>Do you believe rehabilitation is impossible or do you want revenge?

I don't believe that someone who commits mass murder can be rehabilitated, no. It isn't about revenge; it's about public safety.

Someone once pointed out that hoping a rapist gets raped in prison isn't a victory for his victim(s), because it somehow gives him what he had coming to him, but it's actually a victory for rape and violence. I wish I could remember who said that, because they are right. The score doesn't go Rapist: 1 World: 1. It goes Rape: 2.

What this man did is unspeakable, and he absolutely deserves to spend the rest of his life in prison. If he needs to be kept away from other prisoners as a safety issue, there are ways to do that without keeping him in solitary confinement, which has been shown conclusively to be profoundly cruel and harmful.

Putting him in solitary confinement, as a punitive measure, is not a victory for the good people in the world. It's a victory for inhumane treatment of human beings. This ruling is, in my opinion, very good and very strong for human rights, *precisely* because it was brought by such a despicable and horrible person. It affirms that all of us have basic human rights, even the absolute worst of us on this planet.

This is precisely why I lost all interest in Oculus the instant I heard that it had been acquired by Facebook.

This is good advice, and gives me an opportunity to speak to the community at large: some of us who go to cons and are in a position to shake tons of hands politely decline. It's not because we're being dicks, it's because we know it's a good way to substantially decrease our chances of catching and spreading any germs.

I played the PAX Pandemic game, where the Enforcers handed out stickers to attendees that read [Carrier] [Infected] or [Immune] (There was also a [Patient Zero].

I got the [Immune] sticker, and by the time I got home on Monday, it was clear that I had the flu. I've had a fever between 100 and 104 all week that finally broke last night, but I'm going to the doctor today because I think whatever I had settled into my lungs. I'll tell him about the H1N1 outbreak and get tested if he wants to run the test, but at this point I think it's safe to assume that I was [Immune] to the Pig Plague, but definitely [Infected] with the damn PAX pox.

Even though it's been a week of misery, it was entirely worth it, and I don't regret going to PAX for a single second.

This is why my motto (and fundamental rule for life) is Don't be a dick: it's simple to understand, and reasonable people can agree on what it means.

John Scalzi wrote a hilarious exchange on his blog the sums up perfectly why this idea is made of fail:

Sony BMG spokesperson: We're pleased to announce we are the final major music corporation to release electronic tracks without that pesky DRM! All you have to do is leave your house, go to a selected retail outlet, buy a special card there, go back to your house, scratch off the back of the card to find a code, go to our special MusicPass Web site, enter said code, and download one the 37 titles we have available, from Celine Dion to the Backstreet Boys!

Kid #1: Or, in the time it takes me to jump through all those hoops, I could just download all 37 of those albums off of Pirate Bay.

Kid #2: Or, I could just scratch off the back at the store, record the pin number, go home and download the album through a Tor connection, so you can't trace my IP number.

Kid #1: Also, what's with this first slate of artists? Celine Dion? Backstreet Boys? Kenny Chesney? Barry Manilow? Are you high?

There's much more, but I didn't want to jack his entire post.

"So one case is the basis of your entire (flawed) argument?"

Yep, just one ,a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/04/na tional/main542678.shtml">case.

Then, you go on to acknowledge that my flawed argument is in fact, in part, correct:

"Informants are most often criminals, yes."

Now, we venture into "fantasy land":

"In most cases, the informants are rolling on someone to negotiate a reduced sentence for themselves."

Would you think this would make their testimony more or less reliable?

"Further, the "entrapment line" is not exactly thin: to be considered entrapment, an accused criminal has to be forced to commit a crime that they were unwilling to commit, e.g. "Buy this weed or I shoot you." "

No, entrapment means that the criminal commits a crime that he would not have otherwise committed. Many of us are willing to buy drugs and wouldn't have to be forced to do so, but the undercover officer has to be careful to use specific words and not to use other words. That's because offering drugs to someone is creating a crime from thin air. Were you not there, no crime would have been comitted. Creating crimes is not the job of the police.

"If you willingly give an undercover cop a suitcase full of money for a trunk full of cocaine, it's not entrapment - it's good police work."

Actually, it sounds like the start to a great weekend, minus the undercover cop of course. So, selling cocaine is great police work, but buying it is a crime. Interesting that you have gotten that all straight in your head somehow.