>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.

Guess that means the search algorithm is working better than it was when he made that search.

The same game, in the same class (which isn't exactly your usual fare), for the same reasons seemed like a curious coincidence to me.

Curious... I did the same thing... In the same class... Where did you go to school?

Didn't you read TFS? Acute hysteria among obtuse individuals.

Even if this technology works reliably, on which I have my doubts, (not to mention the potential health risks if this thing accidentally irradiates someone by mis-aiming its EM beam), did anyone there stop to consider the efficiency of sending power through EM bursts at receivers through 30 feet of air, plus a wall or three? Can you imagine just how much energy is wasted through dissipation? We don't need less efficient means of transporting electricity. Anybody who uses this thing is going to use 3 - 10 times more electricity to charge their devices than just using a cable. (Numbers pulled from a remote inspiration device 30 feet away, but the actual amount of loss is somewhat irrelevant; the inverse square law guarantees it will be substantial.)

It's a bad sign when I'm the one pointing out the environmental dangers of new tech.

Interesting. It definitely seems like a gray matter, then. Neither explicitly allowed nor explicitly forbidden. In such cases, I believe that it's best to err on the side of reduction of executive power, and object to this move by Obama.

The crux of the matter is whether or not states have the right to declare Marajuana legal, when federal law declares it an illegal substance. If that is within state power, then the entire thing is moot.

I know there are plenty of instances where federal law can override state law, but is there anything written down anywhere saying that the Executive branch has a duty to enforce federal law, even when it conflicts with state law? If there is, then Obama is shirking his presidential responsibility. If there is not, then he is simply respecting States' rights. (Which is a very smart political move.)

An interesting and informative quote; thanks for sharing it. However, in this specific case I'm not sure it applies, as Obama is basically saying he won't challenge state laws on the issue. Unless there is precedent saying that the executive branch must enforce federal law over state law (which there very well may be, IANAL), I don't think it's relevant.

As to the act itself, not whether it oversteps his authority, I am rather supportive. I do not smoke pot, and I feel anyone who does so is an idiot wasting his life, but, on the other hand, I feel the same about alcohol, and just take a look a prohibition to see how well that turns out. Any move to reduce government expense (and, indeed, generate income by taxing the stuff), while reducing overcrowding in prisons, and simultaneously reducing the wealth of criminal organizations, is in my mind a good thing.

However, if these actions do in fact overstep presidential authority, then I want to know exactly how and why, so that I can argue towards curbing them. Governmental power creep, however well-intentioned (as it almost always is), must be fought at every opportunity. Vigilance is the price of liberty

Did you just say that Obama is violating the constitution because Obama is violating the constitution? I'm no fan of Obama, but, seriously? Try a specific reference that isn't a tautology. As far as I understand it, it is the job of the Executive branch to execute the laws as set forth by the Legislative branch, and they have wide latitude in doing so.

Why do you think the NSA is trying to get rid of all their sysadmins?

Some of us actually enjoy programming, you know? Though, I suppose there's a huge difference between actual development work, and your basic code monkey treadmill. I co-founded an IT Consulting firm, and I play a major role in designing and implementing the software we develop for our clients. I get new and interesting problems to solve, stimulating and challenging work, the freedom to define my own hours and work from home, all while exercising that mix of art and science that is programming. Honestly, the money is pretty much just a bonus; whatever I don't need to live on gets reinvested in the company. How many people can claim that they like their job to the point where a 24+ hour marathon work session is an enjoyable experience?