|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Jun 27, 2016 15:15:41 GMT
I really think that the only way self driving cars will ever truly be feasible, is when EVERYONE uses them. You throw humans into the equation, and no matter how well written your software is, it can't possibly anticipate everything. Get rid of the humans at the wheel all together, and then programming for the unplanned becomes possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jun 27, 2016 15:20:00 GMT
I really think that the only way self driving cars will ever truly be feasible, is when EVERYONE uses them. You throw humans into the equation, and no matter how well written your software is, it can't possibly anticipate everything. Get rid of the humans at the wheel all together, and then programming for the unplanned becomes possible. That is definitely a factor. |
|
|
|
Post by WhutScreenName on Sept 28, 2016 13:02:42 GMT
Interesting results. Do you think they are typical of all folks? Why did they (meaning both sides) react like that?
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 28, 2016 14:03:24 GMT
Interesting results. Do you think they are typical of all folks? Why did they (meaning both sides) react like that? for some people, the fight is more important than what they're fighting for. |
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Sept 28, 2016 19:40:14 GMT
For the "Black Lives Matter" sign, he was obviously outside a Dollar Tree store. www.dollartree.com/It's one of those "Everything's a Dollar or Less" stores, and so down here at least they draw in a mixed crowd; everyone comes in. I wonder how it is that they selected that place. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 28, 2016 20:29:40 GMT
I don't think (most) black people fundamentally disagree with the idea that all lives matter or think black lives matter more than anyone else's.
I remember watching an interview with one of the founders of the BLM movement a while back. The interviewer asked him if the slogan means that they believe only black lives matter, or that black lives matter more than all others and if that's why some of them get so upset over the "All lives matter" idea. His answer was that of course he thought all lives mattered and if he could have it his way, no human being would ever be killed at the hands of another human being ever again, but that wasn't the point.
The point behind the "Black lives matter" slogan, he said, was that even though he personally felt all lives SHOULD matter equally (and he was aware that many white people felt the same), his experience was that it just didn't work like that in practice. He said that many white people truly want it to work like that and many seem to be under the impression that it does, but that's not what black people are experiencing, so when someone says "All lives matter", it's not that he disagrees. The problem for him was that it underlined the fact* that a lot of people are in denial about how black people are treated.
"Black lives matter" was supposed to be a wake up call, telling people there are still problems with segregation and differential treatment based on race. Waving an "All lives matter" sign implies to many black people that you don't believe those problems exist. They see it as a slight, not because they disagree with the idea, but because they don't feel it's their reality.
Imagine that you've fallen and broken your leg. You're in excruciating pain and in serious need of medical treatment. Then someone comes up to you and says, "It's not that bad. Just walk it off."
The way I understand it, someone saying "All lives matter" as a retort to "Black lives matter" is the same thing to many black people. They feel like they're being robbed of their own personal experience and told, "There's really no problem. It's all in your heads."
I can't say that I agree or disagree with any of it. I'm not an African American, so I have no way of knowing what that's like. All I can say is, I know that feeling. Telling someone you have a problem, hoping they'll at least listen to and acknowledge you and maybe even help you solve it, just to have them go, "Well, everyone has problems, so stop whining."
That's great, but saying everyone has problems and telling me I'm whining doesn't solve MY problem, does it?! I'm still left with the same challenges I faced before, but now I feel even worse after having talked to you about it, so thanks a lot!
That's not a pleasant feeling, so if that's what they feel when someone says "All lives matter", I kind of understand why they get so upset.
Why they get violent, well that I don't understand! That certainly doesn't help anyone, least of all their own cause!
* "Fact" in his mind. I can't speak to whether it is or not.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 28, 2016 23:40:19 GMT
fact of the matter is, most people are happy and willing to get along with each other. but when people start getting in groups, and there start being stressors, they start getting reactionary.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 29, 2016 0:47:07 GMT
fact of the matter is, most people are happy and willing to get along with each other. but when people start getting in groups, and there start being stressors, they start getting reactionary. True. And I'm not defending their reactions. I'm merely offering a possible explanation by trying to put myself in their shoes. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 29, 2016 2:40:49 GMT
fact of the matter is, most people are happy and willing to get along with each other. but when people start getting in groups, and there start being stressors, they start getting reactionary. True. And I'm not defending their reactions. I'm merely offering a possible explanation by trying to put myself in their shoes. yeah. that's how people get along as individuals. I agree that they have a valid issue with the "all lives matter" crowd - who are doing it as much to provoke a reaction as for anything else. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Sept 29, 2016 8:48:03 GMT
Interesting results. Do you think they are typical of all folks? Why did they (meaning both sides) react like that? For Discussion, may I light the blue touchpaper and retire to a safe distance here?... [/s][/quote] The above is free to be redacted, picked apart, changed, and argued against by anyone who has anything to offer. Just NOT them BLM people, because I see anarchy in their ideals, and I am dead set against that ideal. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Sept 29, 2016 11:20:48 GMT
The problem with just removing the police from an area is that not all people in that area are criminals. Many are victims. Some of the victims will side with BLM, but many won't. Unless you intend to move those people away, you're leaving the sheep at the mercy of the wolves.
Also, you run the risk of that parallel society spilling over into surrounding communities, only since you haven't been policing that parallel society and have let the criminals roam free within it, those criminals have hardened to a point that you might not even be able to handle. You want that level of ruthless violence to spread once one of them decides it's time to branch out and away from the community they grew up in? And when it does spread, do you seriously want them to have a country within the country where they can hide and fortify themselves like a small army, so police can't get to them?
I get the sentiment behind the idea, but it's just not tenable.
There's an old Danish saying: Shooting sparrows with cannonballs. It means putting too much of the wrong kind of effort into solving a problem with a resulting high risk of failure and collateral damage.
This, to me, qualifies as shooting sparrows with cannonballs.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Sept 29, 2016 13:47:33 GMT
the next poster child they have rallied behind is a man who was said to have some form of mental impairment who reached into his pocket, pulled something out, clasped his hands over it and presented it like he was aiming a handgun at an officer.
at that point, one officer hit him with a TASER, and another shot him.
if I was the judge I'd take about30 seconds of deliberation before declaring it suicide by cop.
|
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 14, 2017 16:41:04 GMT
in short, we must provide lawyers, not because they deserve lawyers if they are such scumbags, but because we are decent people who give everybody a fair trial.[/quote Keeping it brief.... [yeah I did just say that?..] Define a fair trial. Multiple shooting as an example.... If the video evidence says thats them, and its a hanging state, they swing. They may say "that isnt fair I dont want to die", but in fairness, they killed others, make the punishment fit the crime... If EVERYONE in the whole state saw the crime on the tee-vee, and this is public enemy number one locally, even if the tee-vee broadcast it nationwide like they do these days, good luck finding 12 people "Good and true" that didnt see some of that coverage and aint a little swung already to the short rope long drop verdict?.. Escalate that to What is fair when you were seen by "Everyone", and 50% of them already want you lynched?.. where the other 50% are too traumatised to think or are not capable of making an opinion?.. Fair is having a trial. Yet increasingly I see evidence where crimes of terrorism, be that a whole bunch of tarded rag heads wishing death to western civilisation or one person wanting to shoot up a whole school, its all terrorism, where there is no way in hell they are getting away with even sneezing at the wrong moment, why waste time, give them a cursory "Is this you?" and "How do you plead", then read them the charges, if they dont provide iron cast evidence they are not guilty, sod anything else, we dont need to know they kept kittens as a young child, or that they were recruited by anyone else, if they did the crime, they do the time, no arguments. The "Trial" should be "did they do it?", if answer yes, guilty, if answer no, how do you prove that, if they cant provide "Magical" evidence that they were not the person arrested at scene of crime with "smoking gun" yelling "Death to you all, I did this, I will do this again", then they are guilty as sin, drop em down a dark hole and be done. You may have noted Brian the chip has come in from playtime again for that last sentence, but this is a highly emotional subject and it affects me. In that, I want to see people like that swing.. I want to see justice done, and criminals be forced to see what true justice is. There is a time in all relationships to say "NO!". In the bassetardised east-wast argument that is daesh and "kill the rest of the world", the time has come, to say no you wont, and kick back. Hard. This should also be used to promote "We aint going to stand by and watch" against any fool with a weapon that wants to walk into school and terrorise their school mates... Its still terrorism, but worse, because you thought you knew them. This is where it gets hard. To think you know someone well, and have your own judgement of character pulled into question, when they turn out to be a monster of the ninth level of wrong.... Thats a side of terrorism I hope none of you all on here have to ever witness. In a similar thing, I learnt recently that one of our regular customers in the club has been found guilty of a weird case of "Stalking". He is now lifetime barred from the club. As I say he was a regular.. and I didnt even bat an eyelid when he came to the bar before this happened, I had no idea he was a "Wrong-un" I cant go into details, but here I am, 40plus years of experience at the bar, you think you heard it all, and when I heard, I shuddered. Notes, I apologise for keep using the term hanging state, but it saves a lot of time, we all know what it means. There are increasingly weird cases of mass terror incidents that may not be international linked, but, if one person goes on a rampage wielding a knife and people are running away screaming and trying to hide, thats terror, right there. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 14, 2017 16:57:49 GMT
in short, we must provide lawyers, not because they deserve lawyers if they are such scumbags, but because we are decent people who give everybody a fair trial. Keeping it brief.... [yeah I did just say that?..] Define a fair trial. Multiple shooting as an example.... If the video evidence says thats them, and its a hanging state, they swing. They may say "that isnt fair I dont want to die", but in fairness, they killed others, make the punishment fit the crime... If EVERYONE in the whole state saw the crime on the tee-vee, and this is public enemy number one locally, even if the tee-vee broadcast it nationwide like they do these days, good luck finding 12 people "Good and true" that didnt see some of that coverage and aint a little swung already to the short rope long drop verdict?.. Escalate that to What is fair when you were seen by "Everyone", and 50% of them already want you lynched?.. where the other 50% are too traumatised to think or are not capable of making an opinion?.. Fair is having a trial. Yet increasingly I see evidence where crimes of terrorism, be that a whole bunch of tarded rag heads wishing death to western civilisation or one person wanting to shoot up a whole school, its all terrorism, where there is no way in hell they are getting away with even sneezing at the wrong moment, why waste time, give them a cursory "Is this you?" and "How do you plead", then read them the charges, if they dont provide iron cast evidence they are not guilty, sod anything else, we dont need to know they kept kittens as a young child, or that they were recruited by anyone else, if they did the crime, they do the time, no arguments. The "Trial" should be "did they do it?", if answer yes, guilty, if answer no, how do you prove that, if they cant provide "Magical" evidence that they were not the person arrested at scene of crime with "smoking gun" yelling "Death to you all, I did this, I will do this again", then they are guilty as sin, drop em down a dark hole and be done. You may have noted Brian the chip has come in from playtime again for that last sentence, but this is a highly emotional subject and it affects me. In that, I want to see people like that swing.. I want to see justice done, and criminals be forced to see what true justice is. There is a time in all relationships to say "NO!". In the bassetardised east-wast argument that is daesh and "kill the rest of the world", the time has come, to say no you wont, and kick back. Hard. This should also be used to promote "We aint going to stand by and watch" against any fool with a weapon that wants to walk into school and terrorise their school mates... Its still terrorism, but worse, because you thought you knew them. This is where it gets hard. To think you know someone well, and have your own judgement of character pulled into question, when they turn out to be a monster of the ninth level of wrong.... Thats a side of terrorism I hope none of you all on here have to ever witness. In a similar thing, I learnt recently that one of our regular customers in the club has been found guilty of a weird case of "Stalking". He is now lifetime barred from the club. As I say he was a regular.. and I didnt even bat an eyelid when he came to the bar before this happened, I had no idea he was a "Wrong-un" I cant go into details, but here I am, 40plus years of experience at the bar, you think you heard it all, and when I heard, I shuddered. Notes, I apologise for keep using the term hanging state, but it saves a lot of time, we all know what it means. There are increasingly weird cases of mass terror incidents that may not be international linked, but, if one person goes on a rampage wielding a knife and people are running away screaming and trying to hide, thats terror, right there. I agree that there are some people whose character calls for a stick with a needle and dropped into the incinerator. our legal system still requires them to be extended the offer of a lawyer. the lawyer isn't required to believe them when they say "I didn't really do what I just did" but there is a moral requirement to give them someone to explain the points of the law to them. |
|
|
|
Post by mrfatso on Jan 15, 2017 12:27:47 GMT
The same exists in our legal a defendant should have access to a Defense lawyer no matter how heinous their crimes our, it's the price we have to pay to be a civilised society.
It would be easy and satisfying to say that someone like Harold Shipman or the Wests should not have a fair trial, but it's not about how bad they are, it's about us not dragging ourselves even one small big to their levels.
|
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 15, 2017 15:22:19 GMT
The same exists in our legal a defendant should have access to a Defense lawyer no matter how heinous their crimes our, it's the price we have to pay to be a civilised society. It would be easy and satisfying to say that someone like Harold Shipman or the Wests should not have a fair trial, but it's not about how bad they are, it's about us not dragging ourselves even one small big to their levels. yes. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 15, 2017 22:13:10 GMT
The same exists in our legal a defendant should have access to a Defense lawyer no matter how heinous their crimes our, it's the price we have to pay to be a civilised society. It would be easy and satisfying to say that someone like Harold Shipman or the Wests should not have a fair trial, but it's not about how bad they are, it's about us not dragging ourselves even one small big to their levels. And on that note, I've been thinking. Let me start by saying I've never actually been against the death penalty as such. I've just always had the mindset that it should be reserved for the very worst offenders and that if you're going to use it, you'd better have rock solid proof that a) you have the right person and b) it is utterly pointless to incarcerate them in the hopes that they will one day regret what they've done for any other reason than the fact that it got them incarcerated. However... If we give people a fair trial and the right to legal representation because we (society at large) don't want to be like them (the most savage criminals), there's something weird to me about the concept of, "You have taken a life, which is wrong and we will now punish you for it by taking your life." Granted, there's an obvious difference between hacking someone to a bloody pulp with a machete in front of their children because you're a sadistic maniac and administering a lethal dose of medication to said sadistic maniac under controlled conditions because it's been agreed upon by society at large to be the best course of action, but either way you're taking a life and didn't we all just agree that's wrong...? Again, there are conditions under which I'm not against the death penalty, but when we use it, can't we at least admit we're doing it because a) we want to make sure this person never has the opportunity to become a repeat offender, b) because there's no chance this person will ever repent, so incarcerating them in the hopes that they'll change is futile and c) because sometimes a crime is so heinous that "revenge" feels like the only word that's directly synonymous with "justice"? |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jan 15, 2017 22:36:53 GMT
There is also another philosophical argument.
The idea is that society thinks the individual life is so precious, that the ultimate sanction is the only just response to unlawfully taking a life.
Not even life in prison is justice in this case; only by taking the murderer's life do we approach justice. From this view, it's not seen as revenge; it's simply justice.
To give any other punishment would be to devalue the innocent life.
Me, I don't believe in the death penalty. I don't shed tears for the killers, but I think that even with all the safeguards and appeals, it's still too easy to make a mistake. It also costs more to execute them than to keep them locked up.
Speaking of murders, it looks like Charlie Manson is circling the drain. Please, when he passes, don't even think of posting it on the remembrance thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 16, 2017 0:26:49 GMT
There is also another philosophical argument. The idea is that society thinks the individual life is so precious, that the ultimate sanction is the only just response to unlawfully taking a life. Not even life in prison is justice in this case; only by taking the murderer's life do we approach justice. From this view, it's not seen as revenge; it's simply justice. To give any other punishment would be to devalue the innocent life. I personally believe that in 99.9% of cases, the better punishment is to take away the perpetrators' freedom, so they can sit in a cell for the rest of their lives, feeling sorry for themselves over all the things they're missing out on and possibly even live to regret what they did. When you're dead, you're dead. You don't feel anything ever again. No, you won't be taking part in the good things in life, but you won't be taking part in the bad ones either, i.e. being denied the good things because you're being punished for doing something wrong. You certainly won't be regretting anything either, that's for sure. If I had a choice between sitting in a cell and being told what to do, how to do it, when to do it, who to do it with or without and knowing there's no chance of getting away from that for the rest of my life, or letting someone push a needle into my arm and getting it all over with right here and now, I know which one I'd pick. I value my freedom higher than mere survival, which makes life in prison the worst sentence you could give me and I think many others would feel the same. Me, I don't believe in the death penalty. I don't shed tears for the killers, but I think that even with all the safeguards and appeals, it's still too easy to make a mistake. It also costs more to execute them than to keep them locked up. I started out by saying I'm not opposed to the death penalty in the most severe cases, but I'm slowly starting to lean the other way. For one thing, you're right about it being too easy to make mistakes, which has been known for decades, if not centuries. There are numerous cases where a signed confession has been used as "absolute proof" where it later turned out that the (innocent) suspect had more or less been forced to sign it and there are tons of other cases where witnesses swore they recognized a perpetrator as a particular person where it later turned out it wasn't actually them, but someone who looked like them. If you require ironclad evidence, the only real way to get that is to catch the perpetrator in the act, like they did with Breivik in Norway. Just one wrong person executed in the place of the actual perpetrator is one too many. The other thing is that even though someone like Breivik may never feel remorse for what he did, he still feels plenty sorry for himself over having his freedom taken from him, as evidenced by all the pleas he's made to the International Human Rights Court over "being treated inhumanely". I'm sure Manson and plenty of other psychos don't feel too good about being locked up for the rest of their lives either. Some may not care, but I'm guessing they're few and far between. Looking at it that way, the only really good reason to execute someone like Breivik is the fear that he might somehow get out someday. Speaking of murders, it looks like Charlie Manson is circling the drain. Please, when he passes, don't even think of posting it on the remembrance thread. I second that. He's had plenty of press already without our help. Let him fade out in silence. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 16, 2017 1:04:58 GMT
I believe I've already said, my thought is "your crimes are so horrible and the likelihood you will truly reform is effectively zero, so you won't be leaving prison alive. how long do you want to be there?"
|
|
