You can't save every one. Its always a trade off. You say it like this situation has no limiting factors and no negative feedback. it clearly does... its a self limiting problem. In fact, its probably more limited than the problems caused by trying to solve it any other way... I would prefer that to putting people in jail for defending themselves.
Ever heard its better to let 100 guilty men go free than to convict 1 innocent man? Well... I say thats true on moral grounds but also... the damage of guilty men is limited. The damage done trying to catch them at all costs is not.
well you know this system was designed, from the start, to maintain power in relatively small (and, until recently, shrinking) circles. Its been pointed out that to maintain representation levels with population growth, we would need 100k members in the House.
By the model the senate wouldn't need to expand.... but all the state legislatures would.... in any case, its clear to see that this doesn't scale. Thats why it hasn't happend, and wont.
The electoral system basically makes a two party system the only stable configuration... to its credit, it does effectively seem to prevent a one party system from being too stable. That is, unless the second party was really weak. Maybe a group that seldom or never comes up with any good ideas and basically represents a few moneied interests like...say... the security services, paired up with some large but intellectually insignificant group that nobody is ever actually going to accept the policies of... like say.... whacko christians who support Isreal because...and I shit you not.... the Bible says the jews should have that land. (Ever wonder why the republicans always beat the drums on what a good friend Isreal is, when US Jews are not only so few in number, but almost uniformly vote democrat?)
The bigger problem is, its all little cults of personality. Making it about electing individuals makes campaigns about the lives of individuals. Honestly, I think it lends creedance to investigations of affairs. I mean, if the election is about putting a person in a seat.... what would you expect it to evolve to?
but its not the farmer who is infringing on the patent! The plant is alive, its doing it on its own. The plant, itself, is guilty. However, since it has no free will, and has no concept of right and wrong, its mentally incompetent to stand trial for its crime.
There, problem solved....in a much more sane way than it was created.
Thats what I was thinking. Also.... what kind of a bite is it going to get on a tail? Tails are bony and thin. A good strike might break the tail right off.... and if it didn't, there just isn't much space to leave poison in.
In fact, some poisonous snakes have been shown to not use their fangs in some situations, like defensive striking. The studies I have seen in the past theorised that the snake was protecting its fangs. Think what could happen if they got a good chomp, sinking their fangs straight on into the front of your shin. Sure, they will pierce a little skin and leave some poison....but they are also going to hit bone very quickly, which could break them.
So the tail is bony, small, in a "cloud" of fur, not really needed, even if useful... sounds like a good fake target to me.
But its only partially a question of his intention to start a fight. Whether he started or not is definitely relevant to the situation, regardless of whether he intended to.
He is neighbourhood watch, its a high crime area... fine. Well their job is to watch. At this point the kid has committed no crime. If he called and said "this kid is snooping in someones back yard" or "he is walking up to windows and peaking in" or even "he is going into driveways looking for unlocked cars".... until a CLEAR crime is committed, he shouldn't have called the police at all....and shouldn't have confronted him.
In fact, especially if its a high crime area. If the kid was a thief, better he be caught in or after the act. What is the point in harassing him tonight and leaving him to strike again? No...it doesn't even make sense. If you really think he is a criminal, you wait to catch him in the act...you silently and secrely follow him until the police pick him up. You don't....tip him off and put your own life at risk.
Secondly.... he had a gun. Some gun owners I know have said they feel that a person who carries a gun can't afford to get in a fight. Simply the fact that he was armed does put a responsibility on him to avoid confrontation more than that of an unarmed person to my mind. He knew that any confrontation could escalate to him needing to use his gun, so he should have taken special care to avoid it.
See I like these stand your ground laws.... I am a-ok with them... but combined with no standard of responsibility in the creation of a situation that leads to the use of force, then its just a license to murder.
definitely talk to a lawyer. I want to add something to it that you may not know.... some clauses that seem to protect them in one case, can hurt them in another because of legal presedents that interpret those.
For example, one that a friend told me about.... lets say you live here in MA and lease an apartment. Well, there are some legal clauses that can be put in there to protect the landlord from legal fees. However, if they are in there, and the landlord is found to be at fault, then that same clause can be turned around to make them pay instead.
This is not obvious from the wording or just reading the contract, but is well known (to lawyers) legal precident. I forget the exact specifics but....I know a friend of mine is hunting for the last remaining copy of the second page of his rental agreement because he says it contains terms that will get him treble damages in his case with his landlord. (as a landlord myself, I can also say, if the allegations are true...that guy is a douche bag, and has even entered the rented apartment without cause, permission, or even notice... among other things....)
This brings up one of the reasons I have no objection to either the stand your ground law or a fair unbiased trial that will likely let a guilty man go free..... its a self limiting problem. If he does it one or two more times.... them someone is just going to shoot him "in self defense".
So... I figure we either have: 1) an innocent man: He wont be involved in another incident most probably (except that the 911 call does seem to indicate he goes around looking for trouble)
2) A guilty man who knows better than to do it again, and will find a new hobby. Well punishing him wont fix anything so, if this debacle stops him from causing more trouble and killing again, then at least something positive was achieved, if not much and its not very satisfying
3) A guilty man who will eventually be emboldened. He may cause another incident, he may kill agaon, he may get away with it again. He wont get away with it many times before some random person kills him.
Um...did I miss any? Cuz I am seeing no problem here.
True though... seeing the whole quote doesn't help much in my mind. Walking around aimlessly? Really? thats why you called 911? Because a guy is walking around aimlessly?
Fuck... I would hate to have lived anywhere near this guy when I was younger and used to, from time to time, just go for an aimless walk through the city in the middle of the night. Even if he was high...so fucking what.
Ok hes may not be openly racist per se.... but he is clearly LOOKING to cause trouble for someone. Whatever happened, there is no doubt in my mind that he, at least, instigated it.
To use a physical analogy....its like seeing a door in frame, attached to no wall, and sending a note to the owner that he should really lock his door lest someone go through it.
Or a paranoid parent who thinks everyone else is chester the molseter. Seem to be a lot of those actually, the mass media is pretty much bankrolled on scaring the piss out of them, by portraying pretty much everything as a danger thats going to kill their children.
Ever notice how polls keep showing that people think the crime rates are going up and there is more violent crime today than 10 years ago? Ever wonder why they keep getting that same result, even when the exact opposite trend is the reality?
I personally chaulk it up to the fact that lowering violent crime rates isn't going to kill your children so its not worth talking about.
appear? Appearances mean little. You can always contact them. You can make appearances too, without even being deceptive.
Look at it this way... the information could be useful to others. You sound to me like a small startup investigating the viability of an idea that involves using unmanned aircraft to track seasonally changing terrain features in inaccessible areas.
As far as I can tell, thats an accurate description. The main difference between being "a early stage startup" and a guy with an idea is nil, or at most acknowledging that you might, at some point, offer some sort of service to someone else based on this activity. Hell you could even be doing it just to be established as the guy doing it so someone else buys you out.
I say send them an email, hell, I wouldn't even tell them the whole plan unless they agree to a standard NDA. Of course, while the local sherrif or whoever may not care and you may never come to the notice of anyone who cares if you did it.... they might want to make sure you had all the proper permits before they sold you one, if they did agree to it (it may even be that they can't due to some licensing issue, who knows)
Though, unless they love your idea so much that they want to donate a drone and use your project for marketing purposes.... then they sell to military and law enforcement. I bet they are more expensive than anything with the word "Bridal" attached.
You know what they say.... government contractors and prostitutes are the only two groups that can charge over $100 a screw.
To expand on this a bit.... in a less creepy way.... I remember being an awkward 20 something geek. Never learned how to really "get girls", more than a bit socially inept. so naturally I started reading up on flirting, and dating.... etc...
After a while I came to a conclusion.... the distance between being friendly and hitting on someone is very very short and often as much in the mind of the individual as anywhere. In fact, most of the things that one is told to do "look her in the eye", "pay attention to what she is saying", "make physical contact from time to time"..... its all standard stuff that many people do in the course of normal conversation.
Even beyond my own issues, I recently witnessed an amusing exchange between a couple of friends of mine who started to talk seperately. One of them took their conversations as potentially expressing intertest, the other was agast at the idea, and couldn't believe the first had thought that.
Is it sometimes or often obvious? Sure, more so in text? maybe. However, I am skeptical that such a system will ever really work, when people have a hard enough time making these calls with full information in person.
Um yes same here.... but the question is not does your life get better as you get older... as others pointed out, thats normal. Yah, I am not a marginally skilled worker in an entry level job proving my worth in spite of no degree....now I am a well paid professional. Things got better.
Certainly not, however, the point remains, he wont be doing jack for progress. Being as good as any other mainstream politician is hardly a bonus point.
Well... More accurately Rybka has, most probably, already beaten you. Unless you allow it to use the entire result tree as an "opening book", then it still needs to calculate each move... meaning it needs those 2800 cores plus support cluster... well... assuming you are a top grandmaster having a good day, that is.
From the summary: "the Sawfish window manager project announced...."
Its a Window Manager...says it right there. if you want, you can even look it up without going to the page the same way you can look up any term you don't understand: http://bit.ly/HFbsr9
I don't see them as Democrat-lite at all. I see the democrats as a middle of the road center-right party. I see the republicans as a coalition of a very few slightly more to the right to very right, drowned out by religious nutcases, with a hefty dose of the same big business infilitration that the democrats have.
The main thing the Democrats have going for them is a lack of religious nutjobs.
ROTFL Yes you are right in everything except claiming that the current day republicans are actually governing from such a philosophy or represent it with anything other than the most base lip service. Frankly, I don't believe them for a second.
I agree actually but... I think first and foremost you have to answer the question of standing. A school has every right (if it was their equipment and network...its clear from reading comments that not everyone is on the same page on that question) to have an AUP and enforce it....
As I have said elsewhere I don't consider this smart, on any level, but, before you question the intelligence of the AUP there is a question of whether it should even apply here...and I question the application of any set of rules that a person can't be reasonably expected to understand when the policy applies and doesn't.
Few people would defend him for posting porn using the school network.... but I even have to question that.... how can one reasonably be expected to follow a rule without a way to tell when it applies or doesn't? Whatever the rule.
I have the right to do lots of things. I have the right to get "FUCK" tatood on my forhead. That doesn't make it smart.
Its a stupid rule that has no benefit to anyone at all...its stupid to make such a rule, even dumber to enforce it. Regardless of whether you have the right to do it.
No you didn't, while it is true that the democrats clearly represent the ultra-rich more than the "99%" (more like the 99.9999% or so) however, the republicans are not the conservatives, they have become a radical party.
I mean, look at ObamaCare....its DoleCare...its basically the model Bob Dole, the old repupublican, presented back in the 90s.
The interesting things is that this story was on NPR the other day, except, they reported that it was incorrect to imply that the massacre triggered the review... the review was in the works before the massacre.
So to still be characterising it as such, several days after its come out that this association isn't true definitely is tabloid journalism.
Politicians really want to be seen as "doing something" about this issue, because it affects so many people so deeply
There was a great story on NPR recently about how they have debated changing the pollution regulations in regards to power plants to basically outlaw coal plants (or at least require very expensive mitigation). After many years of talking about it.... it has finally been done. Yay?
Except.... those pesky reporters asked around in the actual energy industry. Nobody had any plans to build a single new coal plant in the next 30 years. Cheap natural gas has already made it uneconomical.
What is the point of even having a government if that is the usefulness of their decisions, they can't decide until after its already happened?
Honestly, I think what we have is a perfect example of why republics are problematic. Sure, on a small level, like say 13 states with a paltry number of people.... they are great.
However, when you make elections about Alice vs Bob, then it just devolves into a popularity contest between them. Religion, and family life come into it...because its about those individuals. I think this is a real strength of parliments in that the parties get elected to seats and then they fill the seats with the people.
I don't see this republic getting back on track really.... its become a really bad joke of a system where you have Moderate conservatives (the democrats) vs the coalition of the batshit crazy religious zealots and ultra rich who love tax breaks for themselves and the cash that they can rake in from government contracts. (any surprise the republicans just passed a budget that slashes more than expected but...still manages to increase military budgets and maintain cushy tax policy that favors their cronies)
I have absolutely no confidence left in the federal government. They jumped the shark a long time ago.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't save every one. Its always a trade off. You say it like this situation has no limiting factors and no negative feedback. it clearly does... its a self limiting problem. In fact, its probably more limited than the problems caused by trying to solve it any other way... I would prefer that to putting people in jail for defending themselves.
Ever heard its better to let 100 guilty men go free than to convict 1 innocent man? Well... I say thats true on moral grounds but also... the damage of guilty men is limited. The damage done trying to catch them at all costs is not.
well you know this system was designed, from the start, to maintain power in relatively small (and, until recently, shrinking) circles. Its been pointed out that to maintain representation levels with population growth, we would need 100k members in the House.
By the model the senate wouldn't need to expand.... but all the state legislatures would.... in any case, its clear to see that this doesn't scale. Thats why it hasn't happend, and wont.
The electoral system basically makes a two party system the only stable configuration... to its credit, it does effectively seem to prevent a one party system from being too stable. That is, unless the second party was really weak. Maybe a group that seldom or never comes up with any good ideas and basically represents a few moneied interests like...say... the security services, paired up with some large but intellectually insignificant group that nobody is ever actually going to accept the policies of... like say.... whacko christians who support Isreal because...and I shit you not.... the Bible says the jews should have that land. (Ever wonder why the republicans always beat the drums on what a good friend Isreal is, when US Jews are not only so few in number, but almost uniformly vote democrat?)
The bigger problem is, its all little cults of personality. Making it about electing individuals makes campaigns about the lives of individuals. Honestly, I think it lends creedance to investigations of affairs. I mean, if the election is about putting a person in a seat.... what would you expect it to evolve to?
but its not the farmer who is infringing on the patent! The plant is alive, its doing it on its own. The plant, itself, is guilty. However, since it has no free will, and has no concept of right and wrong, its mentally incompetent to stand trial for its crime.
There, problem solved....in a much more sane way than it was created.
Thats what I was thinking. Also.... what kind of a bite is it going to get on a tail? Tails are bony and thin. A good strike might break the tail right off.... and if it didn't, there just isn't much space to leave poison in.
In fact, some poisonous snakes have been shown to not use their fangs in some situations, like defensive striking. The studies I have seen in the past theorised that the snake was protecting its fangs. Think what could happen if they got a good chomp, sinking their fangs straight on into the front of your shin. Sure, they will pierce a little skin and leave some poison....but they are also going to hit bone very quickly, which could break them.
So the tail is bony, small, in a "cloud" of fur, not really needed, even if useful... sounds like a good fake target to me.
But its only partially a question of his intention to start a fight. Whether he started or not is definitely relevant to the situation, regardless of whether he intended to.
He is neighbourhood watch, its a high crime area... fine. Well their job is to watch. At this point the kid has committed no crime. If he called and said "this kid is snooping in someones back yard" or "he is walking up to windows and peaking in" or even "he is going into driveways looking for unlocked cars".... until a CLEAR crime is committed, he shouldn't have called the police at all....and shouldn't have confronted him.
In fact, especially if its a high crime area. If the kid was a thief, better he be caught in or after the act. What is the point in harassing him tonight and leaving him to strike again? No...it doesn't even make sense. If you really think he is a criminal, you wait to catch him in the act...you silently and secrely follow him until the police pick him up. You don't....tip him off and put your own life at risk.
Secondly.... he had a gun. Some gun owners I know have said they feel that a person who carries a gun can't afford to get in a fight. Simply the fact that he was armed does put a responsibility on him to avoid confrontation more than that of an unarmed person to my mind. He knew that any confrontation could escalate to him needing to use his gun, so he should have taken special care to avoid it.
See I like these stand your ground laws.... I am a-ok with them... but combined with no standard of responsibility in the creation of a situation that leads to the use of force, then its just a license to murder.
definitely talk to a lawyer. I want to add something to it that you may not know.... some clauses that seem to protect them in one case, can hurt them in another because of legal presedents that interpret those.
For example, one that a friend told me about.... lets say you live here in MA and lease an apartment. Well, there are some legal clauses that can be put in there to protect the landlord from legal fees. However, if they are in there, and the landlord is found to be at fault, then that same clause can be turned around to make them pay instead.
This is not obvious from the wording or just reading the contract, but is well known (to lawyers) legal precident. I forget the exact specifics but....I know a friend of mine is hunting for the last remaining copy of the second page of his rental agreement because he says it contains terms that will get him treble damages in his case with his landlord. (as a landlord myself, I can also say, if the allegations are true...that guy is a douche bag, and has even entered the rented apartment without cause, permission, or even notice... among other things....)
So yes... call a lawyer.
This brings up one of the reasons I have no objection to either the stand your ground law or a fair unbiased trial that will likely let a guilty man go free..... its a self limiting problem. If he does it one or two more times.... them someone is just going to shoot him "in self defense".
So... I figure we either have:
1) an innocent man: He wont be involved in another incident most probably (except that the 911 call does seem to indicate he goes around looking for trouble)
2) A guilty man who knows better than to do it again, and will find a new hobby. Well punishing him wont fix anything so, if this debacle stops him from causing more trouble and killing again, then at least something positive was achieved, if not much and its not very satisfying
3) A guilty man who will eventually be emboldened. He may cause another incident, he may kill agaon, he may get away with it again. He wont get away with it many times before some random person kills him.
Um...did I miss any? Cuz I am seeing no problem here.
True though... seeing the whole quote doesn't help much in my mind. Walking around aimlessly? Really? thats why you called 911? Because a guy is walking around aimlessly?
Fuck... I would hate to have lived anywhere near this guy when I was younger and used to, from time to time, just go for an aimless walk through the city in the middle of the night. Even if he was high...so fucking what.
Ok hes may not be openly racist per se.... but he is clearly LOOKING to cause trouble for someone. Whatever happened, there is no doubt in my mind that he, at least, instigated it.
The first rule of the tautology club is the first rule of the tautology club!
To use a physical analogy....its like seeing a door in frame, attached to no wall, and sending a note to the owner that he should really lock his door lest someone go through it.
Or a paranoid parent who thinks everyone else is chester the molseter. Seem to be a lot of those actually, the mass media is pretty much bankrolled on scaring the piss out of them, by portraying pretty much everything as a danger thats going to kill their children.
Ever notice how polls keep showing that people think the crime rates are going up and there is more violent crime today than 10 years ago? Ever wonder why they keep getting that same result, even when the exact opposite trend is the reality?
I personally chaulk it up to the fact that lowering violent crime rates isn't going to kill your children so its not worth talking about.
appear? Appearances mean little. You can always contact them. You can make appearances too, without even being deceptive.
Look at it this way... the information could be useful to others. You sound to me like a small startup investigating the viability of an idea that involves using unmanned aircraft to track seasonally changing terrain features in inaccessible areas.
As far as I can tell, thats an accurate description. The main difference between being "a early stage startup" and a guy with an idea is nil, or at most acknowledging that you might, at some point, offer some sort of service to someone else based on this activity. Hell you could even be doing it just to be established as the guy doing it so someone else buys you out.
I say send them an email, hell, I wouldn't even tell them the whole plan unless they agree to a standard NDA. Of course, while the local sherrif or whoever may not care and you may never come to the notice of anyone who cares if you did it.... they might want to make sure you had all the proper permits before they sold you one, if they did agree to it (it may even be that they can't due to some licensing issue, who knows)
Though, unless they love your idea so much that they want to donate a drone and use your project for marketing purposes.... then they sell to military and law enforcement. I bet they are more expensive than anything with the word "Bridal" attached.
You know what they say.... government contractors and prostitutes are the only two groups that can charge over $100 a screw.
To expand on this a bit.... in a less creepy way.... I remember being an awkward 20 something geek. Never learned how to really "get girls", more than a bit socially inept. so naturally I started reading up on flirting, and dating.... etc...
After a while I came to a conclusion.... the distance between being friendly and hitting on someone is very very short and often as much in the mind of the individual as anywhere. In fact, most of the things that one is told to do "look her in the eye", "pay attention to what she is saying", "make physical contact from time to time"..... its all standard stuff that many people do in the course of normal conversation.
Even beyond my own issues, I recently witnessed an amusing exchange between a couple of friends of mine who started to talk seperately. One of them took their conversations as potentially expressing intertest, the other was agast at the idea, and couldn't believe the first had thought that.
Is it sometimes or often obvious? Sure, more so in text? maybe. However, I am skeptical that such a system will ever really work, when people have a hard enough time making these calls with full information in person.
Um yes same here.... but the question is not does your life get better as you get older... as others pointed out, thats normal. Yah, I am not a marginally skilled worker in an entry level job proving my worth in spite of no degree....now I am a well paid professional. Things got better.
Has little to do with the topic at hand.
Certainly not, however, the point remains, he wont be doing jack for progress. Being as good as any other mainstream politician is hardly a bonus point.
Well... More accurately Rybka has, most probably, already beaten you. Unless you allow it to use the entire result tree as an "opening book", then it still needs to calculate each move... meaning it needs those 2800 cores plus support cluster... well... assuming you are a top grandmaster having a good day, that is.
From the summary:
"the Sawfish window manager project announced...."
Its a Window Manager...says it right there. if you want, you can even look it up without going to the page the same way you can look up any term you don't understand: http://bit.ly/HFbsr9
I don't see them as Democrat-lite at all. I see the democrats as a middle of the road center-right party. I see the republicans as a coalition of a very few slightly more to the right to very right, drowned out by religious nutcases, with a hefty dose of the same big business infilitration that the democrats have.
The main thing the Democrats have going for them is a lack of religious nutjobs.
ROTFL Yes you are right in everything except claiming that the current day republicans are actually governing from such a philosophy or represent it with anything other than the most base lip service. Frankly, I don't believe them for a second.
I agree actually but... I think first and foremost you have to answer the question of standing. A school has every right (if it was their equipment and network...its clear from reading comments that not everyone is on the same page on that question) to have an AUP and enforce it....
As I have said elsewhere I don't consider this smart, on any level, but, before you question the intelligence of the AUP there is a question of whether it should even apply here...and I question the application of any set of rules that a person can't be reasonably expected to understand when the policy applies and doesn't.
Few people would defend him for posting porn using the school network.... but I even have to question that.... how can one reasonably be expected to follow a rule without a way to tell when it applies or doesn't? Whatever the rule.
Ok yes maybe they have the right.
I have the right to do lots of things. I have the right to get "FUCK" tatood on my forhead. That doesn't make it smart.
Its a stupid rule that has no benefit to anyone at all...its stupid to make such a rule, even dumber to enforce it. Regardless of whether you have the right to do it.
No you didn't, while it is true that the democrats clearly represent the ultra-rich more than the "99%" (more like the 99.9999% or so) however, the republicans are not the conservatives, they have become a radical party.
I mean, look at ObamaCare....its DoleCare...its basically the model Bob Dole, the old repupublican, presented back in the 90s.
The interesting things is that this story was on NPR the other day, except, they reported that it was incorrect to imply that the massacre triggered the review... the review was in the works before the massacre.
So to still be characterising it as such, several days after its come out that this association isn't true definitely is tabloid journalism.
There was a great story on NPR recently about how they have debated changing the pollution regulations in regards to power plants to basically outlaw coal plants (or at least require very expensive mitigation). After many years of talking about it.... it has finally been done. Yay?
Except.... those pesky reporters asked around in the actual energy industry. Nobody had any plans to build a single new coal plant in the next 30 years. Cheap natural gas has already made it uneconomical.
What is the point of even having a government if that is the usefulness of their decisions, they can't decide until after its already happened?
Honestly, I think what we have is a perfect example of why republics are problematic. Sure, on a small level, like say 13 states with a paltry number of people.... they are great.
However, when you make elections about Alice vs Bob, then it just devolves into a popularity contest between them. Religion, and family life come into it...because its about those individuals. I think this is a real strength of parliments in that the parties get elected to seats and then they fill the seats with the people.
I don't see this republic getting back on track really.... its become a really bad joke of a system where you have Moderate conservatives (the democrats) vs the coalition of the batshit crazy religious zealots and ultra rich who love tax breaks for themselves and the cash that they can rake in from government contracts. (any surprise the republicans just passed a budget that slashes more than expected but...still manages to increase military budgets and maintain cushy tax policy that favors their cronies)
I have absolutely no confidence left in the federal government. They jumped the shark a long time ago.