etc.
2. polite; well-bred; refined.
3. of or pertaining to civilized people.
and why is that exactly?
Because it's not civilized.
A judge would basically rule life imprisonment without chance of parole, and the convicted could decide if that meant life in prison or their own death.
If I was innocent, convicted wrongly, and I had the choice of a concrete box for the rest of my life or death, I'd probably choose death.
Even better: "Not getting your shorts [sic] threatens the herd immunity concept'. This last one is really a blatant admission that their crap doesn't work in the first place. It shouldn't matter if the person next to you wasn't dumb enough to take their shots, after all you took the vaccine, you're protected, right??
No, you Anonymous Coward dumbass - That's not how herd immunity works.
Imagine everyone in a kindergarten is vaccinated against smallpox but Fred's vaccine didn't work and for whatever reason Fred isn't immune to smallpox (biology is never 100%). However, Fred remains protected against smallpox because the rest of his class ("his herd") is immune, so the virus doesn't get the chance to leap to him.
Now imagine 10 kids in Fred's class are NOT vaccinated against smallpox - Now the virus has a chance to take hold and infect Fred, even though he's vaccinated. Fred has lost the benefit of the immunity of the herd.
Vaccination works because a) the immunity takes hold on the majority and b) we live in herds.
You are not computer literate if setting up ad block is too hard.
I didn't say it was too hard, I said I couldn't be bothered.
how about everytime a site delivers malware to a computer through ads
Does this really happen?
I'm online hours per day, have no adblocker, and zero malware. Now granted my Windows PCs are patched up to date, but still...?
No. 99 percent of people don't bother blocking ads and 90 percent don't even know that you can block ads. This is a ridiculous question to ask, especially since ad blocking has been around for so many years with solutions ranging from a custom hosts file to browser plugins and built-in adblock (opera).
Bingo.
I'm very computer literate, I could block ads, but I don't. Why not?
a) I can't be bothered to invest the time in downloading the software, deploying it and doing whatever else is required.
b) I'm just not that bothered by ads. I know some Slashdotters go ape-shit bananas if even one ad for Capital One or Ford slips in, but I'm like 'meh' - I just tune them out - And from time to time I'm even served up an ad for something I'm interested in.
c) I accept that ads are the price for nifty free content online.
Even for a purely passive RFID this can be tens of metres.
Can you provide a link? I work in the IT Asset Management business and I've never seen an "ID Card"-style passive RFID card that can be read from tens of metres away. Heck, finding one that works from a fixed-reader that's more than a meter away is tough.
When Israel engages in ethnic cleansing
If Israel is engaging in ethnic cleansing, why are they sending food and medical supplies into Gaza?
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/11/21/matt-gurney-while-hamas-fires-rockets-israel-delivers-food-and-medicine/
Let the Saudies fall back into the decrepit 3rd world pit it deserves to be
Because this would absolutely, definitely lead to a better life for Saudi females.
Remind me again why we're spending so much on airport security...?
Because
a) American voters like it - It makes them feel "safe."
b) American voters don't care about spending billions running up the deficit and adding to the national debt.
So why do they keep going after aircraft instead of just blowing up the queue of people waiting to go through security?
As a Grandparent just said, they *don't*
They go after trains, subways, buses, synagogues, busy cafes and places like Times Square.
The 2008 Mumbai attacks are a prime example.
This obsession with subjecting airline passengers to harassment, sexual molestation, and taking away their drinks does very little for security as a whole.
It's not about security, though. It's about making Ma and Pa Kettle feel 'safe' so a) the government looks like it's doing their job and b) people keep flying so the airlines stay in business. Certainly the airlines lose some business due to security (trips that can be done by car), but most people still fly from Des Moines to Disney World, not drive.
Really? In the last year I've travelled on several planes flying from UK Airports with no door between the passenger compartment
Well sure, but if your goal is to fly a small commuter aircraft (like you're describing) into a building just rent / charter a Beech 1900 and be done with it. No need to highjack a plane of that size.
thieves and drug addicts are not by definition the same people
For sure, but for 99% of the people stealing copper wire, they are. The rate of return is too low for anyone other than a junkie to care.
Why can't they just make an XBOX 360 with a TV Tuner built-in?
They do, sort of. I have IP-TV served up over copper wire by my Telco ("Telus Optik TV"). The infrastructure is Cisco (Scientific Atlanta) hardware running software by Microsoft. It works well, and one of the options is to use an Xbox as your set-top box. I don't, because the controller is goofy, but the option is there.
How about instead of spending billions on replacing stolen goods and electric fences and insurance we instead spend millions giving away free crack, heroin and other addictive drugs? You get a card and you can go to a drug store and get free heroin. We'd save a LOT of dollars.
I propose /. split into two sites, one featuring litigation and the other focuses on news for nerds.
So interesting court cases are never news? I don't really have a problem with them turning up here.
The main issue I have with litigation stories are the inane comments threads. You have things that are blatantly wrong written by people who seem to have little understanding of the law (confusing civil and criminal matters, not understanding self-incrimination etc) and lawyers posting saying "I can't comment as it might be construed as legal advice, even though I'm posting as AC and I said this wasn't legal advice."
Decriminalization removes criminal penalties, like jail and record keeping of you being convicted of having drugs. It can still be illegal, but just a minor fine or penalty. Legalization removes all legal penalties.
Perhaps more importantly, legalization provides a framework for the legal *sale* of weed, in the same way booze has a legal framework for its sale. You don't get that with decriminalization.
Obama is moving us in the direction of the nanny state -- a government that aggressively redistributes money is unlikely to respect private property or private freedoms.
Get educated, dude. The Republican party is the nanny state X10. Party of liberty my ass.
Or do you have a different definition for 'Christian'?
Yes. (Well, perhaps not 'different,' but you're missing a key piece.)
A Christian is more than 'one who follows the teachings of Christ.' Lots of non-Christians do that. A Christian also believes the Apostle's Creed.
The Apostle's Creed
I believe in God the Father Almighty,
Maker of heaven and earth:
And in Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost,
Born of the Virgin Mary,
Suffered under Pontius Pilate,
Was crucified, dead, and buried:
He descended into the dead;
The third day he rose again;
He ascended into heaven, And sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
From thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.
I believe in the Holy Ghost;
The holy Christian Church;
The Communion of Saints;
The Forgiveness of sins;
The Resurrection of the body,
And the Life everlasting.
Amen.
If you don't believe those tenets of the faith, you're not a Christian.
Ah, the no true scotsman argument
Doesn't apply here, as there is no definition of a 'true' Scotsman. There *is* a defintion of a Christian -
1) Follows Christ's teachings
2) Believes in the Apostle's Creed
You do those two, you're a Christian by the generally-understood rules.
The majority of Christians do not appear to be real Christians so why do you ally yourself with them.
Well, I'm not sure I stated that I was 'allied' with Christians per se (I am not a regular church-goer, although my wife and mother-in-law are. Amusingly, my father-in-law is an atheist.)
That being said, there are a lot of reasons to ally with Christians. When aids first appeared on the scene here in Vancouver in the 80s, it was the hospitals run by Catholic nuns who treated the sick and held the hands of the dying while other hospitals were putting up plastic shields. The 'soldiers' in the Salvation Army feed the hungry and help children all over the world. And on and on... So yeah, there are certainly some Christians I can ally with. They take the word of Jesus to heart and follow his (supposed) teachings.
And how is an outsider to distinguish between a Christian and someone just calling themselves one?
They same way you distinguish anything else in life: Through observation.
If someone claims to be Christian yet fails to follow Christ's teachings then they're not Christian (now certainly there are grey areas in Christian behaviour ["turn the other cheek"] but by and large the rules of Christianity are pretty clear).
To be a Christian you also have to believe the words spoken in The Apostle's Creed, however that's harder to prove through observation - For this you have to take a Christian's word.