ok, idiot mods. it looks redundant NOW, but when I made the comment, the GP was at zero, and it was just as fucking funny then, you twerps. See, that makes it INSIGHTFUL.
I can't quite decide what's worse; slashdot's stupid, broken moderation system, or the prevalence of stupid, broken moderators. I will agree that the combination is breathtaking, though.
lol and +1 to me.
Basically, if the point of the incarceration isnt "what is deserved", but "is he cured", then there is no grounds for objecting to even an indefinite incarceration-- so long as it can be shown that the inmate is not yet "cured".
And like I said, that point is bullshit, as evidenced by the fact that justice systems aiming for rehibilitation over punishment don't, as a matter of fact, hand over indefinite sentences except for things like murder. Imprisonment still acts as a punishment, even if that is not its main goal, so of course its maximum length is limited by the nature of the crime itself.
Also, "to rehibilitate" is not the same as "to cure". A rehibilitated criminal was not necessarily (or even likely) ill. He was simply a criminal and no longer is.
The only thing which allows for a discussion on "does the punishment fit the crime" is the concept of retributive punishment-- that we will punish you as far as and no further than your crime deserves.
Now let me introduce you to the concept of "holding back" - that we aim to rehabilitate the perp, but will not inflict on him any more punishment than his crime deserves. That is, we have a goal but will take care not to cross a line while pursuing it. Both you and Lewis are assuming that aiming to rehabilitate means a monomanic obsession on rehabilitation at any price, which is an absurd strawman.
You know...when are we in the western world, going to finally have enough of these 'peace loving' islamic asshats, and just start stomping them...HARD?
Hopefully never, since the stomping won't stop there. Once you have your jackboots on, everything starts to look like a human face.
Remind me, is it called the "justice" system or the "rehabilitative" system?
North Korea calls itself Democratic People's Republic. That doesn't make it so.
Historically, has the focus been on "just and deserved punishment", or "rehabilitation"?
Historically, the focus has been on neither but on the divine right of absolute monarchs to punish or reward whoever they will, however they will, for whatever they will.
You should read CS Lewis' essay on The Humanitarian Theory of Punishment (warning, PDF). I think he makes an excellent case why straying away from a "retributive" or "punitive" justice system is about the least humane and most dangerous thing you could do. Do you really want the government deciding when your prison term is up / "justice has been served" based on whether they think you have been rehabilitated or not?
Why do you think that the aim of rehabiliting criminals somehow implies unspecified terms of incarceration? For that matter, the essay you linked to seems to be making the rather ridiculous assertion that being more concerned about rehabilitation than punishment removes justice from the consideration altogether, leading to a dystopia where jaywalkers are brainwashed to "cure" them or executed as a warning to others, except when it simply declares innocent people criminals just so it can punish them as such a warning.
In other words, your argument is rubbish, the essay you linked to fights absurd strawmen, and I have a very hard time believing you're arguing in good faith.
+1 lol
So you put value in the system by which they are distributed and controlled. So it's actually the system that is worth something and not the actual coin itself. That makes perfect sense. They should license it out. Bet they could make a killing. Oh wait... they can't because it's tied to the coin itself, which still has nothing other than the time invested for value.
Maybe this makes it easier to understand: a hundred-dollar bill doesn't derive its value from the effort used to manufacture it, it derives its value from its usability for trade, which in turn derives from everyone who accept it as a payment and the ease you can send it to them with. Bitcoins are already very fast, cheap and easy to send, so as the number of parties that accept Bitcoin as a payment method increases, so does the value of Bitcoin.
They don't experience joy or sorrow: they're just programmed to emulate it.
Claims like this are equivalent to claiming that philosophical zombies can exist. That's a rather nasty can of worms there, especially since there's little reason why we couldn't make the same argument about the various aliens, humans, or even each other: you do not have experience, you just act like you did.
Droids are quite simply not alive. They're a simulacrum of life (and a particularly good one), but that is not the same as life.
What, exactly speaking, is the difference between a living thing and a simulacrum? The lack of soft flesh? Both ghost-Kenobi and spectre-Yoda lack it yet get treated as living things.
It's easy to make assertions, but you're not backing yours with anything.
But again it needs to be pointed out - these were Kids Movies and Lucas made that abundantly clear. Why are people getting so wrapped up, particularly adults, in the details?
They are kids movies, and as black-and-white as they get at that. And even in such a shadeless daydream setting, this is how Lawful Good jedi knights act. Do you not think it tells something troubling about mankind?
I think the only reasonable conclusion is that they literally don't listen to their customers.
A console makes its profit from license fees, not from console sales. The people who buy the console are the product, while the actual customers are the game developers, who are naturally all for control and killing the used game market.
Microsoft did listen to its customers and tried to deliver what they wanted. They simply forgot that you can't herd cattle without some level of cooperation from said cattle; and if you scare the herd, you get a stampede. Now they're trying to calm down the future dinner with false reassurances, to continue the march towards the slaughterhouse.
Really... this virtual scrilla *still* has value? How?! It is backed by literally nothing in the real world?
It's backed by the utility value of a distributed tamper-resistant accounting system that lets you send them easily to other people and makes it very hard to change the rules the system operates by.
Of course, if BitCoin was really legit and stable, why would they be selling those machines in the first place when they could just farm BC, swap it for dollars, buy more machines, lather, rinse, and repeat?
Why do people who own iron mines sell the iron, rather than make all the end products and pocket the profit by themselves?
In any silly boom (some of which (tulips for example) get exceedingly silly), the solid, predictable money is made selling to the intrepid entrepreneurs.
And the same is true in any non-silly boom too. Prospectors might strike it rich or go bust, but the guy who sold them gear gets paid the same either way. In a healthy economy, risk is a measure of both potential profits and potential losses, and people's willingness to take risk differs.
Reminds me of all the commercials for people telling you that the USD is worthless and that you should by their gold - which they're willing to give you if you'll give them your USD...
That seems to be the general theme of your post: anyone willing to engage in an economic transaction must be either a scammer or a fool.
Remember, all EM radiation falls off with the square of the distance, so if someone sits in a truck with an x-ray machine pointed at you from across a parking lot, it is losing a lot of potency.
That's only true for point sources. For beams, it depends on how focused they are. At the extreme end, a laser beam loses almost no intensity with distance.
The difference between point sources and beams is pretty much the same as between exploding gunpowder in free air vs. using it to propel a bullet.
Also, this thing is hardly going to be medical grade safety, so I give you 50/50 odds that the operator ends up dying of radiation poisoning before any of his 'victims'.
Probably, but with reasonable beam strength that still gives him at least months to spread cancer. In fact he never once needs to turn the thing on; he just needs to drive around, make sure his path can be tracked (but not too accurately), be caught, and let FUD do the rest.
Does it? How do you know the lights "Moon" and "Mars" are not simply used as easily identifiable beacons in an attempt to colonize the inner surface of the sphere Dyson-style?
"I've got some amyls. We could either party later or, like, start his heart." -- "Cheech and Chong's Next Movie"
