From: Peter Hucker on
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:16:24 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:47:37 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:06:47 +0100, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:44:33 +0100, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:40:52 +0100, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:07:28 +0100, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:35:32 +0100, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:41:53 +0100, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
<snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How do you tell the difference between skill and luck?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> When skill becomes kills?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Correct. Until then he is innocent until proven guilty.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd rather he was prevented from killing someone, rather than simply
>>>>> punished when he does.
>>>>
>>>> You're making an invalid assumption about someone before they've done it. I believe that's commonly referred to as a witch hunt.
>>>
>>> It's called prevention. I'd rather he was prevented from killing
>>> someone, rather than simply punished when he does.
>>> Do you disagree?
>>
>> Yes.
>
> You should probably hope that you're never presented with a scenario
> that would sharply change your mind. Consider how much the death of a
> family member wouldn't even remotely be compensated by the
> incarceration of someone you didn't even know existed in the first
> place.

That would not change my mind. Why would I want people to be punished who have never had anything to do with injuring or killing someone?

--
I'm no. 2623 worldwide in BOINC distributed computing.
Are you contributing? http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
I'm the 78th top alpha tester worldwide for protein research systems.
I'm the 118th top contributor worldwide to extreme weather event research.
I'm the 203rd top contributor worldwide to 2-phase fluid behavior in microgravity and microfluidics computer simulations.
Of course a quad core hyperthreading i7 processor helps....

http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

You've heard of "Virgin Wool from New Zealand?"
It's a myth.
From: Ed Chilada on
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:41:26 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
wrote:

>On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:16:24 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:47:37 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:06:47 +0100, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:44:33 +0100, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:40:52 +0100, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 21:07:28 +0100, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 00:35:32 +0100, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 20:41:53 +0100, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
><snip>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> How do you tell the difference between skill and luck?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> When skill becomes kills?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Correct. Until then he is innocent until proven guilty.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'd rather he was prevented from killing someone, rather than simply
>>>>>> punished when he does.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're making an invalid assumption about someone before they've done it. I believe that's commonly referred to as a witch hunt.
>>>>
>>>> It's called prevention. I'd rather he was prevented from killing
>>>> someone, rather than simply punished when he does.
>>>> Do you disagree?
>>>
>>> Yes.
>>
>> You should probably hope that you're never presented with a scenario
>> that would sharply change your mind. Consider how much the death of a
>> family member wouldn't even remotely be compensated by the
>> incarceration of someone you didn't even know existed in the first
>> place.
>
>That would not change my mind. Why would I want people to be punished who have never had anything to do with injuring or killing someone?

They're punished for endangering lives. Let's say there's an arsonist
on the loose who keeps setting fire to old people's homes. However, in
all cases so far, the fire has been spotted early and nobody was hurt.
Do you try and prevent him from repeating this behaviour, or do you
wait until he kills someone and then punish him retrospectively for
doing so?

From: Peter Hucker on
On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:10:18 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:41:26 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:16:24 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:47:37 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:06:47 +0100, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:44:33 +0100, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:40:52 +0100, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd rather he was prevented from killing someone, rather than simply
>>>>>>> punished when he does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're making an invalid assumption about someone before they've done it. I believe that's commonly referred to as a witch hunt.
>>>>>
>>>>> It's called prevention. I'd rather he was prevented from killing
>>>>> someone, rather than simply punished when he does.
>>>>> Do you disagree?
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>
>>> You should probably hope that you're never presented with a scenario
>>> that would sharply change your mind. Consider how much the death of a
>>> family member wouldn't even remotely be compensated by the
>>> incarceration of someone you didn't even know existed in the first
>>> place.
>>
>> That would not change my mind. Why would I want people to be punished who have never had anything to do with injuring or killing someone?
>
> They're punished for endangering lives. Let's say there's an arsonist
> on the loose who keeps setting fire to old people's homes. However, in
> all cases so far, the fire has been spotted early and nobody was hurt.
> Do you try and prevent him from repeating this behaviour, or do you
> wait until he kills someone and then punish him retrospectively for
> doing so?

He is TRYING to kill someone.

--
I'm no. 2623 worldwide in BOINC distributed computing.
Are you contributing? http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
I'm the 78th top alpha tester worldwide for protein research systems.
I'm the 118th top contributor worldwide to extreme weather event research.
I'm the 203rd top contributor worldwide to 2-phase fluid behavior in microgravity and microfluidics computer simulations.
Of course a quad core hyperthreading i7 processor helps....

http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

TV takes over your life when you could be doing useful things like smoking crack and stealing car stereos.
From: Ed Chilada on
On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:59:04 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
wrote:

>On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:10:18 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:41:26 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:16:24 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:47:37 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:06:47 +0100, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:44:33 +0100, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 06 Oct 2009 23:40:52 +0100, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd rather he was prevented from killing someone, rather than simply
>>>>>>>> punished when he does.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're making an invalid assumption about someone before they've done it. I believe that's commonly referred to as a witch hunt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's called prevention. I'd rather he was prevented from killing
>>>>>> someone, rather than simply punished when he does.
>>>>>> Do you disagree?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>> You should probably hope that you're never presented with a scenario
>>>> that would sharply change your mind. Consider how much the death of a
>>>> family member wouldn't even remotely be compensated by the
>>>> incarceration of someone you didn't even know existed in the first
>>>> place.
>>>
>>> That would not change my mind. Why would I want people to be punished who have never had anything to do with injuring or killing someone?
>>
>> They're punished for endangering lives. Let's say there's an arsonist
>> on the loose who keeps setting fire to old people's homes. However, in
>> all cases so far, the fire has been spotted early and nobody was hurt.
>> Do you try and prevent him from repeating this behaviour, or do you
>> wait until he kills someone and then punish him retrospectively for
>> doing so?
>
>He is TRYING to kill someone.

Not necessarily - maybe he just gets a cheap thrill out of fires the
same way you like speeding - and in both cases doesn't care what
danger other people are put in. So - do you wait until he kills people
and then punish him, or do you try and prevent his dangerous behaviour
before anyone comes to harm?

From: Peter Hucker on
On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 00:51:55 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 18:59:04 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 23:10:18 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 18:41:26 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 14:16:24 -0000, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 19:47:37 -0000, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 18:06:47 +0100, Ed Chilada <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 07 Oct 2009 19:44:33 +0100, "Peter Hucker" <none(a)spam.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
<snip>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's called prevention. I'd rather he was prevented from killing
>>>>>>> someone, rather than simply punished when he does.
>>>>>>> Do you disagree?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>> You should probably hope that you're never presented with a scenario
>>>>> that would sharply change your mind. Consider how much the death of a
>>>>> family member wouldn't even remotely be compensated by the
>>>>> incarceration of someone you didn't even know existed in the first
>>>>> place.
>>>>
>>>> That would not change my mind. Why would I want people to be punished who have never had anything to do with injuring or killing someone?
>>>
>>> They're punished for endangering lives. Let's say there's an arsonist
>>> on the loose who keeps setting fire to old people's homes. However, in
>>> all cases so far, the fire has been spotted early and nobody was hurt.
>>> Do you try and prevent him from repeating this behaviour, or do you
>>> wait until he kills someone and then punish him retrospectively for
>>> doing so?
>>
>> He is TRYING to kill someone.
>
> Not necessarily - maybe he just gets a cheap thrill out of fires the
> same way you like speeding - and in both cases doesn't care what
> danger other people are put in. So - do you wait until he kills people
> and then punish him, or do you try and prevent his dangerous behaviour
> before anyone comes to harm?

Setting fire to someone's house is obviously going to hurt someone. Driving fast is not necessarily going to do so.

--
I'm no. 2623 worldwide in BOINC distributed computing.
Are you contributing? http://boinc.berkeley.edu/
I'm the 78th top alpha tester worldwide for protein research systems.
I'm the 118th top contributor worldwide to extreme weather event research.
I'm the 203rd top contributor worldwide to 2-phase fluid behavior in microgravity and microfluidics computer simulations.
Of course a quad core hyperthreading i7 processor helps....

http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

In the 60's people took acid to make the world weird.
Now the world is weird, people take prozac to make it normal.