But did it suddenly allow you to do anything that could not be done before? I think not.
Well then, following that brilliant assertion to its logical conclusion, then every programming language is unnecessary, because none of them "allow you to do anything that could not be done" in assembler.
C allowed programmers to write programs an order of magnitude more sophisticated than assembler, and in less time. OOP did the same thing over C.
we need something less Industrial Revolution, something that's reusable and doesn't involve burning a metric assload of solid fuel
It is impossible to obtain orbit without the use of solid fuel. Solid fuel is the only fuel with sufficient energy-to-mass ratio to accelerate both itself and a payload to the required altitude and velocity to attain orbit.
Won't you be surprised when you find out how old some of the planes are that are making round trips every single day.
Trust me... That kind of stuff worries me too.
Why? It shouldn't. Airplanes are subject to inspection schedules and maintenance standards far higher than automobiles. They are kept in extremely good mechanical condition. Mechanical failure is very rarely the cause of airplane crashes. The vast majority of all airline crashes are directly caused by pilot error. Of the few that aren't pilot error, they are usually human error somewhere else in the chain (air traffic controller screwing up, a mechanic making a mistake, some other human failure in the chain).
Aircraft mechanical malfunction should be the farthest thing from your mind when flying. If I were you, I'd be far more worried about how much sleep my pilot had last night, or whether or not the mechanic was still upset (read: distracted) about a fight with his wife while he was replacing one of the rudder servos.
I suspect that the acronym was selected first, and then they found some words to fit it, a common practice in those days.
"in those days?" Look around you, my friend. I refer you to the CAN-SPAM act, the USA-PATRIOT act, the CARE organization, and many other modern examples of this intellectually juvenile practice.
the A-10 can be missing, yes MISSING 35% of it's aircraft and still fly home safely,
Urban legend, by the way. That is to say, not true.
The only reason "newer isn't necessarily better" in the examples you cited is because it is tremendously expensive to develop new designs. The aircraft you refer to were funded at a time when supplies and labour were cheaper, and there was more money available for projects with large initial capital investment requirements. Nowadays, look how much time, trouble, and expense the military has invested just to get one new jet fighter design (F-22 Raptor). You don't see them calling for new, state-of-the-art bombers, spyplanes, transports, or aircraft carriers to be designed and mass-produced, do you? Not because they can't improve on them, but because of the enormous cost it would require. Rest assured that if they did invest the money in new designs, they would be vastly superior to the designs they are replacing (as the F-22 Raptor obviously is).
It's no use guys, this is never going to get off the ground.
Hey! Why don't we strap a couple of fireworks on the side!
Incidentally, every space launch uses solid rocket fuel. It is simultaneously the most dangerous (by far the highest energy density, while being incapable of being "shut off" once lit), and only way to achieve the speeds and altitude necessary for orbit. The simple fact is that no amount of liquid fuel is enough to get a craft into orbit, because it needs to have enough energy to lift the heavy fuel itself, as well, and to do so requires more fuel, which adds weight, which requires more fuel... etc. The only way to overcome this limitation is by using solid fuel. And that's why all rockets do.
The use of solid rocket fuel was not some haphazard, risky strategy unique to the shuttle program. The laws of math and physics dictate that it is the only way to do it.
Object orientation did not add any functionality to existing programming, it formalised what had been some existing "best practice" programming styles, and "outlawed" some sloppy programming styles.
You're way off. OOP is fundamentally about one thing: polymorphism. A concept that is impossible in a procedural language, and unique too OOPLs. Don't try to pretend that OOP is just about organizing code, or a programming "style." It is about a fundamental shift in paradigms. Nothing less.
To be fair, of that $450,000,000 at the box office, the movie company probably only get around $200,000,000.
What makes you think that? Where do you think the other $250 million went? The theatres? If that's what you think, then I suggest you dig a little deeper into how the movie industry works. The theaters themselves get practically nothing out of selling the tickets for the movies, almost all of that money goes to the studio. The theaters make almost all of their money from selling concessions (snacks), and ad time before the movies.
It says you can push "any button" to wake it up. But, here's the hilarious part, the only button that does NOT wake it up is the "copy" button.
A similar issue exists on PCs. In almost every example of a program waiting and prompting the user to press "any key to continue," they don't really mean it. There are several keys you can press that will not trigger the program to proceed, such as Shift, Control, Alt, Caps Lock, and in some cases, the entire row of all 12 function keys (F1, F2, etc.).
Some professions require profession specific language. Deal.
We're not talking about users not knowing what a universal joint is, or an IDE controller. We're talking pretty high-level stuff. Expecting a user to know what "spam" or "spyware" is is about as reasonable as expecting a car owner to know what an airbag is, or where their spare tire is. These are reasonable things. We're not talking super-technical stuff here, in either the computer or mechanic realm (to stick with your example).
if you are using AMERICA OnLine in Europe you're probably not the brightest bulb in the box...
I don't know if you're joking or not, but it's true that AOL markets itself in other countries, and keeps the "AOL" portion of their name. Here in Canada, for example, their service is called "AOL Canada." It's not unprecedented, either. Before Rogers bought them (and after Cantel Mobility owned it), AT&T's wireless service in Canada was called "AT&T Canada."
And how many photographers and artists heard about the Sklyarov case? Virtually zero. A vanishingly small number of people have even heard about it
Have you considered that many of us have heard about it, and simply don't care? Guy breaks EULA, guy reverse engineers copyright protection code, guy publishes way to break company's proprietary document protection code, company gets understandably upset and pursues legal options. Ho-hum. Why should Adobe have acted any differently.
They still make the best imaging software, by far, of anyone in the industry. I'm not going to boycott them simply because they tried to defend some of their IP (those tyrannical bastards! Imagine, trying to protect something they invested in to create! Capitalist dogs!)
No, not a badass, but realisticly, can he swing to cover me and deliver a shot in the 3/4 second of my aged reaction times? Remember, I'm already at the ready & all I have to do is pull. To beat me, he would have to be awfull fast and a good shot to boot.
But it's not that simple, that's my point. He has other options. He doesn't have to turn on the spot and point his gun at you. He could dive sideways behind an aisle. It's exponentially hard to hit a moving target. So if he decides to shoot it out with you, he'll be bobbing and weaving all over the place, ducking for cover and running crouched down. Can you still do that?
What will you do if he dives behind an aisle? Open fire? You see, he has an advantage here, because you have to watch your backdrop, whereas he might not care if he misses you and hits an innocent bystander. What if he pops up with a hostage? You've just served to escalate an already tense situation to "truly lifethreatening" levels.
We also live on a planet inhabited by the most dangerous creature in the known universe: Man. We know that bad things happen sometimes. We want to be able to walk into a place and know that we have a good chance of walking out alive.
Don't you ever wish you lived in a place where you didn't fear for your life every time you left your home?
Such places do exist, you know. And the US isn't one of them. It used to be, but it was in the media's best interest to work everyone up into a terrified frenzy of perpetual fear. Keep everyone locked in their homes, staring at CNN, waiting for the "all-clear" to let them know when it's safe to run to the store and grab some much-needed groceries before coccooning back up in their gated communities and locked doors and screened phones.
Guns are a security blanket for the brainwashed masses. Fear is a form of control, and the US public has fallen for it en masse, hook line and sinker. The world doesn't envy you; they pity you.
Here's a shocking scenario for you. My wife and I often go for walks through our neighborhood. AT NIGHT. UNARMED! Yup, we're crazy all right. "Danger" is our middle name.
At the 7/11 with a punk holding on the cashier, its a standoff, until he cracks a cap. Then believe me, its the last cap he'll crack. If he's got an IQ over 70, he'll hit the floor face down on my command with his piece thrown or kicked well out of reach. Bet on it. Those are his choices, its up to him which one because the 3rd choice, to swing to cover me will be a bad one
Wow, you're a real badass, aren't you. You sure talk big. Some questions though: What if he shoots you before you can get a shot off? Or what if your gun jams as you try to shoot him, and then he kills you? What if he has a partner you didn't notice? Or what if your first shot misses? Could never happen, right? You're the toughest mofo in the world, every bullet is dead-on, you can lift 1000 pounds and sprint 100 miles. Dream on, tough guy.
So, you may think the drugstore where you bought condoms doesn't know where you live, but since your home address is on file with, say, Blockbuster, you might just get some junkmail from the drugstore in a few weeks offering you a deal to come down and by some more condoms.
Uhm... why would that be a bad thing? I mean, we've already established that I buy condoms, right? Why wouldn't I want coupons to save a few bucks on them?
I don't understand you people. Why do you vehemently refuse to allow businesses to perform any sort of targetted marketing? Why can't you see that it is a waste of money and effort to send coupons for steak to a vegetarian's house, or coupons for tampons to a single bachelor's apartment? Personally, I would much rather get coupons that I might find remotely useful than the scattergun, random marketing crap that they fling out when they're not allowed to use any demographic info. I'd rather get coupons for pizza and DVD rentals than for flowers or manicures. Wouldn't you? What's the big deal here?
Since many now think that homosexuality is genetic,
It must be. I mean, when I was 12 or 13, I didn't "choose" to be straight. I just was. I'm convinced it's genetic.
On a related note, I am really, really looking forward to the day when science finally identifies the "sexual orientation" gene, and it is irrefutably proven that the direction you swing is hard-wired from birth. I cannot wait for the conservative talk shows to tackle that one, and try to find a way to continue claiming that it's a sin to be gay, after it's been proven that nobody gets to choose their orientation. The religious squirming and moral dancing will be truly delicious to observe.
State accumulates DNA on all residents. Insurance company files FOI request and gets all the data, then refuses to issue health insurance for anyone they think might have a genetic predisposition for certain diseases.
When I apply for car insurance, they ask me all kinds of things - things I can't control, such as my age (younger people pay higher rates) and my sex (males pay higher rates). Why do they do this? Because young males are statistically more likely to have an accident, so we pay higher rates. Is this fair? Well, the statistics back up the prejudice - young males do cause more accidents (by dollar value, at least).
Now, if there were a way that they could tell for sure whether or not someone was more likely to have an accident or not, shouldn't they modify the rates they charge based on that information? Why should all young males, even the safe ones, pay to subsidize the expensive accidents of a few, reckless punks?
Now, extend this to medicine. Diseases are expensive. If my DNA tells me that I'm very likely to have an expensive disease, aren't I lying or cheating by hiding that information from the insurance company when applying for new coverage? If I know that my family has a history of heart disease or cancer, should I be allowed to lie and hide that from State Farm? They already ask me a ton of questions about family medical history - why would it be wrong of them to take it to the next step and test my DNA to be sure?
In fact, when I apply for new coverage, they already take blood samples and analyze it. This is ALREADY HAPPENING. And I'm not sure if it's a good thing or not. People who will have expensive diseases should pay more for insurance under the US system. Otherwise, all you have is a fancy implementation of a socialized health care system where the majority end up subsidizing the care of an expensive minority. And by privatizing health care, the US has already declared that they want individuals to be responsible for financing their own care, right?
Of course, I'm in Canada, so it's all moot anyway. We already have socialized health care, so the majority is already subsidizing the health care of those who are actually using the system more than their fair share. But it's something to think about.
If the US wants people to be able to play the insurance "lottery," and hide their true medical future from insurance companies, then why not go the whole nine yards and just socialize the whole system? It's the same thing anyway, isn't it? Why delude yourself with this make-believe privatized, capitalistic system when in reality, you want people with expensive disease to be able to keep that information from the insurance companies? You want healthy people to have low premiums, and you're saying you want candidates for expensive diseases to not be required to disclose that info to insurance companies (thereby preventing them from being able to charge fair rates to those people), so in the end, who's paying for the expensive clients? Where's that money going to come from?
Who cares, right? They're just slimy insurance companies, let them eat the loss. Everybody hates insurance companies, right? Yeah, great plan. And what'll you do when all the insurance companies go away, because they're not allowed to charge high rates to provably health people, nor are they allowed to conduct genetic screening on potentially expensive clients?
I mean, really, motive plus circumstantial evidence is now proof beyond resonable doubt? I think not.
It helps that there wasn't a single other person anywhere on the planet with motive to kill Laci. Only Scott. She wasn't raped or robbed, she wasn't a mob informant or on the receiving end of a bad drug deal. Nobody else in the world had reason to kill her. But Scott did. A few other people had the means and opportunity to kill her. Scott did. Only one person fits into all of the pieces of the puzzle - the boat, the anchor, the timing, the lack of alibi, the circumstantial evidence... it all points to Scott. But not only does it point to Scott; it couldn't possibly point to anybody else. THAT is the same conclusion the jury reached.
A lot of negative attention would have been heaped on any juror that wanted to find Peterson "not guilty." The social demands and pressure are overwhelming.
Are you suggesting that the jurors felt pressured to convict by society and the media? Please explain how this is possible when the jurors were sequestered for the entire duration of the trial, and had no exposure to any outside media or people at all until after their verdict was already rendered.
The jury had no idea what people outside the courtroom thought of the case, or if anyone outside of the town was even paying attention to this yet-another-murder-trial. As far as they knew, nobody cared whether they convicted or not, other than the prosecution and the defense.
Mankey Wanker, you sure say a lot of stupid things.
BTW, I actually did not follow the case that closely. I don't care about stuff like that - it's all bread and circuses to me. What I never heard though was that there was anything like clear, compelling evidence that he was almost certainly the killer.
You can relax. There was.
Wrap your head around the possibility that it's morally wrong to put a man under the death penalty just because there is a very strong suspicion that he is the killer. That's not enough - the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
I don't have to "wrap my head around the possibility," that's the reality. That is the standard. And it's the standard under which Scot Peterson was convicted. 12 impartial strangers were convinced, "beyond any reasonable doubt," that Scot was the killer.
Is Scott Peterson the murderer in question? I have reasonable doubts that make it impossible to arrive at that conclusion.
That's because you weren't on the jury. Also, by your own admission, you "actually did not follow the case that closely," and you "don't care about stuff like that."
But then they found all of those people that are now exonerated by DNA evidence guilty too.
What people? Name some examples. Name me just a few examples of individuals who were convicted and sentenced to death, and were later exhonorated by DNA evidence while they were on death row. It may have happened a couple of times, but it is extremely rare.
What was happening was that we were putting to death mainly men of color with little to no evidence - and we now know that we were sometimes doing it wrongly, that we had the wrong men.
Yes, it used to be much worse. In modern day though, I don't believe that innocent men are executed (although I concede that it still may happen occassionaly in the predominantly conservative regions of the US, such as the Bible Belt).
Slashdot Mirror
The Mercury, Gemini and Apollo programs used only liquid fuel.
Yes, and none of those programs went to orbit. Read my post again:
"[Solid rocket fuel is the] only way to achieve the speeds and altitude necessary for orbit."
The programs you cited never attained orbit. They explored other planets/moons, and thus had different (lesser) thurst requirements.
But did it suddenly allow you to do anything that could not be done before? I think not.
Well then, following that brilliant assertion to its logical conclusion, then every programming language is unnecessary, because none of them "allow you to do anything that could not be done" in assembler.
C allowed programmers to write programs an order of magnitude more sophisticated than assembler, and in less time. OOP did the same thing over C.
we need something less Industrial Revolution, something that's reusable and doesn't involve burning a metric assload of solid fuel
It is impossible to obtain orbit without the use of solid fuel. Solid fuel is the only fuel with sufficient energy-to-mass ratio to accelerate both itself and a payload to the required altitude and velocity to attain orbit.
Won't you be surprised when you find out how old some of the planes are that are making round trips every single day.
Trust me... That kind of stuff worries me too.
Why? It shouldn't. Airplanes are subject to inspection schedules and maintenance standards far higher than automobiles. They are kept in extremely good mechanical condition. Mechanical failure is very rarely the cause of airplane crashes. The vast majority of all airline crashes are directly caused by pilot error. Of the few that aren't pilot error, they are usually human error somewhere else in the chain (air traffic controller screwing up, a mechanic making a mistake, some other human failure in the chain).
Aircraft mechanical malfunction should be the farthest thing from your mind when flying. If I were you, I'd be far more worried about how much sleep my pilot had last night, or whether or not the mechanic was still upset (read: distracted) about a fight with his wife while he was replacing one of the rudder servos.
I suspect that the acronym was selected first, and then they found some words to fit it, a common practice in those days.
"in those days?" Look around you, my friend. I refer you to the CAN-SPAM act, the USA-PATRIOT act, the CARE organization, and many other modern examples of this intellectually juvenile practice.
the A-10 can be missing, yes MISSING 35% of it's aircraft and still fly home safely,
Urban legend, by the way. That is to say, not true.
The only reason "newer isn't necessarily better" in the examples you cited is because it is tremendously expensive to develop new designs. The aircraft you refer to were funded at a time when supplies and labour were cheaper, and there was more money available for projects with large initial capital investment requirements. Nowadays, look how much time, trouble, and expense the military has invested just to get one new jet fighter design (F-22 Raptor). You don't see them calling for new, state-of-the-art bombers, spyplanes, transports, or aircraft carriers to be designed and mass-produced, do you? Not because they can't improve on them, but because of the enormous cost it would require. Rest assured that if they did invest the money in new designs, they would be vastly superior to the designs they are replacing (as the F-22 Raptor obviously is).
It's no use guys, this is never going to get off the ground.
Hey! Why don't we strap a couple of fireworks on the side!
Incidentally, every space launch uses solid rocket fuel. It is simultaneously the most dangerous (by far the highest energy density, while being incapable of being "shut off" once lit), and only way to achieve the speeds and altitude necessary for orbit. The simple fact is that no amount of liquid fuel is enough to get a craft into orbit, because it needs to have enough energy to lift the heavy fuel itself, as well, and to do so requires more fuel, which adds weight, which requires more fuel... etc. The only way to overcome this limitation is by using solid fuel. And that's why all rockets do.
The use of solid rocket fuel was not some haphazard, risky strategy unique to the shuttle program. The laws of math and physics dictate that it is the only way to do it.
Object orientation did not add any functionality to existing programming, it formalised what had been some existing "best practice" programming styles, and "outlawed" some sloppy programming styles.
You're way off. OOP is fundamentally about one thing: polymorphism. A concept that is impossible in a procedural language, and unique too OOPLs. Don't try to pretend that OOP is just about organizing code, or a programming "style." It is about a fundamental shift in paradigms. Nothing less.
To be fair, of that $450,000,000 at the box office, the movie company probably only get around $200,000,000.
What makes you think that? Where do you think the other $250 million went? The theatres? If that's what you think, then I suggest you dig a little deeper into how the movie industry works. The theaters themselves get practically nothing out of selling the tickets for the movies, almost all of that money goes to the studio. The theaters make almost all of their money from selling concessions (snacks), and ad time before the movies.
It says you can push "any button" to wake it up.
But, here's the hilarious part, the only button that does NOT wake it up is the "copy" button.
A similar issue exists on PCs. In almost every example of a program waiting and prompting the user to press "any key to continue," they don't really mean it. There are several keys you can press that will not trigger the program to proceed, such as Shift, Control, Alt, Caps Lock, and in some cases, the entire row of all 12 function keys (F1, F2, etc.).
Some professions require profession specific language. Deal.
We're not talking about users not knowing what a universal joint is, or an IDE controller. We're talking pretty high-level stuff. Expecting a user to know what "spam" or "spyware" is is about as reasonable as expecting a car owner to know what an airbag is, or where their spare tire is. These are reasonable things. We're not talking super-technical stuff here, in either the computer or mechanic realm (to stick with your example).
if you are using AMERICA OnLine in Europe you're probably not the brightest bulb in the box...
I don't know if you're joking or not, but it's true that AOL markets itself in other countries, and keeps the "AOL" portion of their name. Here in Canada, for example, their service is called "AOL Canada." It's not unprecedented, either. Before Rogers bought them (and after Cantel Mobility owned it), AT&T's wireless service in Canada was called "AT&T Canada."
Strange but true stories of marketing paradoxes.
Can you imagine if your DRAM had a few bad memory addresses?
They do. Ever hear of the "parity" bit?
And how many photographers and artists heard about the Sklyarov case? Virtually zero. A vanishingly small number of people have even heard about it
Have you considered that many of us have heard about it, and simply don't care? Guy breaks EULA, guy reverse engineers copyright protection code, guy publishes way to break company's proprietary document protection code, company gets understandably upset and pursues legal options. Ho-hum. Why should Adobe have acted any differently.
They still make the best imaging software, by far, of anyone in the industry. I'm not going to boycott them simply because they tried to defend some of their IP (those tyrannical bastards! Imagine, trying to protect something they invested in to create! Capitalist dogs!)
No, not a badass, but realisticly, can he swing to cover me and deliver a shot in the 3/4 second of my aged reaction times? Remember, I'm already at the ready & all I have to do is pull. To beat me, he would have to be awfull fast and a good shot to boot.
But it's not that simple, that's my point. He has other options. He doesn't have to turn on the spot and point his gun at you. He could dive sideways behind an aisle. It's exponentially hard to hit a moving target. So if he decides to shoot it out with you, he'll be bobbing and weaving all over the place, ducking for cover and running crouched down. Can you still do that?
What will you do if he dives behind an aisle? Open fire? You see, he has an advantage here, because you have to watch your backdrop, whereas he might not care if he misses you and hits an innocent bystander. What if he pops up with a hostage? You've just served to escalate an already tense situation to "truly lifethreatening" levels.
We also live on a planet inhabited by the most dangerous creature in the known universe: Man. We know that bad things happen sometimes. We want to be able to walk into a place and know that we have a good chance of walking out alive.
Don't you ever wish you lived in a place where you didn't fear for your life every time you left your home?
Such places do exist, you know. And the US isn't one of them. It used to be, but it was in the media's best interest to work everyone up into a terrified frenzy of perpetual fear. Keep everyone locked in their homes, staring at CNN, waiting for the "all-clear" to let them know when it's safe to run to the store and grab some much-needed groceries before coccooning back up in their gated communities and locked doors and screened phones.
Guns are a security blanket for the brainwashed masses. Fear is a form of control, and the US public has fallen for it en masse, hook line and sinker. The world doesn't envy you; they pity you.
Here's a shocking scenario for you. My wife and I often go for walks through our neighborhood. AT NIGHT. UNARMED! Yup, we're crazy all right. "Danger" is our middle name.
At the 7/11 with a punk holding on the cashier, its a standoff, until he cracks a cap. Then believe me, its the last cap he'll crack. If he's got an IQ over 70, he'll hit the floor face down on my command with his piece thrown or kicked well out of reach. Bet on it. Those are his choices, its up to him which one because the 3rd choice, to swing to cover me will be a bad one
Wow, you're a real badass, aren't you. You sure talk big. Some questions though: What if he shoots you before you can get a shot off? Or what if your gun jams as you try to shoot him, and then he kills you? What if he has a partner you didn't notice? Or what if your first shot misses? Could never happen, right? You're the toughest mofo in the world, every bullet is dead-on, you can lift 1000 pounds and sprint 100 miles. Dream on, tough guy.
Someone managed to duplicate my bank card and pin number
"PIN Number" is redundant repetition. Ask yourself: "What does the 'N' in 'PIN' stand for?"
Sorry - pet peeve of mine.
You missed the joke. Read it again. 0 times 100 is still 0.
So, you may think the drugstore where you bought condoms doesn't know where you live, but since your home address is on file with, say, Blockbuster, you might just get some junkmail from the drugstore in a few weeks offering you a deal to come down and by some more condoms.
Uhm... why would that be a bad thing? I mean, we've already established that I buy condoms, right? Why wouldn't I want coupons to save a few bucks on them?
I don't understand you people. Why do you vehemently refuse to allow businesses to perform any sort of targetted marketing? Why can't you see that it is a waste of money and effort to send coupons for steak to a vegetarian's house, or coupons for tampons to a single bachelor's apartment? Personally, I would much rather get coupons that I might find remotely useful than the scattergun, random marketing crap that they fling out when they're not allowed to use any demographic info. I'd rather get coupons for pizza and DVD rentals than for flowers or manicures. Wouldn't you? What's the big deal here?
Since many now think that homosexuality is genetic,
It must be. I mean, when I was 12 or 13, I didn't "choose" to be straight. I just was. I'm convinced it's genetic.
On a related note, I am really, really looking forward to the day when science finally identifies the "sexual orientation" gene, and it is irrefutably proven that the direction you swing is hard-wired from birth. I cannot wait for the conservative talk shows to tackle that one, and try to find a way to continue claiming that it's a sin to be gay, after it's been proven that nobody gets to choose their orientation. The religious squirming and moral dancing will be truly delicious to observe.
State accumulates DNA on all residents. Insurance company files FOI request and gets all the data, then refuses to issue health insurance for anyone they think might have a genetic predisposition for certain diseases.
When I apply for car insurance, they ask me all kinds of things - things I can't control, such as my age (younger people pay higher rates) and my sex (males pay higher rates). Why do they do this? Because young males are statistically more likely to have an accident, so we pay higher rates. Is this fair? Well, the statistics back up the prejudice - young males do cause more accidents (by dollar value, at least).
Now, if there were a way that they could tell for sure whether or not someone was more likely to have an accident or not, shouldn't they modify the rates they charge based on that information? Why should all young males, even the safe ones, pay to subsidize the expensive accidents of a few, reckless punks?
Now, extend this to medicine. Diseases are expensive. If my DNA tells me that I'm very likely to have an expensive disease, aren't I lying or cheating by hiding that information from the insurance company when applying for new coverage? If I know that my family has a history of heart disease or cancer, should I be allowed to lie and hide that from State Farm? They already ask me a ton of questions about family medical history - why would it be wrong of them to take it to the next step and test my DNA to be sure?
In fact, when I apply for new coverage, they already take blood samples and analyze it. This is ALREADY HAPPENING. And I'm not sure if it's a good thing or not. People who will have expensive diseases should pay more for insurance under the US system. Otherwise, all you have is a fancy implementation of a socialized health care system where the majority end up subsidizing the care of an expensive minority. And by privatizing health care, the US has already declared that they want individuals to be responsible for financing their own care, right?
Of course, I'm in Canada, so it's all moot anyway. We already have socialized health care, so the majority is already subsidizing the health care of those who are actually using the system more than their fair share. But it's something to think about.
If the US wants people to be able to play the insurance "lottery," and hide their true medical future from insurance companies, then why not go the whole nine yards and just socialize the whole system? It's the same thing anyway, isn't it? Why delude yourself with this make-believe privatized, capitalistic system when in reality, you want people with expensive disease to be able to keep that information from the insurance companies? You want healthy people to have low premiums, and you're saying you want candidates for expensive diseases to not be required to disclose that info to insurance companies (thereby preventing them from being able to charge fair rates to those people), so in the end, who's paying for the expensive clients? Where's that money going to come from?
Who cares, right? They're just slimy insurance companies, let them eat the loss. Everybody hates insurance companies, right? Yeah, great plan. And what'll you do when all the insurance companies go away, because they're not allowed to charge high rates to provably health people, nor are they allowed to conduct genetic screening on potentially expensive clients?
I mean, really, motive plus circumstantial evidence is now proof beyond resonable doubt? I think not.
It helps that there wasn't a single other person anywhere on the planet with motive to kill Laci. Only Scott. She wasn't raped or robbed, she wasn't a mob informant or on the receiving end of a bad drug deal. Nobody else in the world had reason to kill her. But Scott did. A few other people had the means and opportunity to kill her. Scott did. Only one person fits into all of the pieces of the puzzle - the boat, the anchor, the timing, the lack of alibi, the circumstantial evidence... it all points to Scott. But not only does it point to Scott; it couldn't possibly point to anybody else. THAT is the same conclusion the jury reached.
A lot of negative attention would have been heaped on any juror that wanted to find Peterson "not guilty." The social demands and pressure are overwhelming.
Are you suggesting that the jurors felt pressured to convict by society and the media? Please explain how this is possible when the jurors were sequestered for the entire duration of the trial, and had no exposure to any outside media or people at all until after their verdict was already rendered.
The jury had no idea what people outside the courtroom thought of the case, or if anyone outside of the town was even paying attention to this yet-another-murder-trial. As far as they knew, nobody cared whether they convicted or not, other than the prosecution and the defense.
Mankey Wanker, you sure say a lot of stupid things.
BTW, I actually did not follow the case that closely. I don't care about stuff like that - it's all bread and circuses to me. What I never heard though was that there was anything like clear, compelling evidence that he was almost certainly the killer.
You can relax. There was.
Wrap your head around the possibility that it's morally wrong to put a man under the death penalty just because there is a very strong suspicion that he is the killer. That's not enough - the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
I don't have to "wrap my head around the possibility," that's the reality. That is the standard. And it's the standard under which Scot Peterson was convicted. 12 impartial strangers were convinced, "beyond any reasonable doubt," that Scot was the killer.
Is Scott Peterson the murderer in question? I have reasonable doubts that make it impossible to arrive at that conclusion.
That's because you weren't on the jury. Also, by your own admission, you "actually did not follow the case that closely," and you "don't care about stuff like that."
But then they found all of those people that are now exonerated by DNA evidence guilty too.
What people? Name some examples. Name me just a few examples of individuals who were convicted and sentenced to death, and were later exhonorated by DNA evidence while they were on death row. It may have happened a couple of times, but it is extremely rare.
What was happening was that we were putting to death mainly men of color with little to no evidence - and we now know that we were sometimes doing it wrongly, that we had the wrong men.
Yes, it used to be much worse. In modern day though, I don't believe that innocent men are executed (although I concede that it still may happen occassionaly in the predominantly conservative regions of the US, such as the Bible Belt).