really? you would toss a life away for 18 years? The very idea turns my stomach. I mean ok a serial killer orsomeone who is habitual and violent and unlikely to be rehabilitated maybe.
However 2 years is more than enough time to teach a lesson and see if he is rehabilitated
I saw that his car (parked in the "police parking only" spot had an expired inspection sticket, so I snapped a couple of quick photos as a "concerned citizen". He came running over to question me.... ROTFL he even asked "who is paying you" LOL!.
Next day I walk by, he has a new inspection sticker (unlike about 10 other cars, including cruisers in the same lot).
I was totally kicking myself for not tossing in a "if you have done nothing wrong...."
Yah thats pretty much the standard answer I would expect. "You don't need to know for your own good". Sure... but there is no way for us to know the difference between that and utter BS. I don't even see a real threat out there....its all been BS for decades now. Just an excuse to take more tax dollars.
I don't entirely disagree. That said, I tend to think that, if they were willing to give him 2 years for it... isn't the point about making sure he doesn't do it again more than anything? Is 16 years extra really needed for that? You really think 2, with a felony conviction on his record, be enough for that?
I understand the "eye for an eye" or "eye for an attempted eye" even but, harsh punishment has never shown itself to be the most efficient way to reform.
Um as a taxpayer paying for these programs, thats about as fucking need to know as it gets. I personally wonder why we even have a military when its plain to see, from what I am apparenntly "allowed to know" I haven't seen the military involved in anything I am somewhat glad we were involved in since WWII. I say shut it all down. 50 state militias is all we need for actual defense.
Yes but... that is "justice" for you. He committed the worst, most heinous crime in our court system... he refused the plea deal.
Seriously... 2 years to 18... he is quite litterally getting 16 more years and a lifelong sex offender registration... because the prosecutor was insulted and wanted to become the persecutor.
That said, no defense of this guys actions, he is clearly off his rocker. That still doesn't make this response appropriate
If there is rain, or hail within your PC case, then you are already well beyond the operating conditions that any of this stuff is designed for.... certainly surviving rain or hail speaks wonders of its design but, failin gunder those conditions is hardly indicative of how it will perform in an expected environment.
I mostly agree but, I do have to point out... fans ARE pretty resistent to dust....in compairson to stationary parts near fans (like a traditional heat sink). While fan blades to accumulate dust, it happens much more slowly than the stationary parts near them.
A notable exception do seem to be ceiling fans, but they tend to be off much of the time and sit stationary and horizontal.
Firstly, while I understand the sentiment, and I rail against the US government for acting like a bunch of jack booted thugs, you can imagine I am no fan of the Iranian regieme. That said, major governments undertaking military efforts (if thats what this is) are not deterred by mere cost overruns.... these efforts stood no chance of actually doing much other than costing them more money, which they will just allocate from elsewhere. The net effect is more likely to leave road and social aid budgets tight than it is to effect any weapons program.
That said.... they know that using a nuke stands they will alienate many business partners and allies, and become a worldwide pariah. They are not even universally liked in their own region, and I am not counting Isreal....and nobody with nukes is going to let a terrorist get their hands on one, aside from also causing alienation and questions, terrorists are not state actors and are unpredictable. No state is going to ever take that chance, and will arm themselves against it. You think they can't protect a nuke well enough? Its just a matter of money, which they have.
Any change is going to be internal. The regime is not the people, and Iran has one of the most pro-western populaces in the entire region. However, obvious external pressure can only lead to greater group cohesion internally.... which works against long term aims.
Overall, nukes are, at most, a marker for who to take seriously in the world, they are piss poor weapons due to worldwide stigma against their use. Let Iran be the middle east power, let them see how many friends that really makes them, and maybe in a few years, we will see a Persian Summer.
> In this case, if you read the article - it's fascinating (highly recommend!) - whether there were any 'wrongful acts' would seem to >depend solely on perspective, and receiving a fair trail in Iran is somewhat of an oxymoron.
Right well... thats the point now isn't it.
> So the real question here is, is delaying Iran from making nuclear weapons (which they'd most use for mass murder) by a method > that caused no loss of life itself (unlike a bombing), an act of evil? I guess that depends which side you're rooting for.
Well, only if you assume that the major purpose of this venture is a weapons program. The stated purposes are peaceful and lawful. It is also entirely likely that, even if a weapons program were hidden in the works, that the major effect will be peaceful power as, nobody has used a nuke in war in over 60 years, and I don't see that trend changing, whether they get them or not.
Honestly, I agree most with the assessments that say that the best way to deal with Iran is to give them the recognition that they want...and stop pulling stupid chest pumping adversarial tactics, and sabotaging what could be progress towards normalization of relations and, eventually their own reform. However, pulling this sort of shit plays right into the strong hand of those in Iran who would want weapons programs and oppose reform, and rebuilding trust with the rest of the world.
Its hard to argue with "they are out to get us, and see us as the enemy" when.... well... their shit gets sabotaged and we just grin and laugh at them. If this happened to the UK we would be doing everything we could to help catch any Americans involved.
That some day...justice can be done and the people who wrote stuxnet end up in an Iranian court some day to face charges for this.
Only fair, if someone released a worm that attacked US or Western European equipment, our governments would demand that the criminals be brought to our justice....I really do hope that we see some turnabout on this play, even if only so I can laugh.
What? Huh? You think having a law against something makes it harder to do? The question is not "should we make it easier" or "should we make it harder" that option was never on the table...its mere fantasy.
The question is, should we authorize jack booted thugs to hunt down and persecute people, for no other reason, than (insert distraction source of the moment) while driving, regardless of whether they are otherwise displaying a problem controlling their vehicle. That is the ONLY question actually on the table.
A) Always lead with the high side number. 15-25% so its either this number, or as low as half that. Yes, clearly the high number is the one to report, alone. B) do not even an attempt is made to distinguish which class of accidents these are. Does it cause more little heavy traffic bumps and scratches? Or does it account for many major accidents? Plan to tell us? not today clearly. C) Mention that banning cell phones or texting doesn't change this, and fail to connect the dots to ask the question as to whether this has been true since the freaking radio was installed
Course, if they did any of that, it may not make their jobs sound very relevant.
Honestly, more than anything, I am coming from the statistics on monogamous relationships basically saying that.... this is going to be true in most relationships at one point or another. Realistically, the whole thing is being blown out of proportion. As theoretically "bad" as it is, I have a hard time really coming down that hard on an activity that is both non-violent and engaged in by mid double digit percentages of people.
And they take money out of my paycheck to pay them for their jobs, which mostly amounts to harassing drivers for mundane speeding and other harmless traffic violations. I don't know about where you live, but here it also gets them retirement in 20 years, and gobs of overtime doing traffic details. Not to mention a 1.5 hour kickback on their paycheck (thats 2.75 when adjusted for overtime) for every ticket they right, giving them a huge tax farming incentive.
Plus, when they break into people's houses, and drag those people off to gulags where they may face rape at the hands of real criminals, and they do all this over some pot, or some other drug that a person may want to take...well... I see them as shitty human beings, no better than maffia enforcers. Ruining lives and exposing peaceful people to rape for a paycheck deserves respect? No way. Fuck the police. I have seen friends of mine have their lives turned upside down, I have no forgiveness for what I have seen them do.
Well...when the "Lower Crime" trend starts BEFORE even the existence of all this homeland stupidity money flying around, and the states whose prison populations have grown the most have seen the smallest decreases in crime... um... yah actually i do tend to think that all these police added to the force AFTER crime dropped did much to CAUSE that drop.
That is unless you have some new sort of reverse causality argument from a branch of logic of which I am unfamiliar. Violent crime has been on the down slope since the end of the crack wars in the 80s dude, which was less about enforcement than the end of the war.
Actually, given that a large portion of the crime is driven by the drug war and all of its side effects, I would blame the worst spikes in the violent crime rates as being the direct result of brain-dead lawmaking and enforcement.
> It boils down to the question, is it better to prevent a crime or catch the criminal after the fact?
Didn't you just answer that question:
C. Ignore crime and engage in modern day tax farming instead
Which is about what I expect as Homeland Stupidity has put more and more pigs on the street, and shrinking violent crime rates have given those pigs less and less to do.
I guess.... I still think its a crazy thing to get all bent out of shape about. In most relationships, one spouse or another will cheat at some point, why make a fucking huge deal over something that happens in most relationships? It really doesn't have to be that big of a deal and is hardly worth installing GPS devices over..... that fits my definition of fucking crazy.
Then again, I guess I see that others see it as a big deal, if you are so wrapped up in the myth of monogamy then sure I guess.
Agreed. Marriage is not supposed to be an adversarial arrangement.... I mean... maybe if you are into that, but I am not.
However, if your spouse is that jealous and non-trusting, one would think you would have found this out before you got married. People don't usually just suddenly decide that they are jealous and don't trust you at all, either you gave them some reason...or they were batshit crazy and insecure to begin with.
This is why I stick to open relationships, I would never put up with this stuff.
However, if people really wanted and preferred total monogamy then.... why would the cultures that inist on monogamy seem to have to have so many rules and so much insistence on it. You never find rules saying you must eat when hungry. Rules only tend to be made about things that people don't naturally want to do. If people really preferred it, we wouldn't need the ceremonies and rules.
I wont say that jealousy isn't natural or isn't present in people in open relationships, I am in one, and I can say yes, I have felt jealous but...its not usually about just sex. It seldom has to do simply with the fact of my spouse being with someone else, or wanting to be, Its usually more of the "damnit I have nothing to do tonight now" feeling sorry for myself variety.... which I tend to relate to as an internal failing of my own, rather than to put on her.
So no I don't think jealousy is unnatural, but I think many of its triggers and how we relate to it is learned. I know many people who are not put off by their spouse being with others.
Though little about this actually helps answer whether this is a learned trait or not.
I am in an open marriage myself, and have known/been with other people in similar boats. I can tell you, there are plenty of us out there who do not have these responses. Though, I find i still expect them in others. I remember the first time that I hung out with a firned of mine and her bf after the first time we hooked up, I found myself instinctively checking his expressions when things came up that indicated she had been with other men, or me.... it was completely natural for him, no response visible.
I think it comes down to security and expectation. If the expectation on sex or intimacy is that having it outside of the primary relationship is "cheating" and means a potential end to the relationship.... then threat makes sense. Other men ARE a threat. However, I have had the opposite experience, I have watched her, on several occasions, drop other people just to spend time with me. I have no fear whatsoever that she isn't coming home.... I have played cards with some a lover of hers, invite him to parties... no threat.
Thats not to say its never been an issue but, I think its the relation towards sexuality and promiscuity that leads to the fear reaction.
Well, don't go snooping for information that you don't want to know.
Traditional marriage is traditionally held together by a careful eye for avoiding notice of each others indiscretions. Hell we are all human, how the hell could you live for 50+ years with another person without the ability to overlook various details about them and their activities. Its impolite not to.
Lets be serious here. There is no legitimate reason to not allow them on the plane. Period.
I have better odds of death by lightning strike than of terrorist attack. That $6 is worth more than the benefit of the entire policy, collectively, to everyone, since.... as of 9/12 boxcutter plans became obsolete. No plane full of passengers is ever going to do what a few guys with knives tell them, ever again.
Slashdot Mirror
really? you would toss a life away for 18 years? The very idea turns my stomach. I mean ok a serial killer orsomeone who is habitual and violent and unlikely to be rehabilitated maybe.
However 2 years is more than enough time to teach a lesson and see if he is rehabilitated
Its funny, I almost said this to a cop yesterday.
I saw that his car (parked in the "police parking only" spot had an expired inspection sticket, so I snapped a couple of quick photos as a "concerned citizen". He came running over to question me.... ROTFL he even asked "who is paying you" LOL!.
Next day I walk by, he has a new inspection sticker (unlike about 10 other cars, including cruisers in the same lot).
I was totally kicking myself for not tossing in a "if you have done nothing wrong...."
Protect me? rotfl
Yah thats pretty much the standard answer I would expect. "You don't need to know for your own good". Sure... but there is no way for us to know the difference between that and utter BS. I don't even see a real threat out there....its all been BS for decades now. Just an excuse to take more tax dollars.
I don't entirely disagree. That said, I tend to think that, if they were willing to give him 2 years for it... isn't the point about making sure he doesn't do it again more than anything? Is 16 years extra really needed for that? You really think 2, with a felony conviction on his record, be enough for that?
I understand the "eye for an eye" or "eye for an attempted eye" even but, harsh punishment has never shown itself to be the most efficient way to reform.
Um as a taxpayer paying for these programs, thats about as fucking need to know as it gets. I personally wonder why we even have a military when its plain to see, from what I am apparenntly "allowed to know" I haven't seen the military involved in anything I am somewhat glad we were involved in since WWII. I say shut it all down. 50 state militias is all we need for actual defense.
Yes but... that is "justice" for you. He committed the worst, most heinous crime in our court system... he refused the plea deal.
Seriously... 2 years to 18... he is quite litterally getting 16 more years and a lifelong sex offender registration... because the prosecutor was insulted and wanted to become the persecutor.
That said, no defense of this guys actions, he is clearly off his rocker. That still doesn't make this response appropriate
If there is rain, or hail within your PC case, then you are already well beyond the operating conditions that any of this stuff is designed for.... certainly surviving rain or hail speaks wonders of its design but, failin gunder those conditions is hardly indicative of how it will perform in an expected environment.
I mostly agree but, I do have to point out... fans ARE pretty resistent to dust....in compairson to stationary parts near fans (like a traditional heat sink). While fan blades to accumulate dust, it happens much more slowly than the stationary parts near them.
A notable exception do seem to be ceiling fans, but they tend to be off much of the time and sit stationary and horizontal.
Well where to even begin.
Firstly, while I understand the sentiment, and I rail against the US government for acting like a bunch of jack booted thugs, you can imagine I am no fan of the Iranian regieme. That said, major governments undertaking military efforts (if thats what this is) are not deterred by mere cost overruns.... these efforts stood no chance of actually doing much other than costing them more money, which they will just allocate from elsewhere. The net effect is more likely to leave road and social aid budgets tight than it is to effect any weapons program.
That said.... they know that using a nuke stands they will alienate many business partners and allies, and become a worldwide pariah. They are not even universally liked in their own region, and I am not counting Isreal....and nobody with nukes is going to let a terrorist get their hands on one, aside from also causing alienation and questions, terrorists are not state actors and are unpredictable. No state is going to ever take that chance, and will arm themselves against it. You think they can't protect a nuke well enough? Its just a matter of money, which they have.
Any change is going to be internal. The regime is not the people, and Iran has one of the most pro-western populaces in the entire region. However, obvious external pressure can only lead to greater group cohesion internally.... which works against long term aims.
Overall, nukes are, at most, a marker for who to take seriously in the world, they are piss poor weapons due to worldwide stigma against their use. Let Iran be the middle east power, let them see how many friends that really makes them, and maybe in a few years, we will see a Persian Summer.
Sounds good to me, given their track record of sending people off to other countries to be tortured... it wouldn't bother me one bit.
> In this case, if you read the article - it's fascinating (highly recommend!) - whether there were any 'wrongful acts' would seem to
>depend solely on perspective, and receiving a fair trail in Iran is somewhat of an oxymoron.
Right well... thats the point now isn't it.
> So the real question here is, is delaying Iran from making nuclear weapons (which they'd most use for mass murder) by a method
> that caused no loss of life itself (unlike a bombing), an act of evil? I guess that depends which side you're rooting for.
Well, only if you assume that the major purpose of this venture is a weapons program. The stated purposes are peaceful and lawful. It is also entirely likely that, even if a weapons program were hidden in the works, that the major effect will be peaceful power as, nobody has used a nuke in war in over 60 years, and I don't see that trend changing, whether they get them or not.
Honestly, I agree most with the assessments that say that the best way to deal with Iran is to give them the recognition that they want...and stop pulling stupid chest pumping adversarial tactics, and sabotaging what could be progress towards normalization of relations and, eventually their own reform. However, pulling this sort of shit plays right into the strong hand of those in Iran who would want weapons programs and oppose reform, and rebuilding trust with the rest of the world.
Its hard to argue with "they are out to get us, and see us as the enemy" when.... well... their shit gets sabotaged and we just grin and laugh at them. If this happened to the UK we would be doing everything we could to help catch any Americans involved.
That some day...justice can be done and the people who wrote stuxnet end up in an Iranian court some day to face charges for this.
Only fair, if someone released a worm that attacked US or Western European equipment, our governments would demand that the criminals be brought to our justice....I really do hope that we see some turnabout on this play, even if only so I can laugh.
Make it easier?
What? Huh? You think having a law against something makes it harder to do? The question is not "should we make it easier" or "should we make it harder" that option was never on the table...its mere fantasy.
The question is, should we authorize jack booted thugs to hunt down and persecute people, for no other reason, than (insert distraction source of the moment) while driving, regardless of whether they are otherwise displaying a problem controlling their vehicle. That is the ONLY question actually on the table.
How the highway safety folks....
A) Always lead with the high side number. 15-25% so its either this number, or as low as half that. Yes, clearly the high number is the one to report, alone.
B) do not even an attempt is made to distinguish which class of accidents these are. Does it cause more little heavy traffic bumps and scratches? Or does it account for many major accidents? Plan to tell us? not today clearly.
C) Mention that banning cell phones or texting doesn't change this, and fail to connect the dots to ask the question as to whether this has been true since the freaking radio was installed
Course, if they did any of that, it may not make their jobs sound very relevant.
Honestly, more than anything, I am coming from the statistics on monogamous relationships basically saying that.... this is going to be true in most relationships at one point or another. Realistically, the whole thing is being blown out of proportion. As theoretically "bad" as it is, I have a hard time really coming down that hard on an activity that is both non-violent and engaged in by mid double digit percentages of people.
And they take money out of my paycheck to pay them for their jobs, which mostly amounts to harassing drivers for mundane speeding and other harmless traffic violations. I don't know about where you live, but here it also gets them retirement in 20 years, and gobs of overtime doing traffic details. Not to mention a 1.5 hour kickback on their paycheck (thats 2.75 when adjusted for overtime) for every ticket they right, giving them a huge tax farming incentive.
Plus, when they break into people's houses, and drag those people off to gulags where they may face rape at the hands of real criminals, and they do all this over some pot, or some other drug that a person may want to take...well... I see them as shitty human beings, no better than maffia enforcers. Ruining lives and exposing peaceful people to rape for a paycheck deserves respect? No way. Fuck the police. I have seen friends of mine have their lives turned upside down, I have no forgiveness for what I have seen them do.
Well...when the "Lower Crime" trend starts BEFORE even the existence of all this homeland stupidity money flying around, and the states whose prison populations have grown the most have seen the smallest decreases in crime... um... yah actually i do tend to think that all these police added to the force AFTER crime dropped did much to CAUSE that drop.
That is unless you have some new sort of reverse causality argument from a branch of logic of which I am unfamiliar. Violent crime has been on the down slope since the end of the crack wars in the 80s dude, which was less about enforcement than the end of the war.
Actually, given that a large portion of the crime is driven by the drug war and all of its side effects, I would blame the worst spikes in the violent crime rates as being the direct result of brain-dead lawmaking and enforcement.
Um....well my vows didn't include that...on purpose...
That said, I agree but...the answer to what sort of person is "most people" given the statistics on infidelity.
> It boils down to the question, is it better to prevent a crime or catch the criminal after the fact?
Didn't you just answer that question:
C. Ignore crime and engage in modern day tax farming instead
Which is about what I expect as Homeland Stupidity has put more and more pigs on the street, and shrinking violent crime rates have given those pigs less and less to do.
I guess.... I still think its a crazy thing to get all bent out of shape about. In most relationships, one spouse or another will cheat at some point, why make a fucking huge deal over something that happens in most relationships? It really doesn't have to be that big of a deal and is hardly worth installing GPS devices over..... that fits my definition of fucking crazy.
Then again, I guess I see that others see it as a big deal, if you are so wrapped up in the myth of monogamy then sure I guess.
Agreed. Marriage is not supposed to be an adversarial arrangement.... I mean... maybe if you are into that, but I am not.
However, if your spouse is that jealous and non-trusting, one would think you would have found this out before you got married. People don't usually just suddenly decide that they are jealous and don't trust you at all, either you gave them some reason...or they were batshit crazy and insecure to begin with.
This is why I stick to open relationships, I would never put up with this stuff.
However, if people really wanted and preferred total monogamy then.... why would the cultures that inist on monogamy seem to have to have so many rules and so much insistence on it. You never find rules saying you must eat when hungry. Rules only tend to be made about things that people don't naturally want to do. If people really preferred it, we wouldn't need the ceremonies and rules.
I wont say that jealousy isn't natural or isn't present in people in open relationships, I am in one, and I can say yes, I have felt jealous but...its not usually about just sex. It seldom has to do simply with the fact of my spouse being with someone else, or wanting to be, Its usually more of the "damnit I have nothing to do tonight now" feeling sorry for myself variety.... which I tend to relate to as an internal failing of my own, rather than to put on her.
So no I don't think jealousy is unnatural, but I think many of its triggers and how we relate to it is learned. I know many people who are not put off by their spouse being with others.
Though little about this actually helps answer whether this is a learned trait or not.
I am in an open marriage myself, and have known/been with other people in similar boats. I can tell you, there are plenty of us out there who do not have these responses. Though, I find i still expect them in others. I remember the first time that I hung out with a firned of mine and her bf after the first time we hooked up, I found myself instinctively checking his expressions when things came up that indicated she had been with other men, or me.... it was completely natural for him, no response visible.
I think it comes down to security and expectation. If the expectation on sex or intimacy is that having it outside of the primary relationship is "cheating" and means a potential end to the relationship.... then threat makes sense. Other men ARE a threat. However, I have had the opposite experience, I have watched her, on several occasions, drop other people just to spend time with me. I have no fear whatsoever that she isn't coming home.... I have played cards with some a lover of hers, invite him to parties... no threat.
Thats not to say its never been an issue but, I think its the relation towards sexuality and promiscuity that leads to the fear reaction.
Well, don't go snooping for information that you don't want to know.
Traditional marriage is traditionally held together by a careful eye for avoiding notice of each others indiscretions. Hell we are all human, how the hell could you live for 50+ years with another person without the ability to overlook various details about them and their activities. Its impolite not to.
Why should i have to pay the $6 though?
Lets be serious here. There is no legitimate reason to not allow them on the plane. Period.
I have better odds of death by lightning strike than of terrorist attack. That $6 is worth more than the benefit of the entire policy, collectively, to everyone, since.... as of 9/12 boxcutter plans became obsolete. No plane full of passengers is ever going to do what a few guys with knives tell them, ever again.
The entire exercise is asinine.