London Explosions - Tubes - Bus
-
fakefur wrote: I think we need to rise above the terrorists tactics and address the issues Spoken just liek the UN... So in other words we need to play nice nice with the bullies? How long do we need to take it up the a** before we can fight back? How much are we willing to let a rouge government dictate US policy?
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
-
Judah Himango wrote: love the book & the movie I haven't read the book, aside from historic stuff, but I enjoyed the film too. Mel Gibson plays that sort of character very well IMO. Judah Himango wrote: Really? Got any figures? I won't bother giving links because they are ten a penny on Google. Many U.S. states have comissioned recent studies with all finding the costs greater (from 30% to 70%). The cost is higher in the U.S. than anywhere else because of the investigation (3x greater), the trial (16x greater) and the appeals (21x greater) that are typically run for a condemened prisoner. It stands at an average of 3 times the cost of a life term (assuming an average of 40 years per term). Judah Himango wrote: I don't really subscribe to the whole "deterrent" theory The problem with the death penalty as a deterrent is that it only works when the criminal knows they have a concrete 100% chance of being executed if they are caught. (i.e. Singapore where as a result they have about 5 or 6 murders in a bad year - and only 1 in 1998.) With the U.S. system there is a much higher chance a criminal wont be executed, and it renders the whole thing totally useless for that aim. Today the first thing you do if the police arrive while you're still holding the smoking gun is to buy a good doctor. There is another very serious flaw with the whole deterrent argument, and that is that most of the really horrific and multiple murders, rapes, etc are comitted by psychopaths who don't feel any deterrent.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
David Wulff wrote: The problem with the death penalty as a deterrent is that it only works when the criminal knows they have a concrete 100% chance of being executed if they are caught. there are a few logical flaws in your argument: - if I step in front of a tram I don't have a 100% chance of getting killed, I might even get away with minor injuries, and on a lucky day the driver could stop in time or have a local hero pull me back to safety at the last second. You still won't see me try the trick too often. - even with a 100% chance of being sentenced to death, how that would deter someone who's willing to die in the attempt anyhow? And the list goes on... As far as the Singapore analogy goes, that's also weak. East European countries used to have very good records as well, and while they had the death penalty it was rarely used. But that good record had two different causes: 1. local culture. That includes very tough police control, and "only" 20 years in prison is not that different from capital punishment when it applies to you personally. And when you went to prison for X years there was no chance of getting out earlier than that. 2. freedom of information. Only very few of the statistics were real, for example Romania didn't "officially" have any HIV cases till 1990, at least. Murders were not advertised for a lot of reasons. This even had some good side-effects, like it creates the impression that the police solves almost all of the cases. OGR
-
David Wulff wrote: The problem with the death penalty as a deterrent is that it only works when the criminal knows they have a concrete 100% chance of being executed if they are caught. there are a few logical flaws in your argument: - if I step in front of a tram I don't have a 100% chance of getting killed, I might even get away with minor injuries, and on a lucky day the driver could stop in time or have a local hero pull me back to safety at the last second. You still won't see me try the trick too often. - even with a 100% chance of being sentenced to death, how that would deter someone who's willing to die in the attempt anyhow? And the list goes on... As far as the Singapore analogy goes, that's also weak. East European countries used to have very good records as well, and while they had the death penalty it was rarely used. But that good record had two different causes: 1. local culture. That includes very tough police control, and "only" 20 years in prison is not that different from capital punishment when it applies to you personally. And when you went to prison for X years there was no chance of getting out earlier than that. 2. freedom of information. Only very few of the statistics were real, for example Romania didn't "officially" have any HIV cases till 1990, at least. Murders were not advertised for a lot of reasons. This even had some good side-effects, like it creates the impression that the police solves almost all of the cases. OGR
ogrig wrote: if I step in front of a tram I don't have a 100% chance of getting killed, I might even get away with minor injuries, and on a lucky day the driver could stop in time or have a local hero pull me back to safety at the last second. You still won't see me try the trick too often Eh? How on earth does that translate to being the same as consciously choosing to murder or brutally rape someone? (No really, please explain.) ogrig wrote: 20 years in prison is not that different from capital punishment when it applies to you personally I'll remember that should I ever be facing a 20 year term, and I'll save everyone the bother by killing myself immediately. My god, you were serious... :sigh: ogrig wrote: As far as the Singapore analogy goes, that's also weak Would you care to explain why? (And I mean by actually talking about Singapore, not the reported HIV cases in 1980's Romania.) You might be interested to read this guy's thoughts on crime and punishment[^], capital punishment[^] and human rights[^]. Some of what he discusses was presented above.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
-
ogrig wrote: if I step in front of a tram I don't have a 100% chance of getting killed, I might even get away with minor injuries, and on a lucky day the driver could stop in time or have a local hero pull me back to safety at the last second. You still won't see me try the trick too often Eh? How on earth does that translate to being the same as consciously choosing to murder or brutally rape someone? (No really, please explain.) ogrig wrote: 20 years in prison is not that different from capital punishment when it applies to you personally I'll remember that should I ever be facing a 20 year term, and I'll save everyone the bother by killing myself immediately. My god, you were serious... :sigh: ogrig wrote: As far as the Singapore analogy goes, that's also weak Would you care to explain why? (And I mean by actually talking about Singapore, not the reported HIV cases in 1980's Romania.) You might be interested to read this guy's thoughts on crime and punishment[^], capital punishment[^] and human rights[^]. Some of what he discusses was presented above.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
David Wulff wrote: Eh? How on earth does that translate to being the same as consciously choosing to murder or brutally rape someone? (No really, please explain.) It doesn't. It is about only a 100% chance being an efficient deterrent. Sometimes it helps if you read the original message and don't take things out of context. David Wulff wrote: I'll remember that should I ever be facing a 20 year term, and I'll save everyone the bother by killing myself immediately. My god, you were serious... So you are really looking forward to a chance of being sentenced to 20 years in jail? I'm glad you don't know where I live if nothing short of capital punishment stops you. With your "kill all" approach to reality I would be able to sleep at night. David Wulff wrote: Would you care to explain why? (And I mean by actually talking about Singapore, not the reported HIV cases in 1980's Romania.) I just did. Read the message. Local culture and false statistics will make the Singapore figures very unreliable for any kind of comparison. As for the rest, you seem a bit fixated on punishment. Let me remind you: they know where we live and they have guns. Some of them would stop from nothing, even if that means their own death, to blow us up. My first instinct is to try and stop this happening again, saving myself, my family and my friends. If others, strangers to me, are also saved in the process, that's an added bonus. Unfortunately punishment can only be applied after, so it's not very helpful. OGR
-
David Wulff wrote: Eh? How on earth does that translate to being the same as consciously choosing to murder or brutally rape someone? (No really, please explain.) It doesn't. It is about only a 100% chance being an efficient deterrent. Sometimes it helps if you read the original message and don't take things out of context. David Wulff wrote: I'll remember that should I ever be facing a 20 year term, and I'll save everyone the bother by killing myself immediately. My god, you were serious... So you are really looking forward to a chance of being sentenced to 20 years in jail? I'm glad you don't know where I live if nothing short of capital punishment stops you. With your "kill all" approach to reality I would be able to sleep at night. David Wulff wrote: Would you care to explain why? (And I mean by actually talking about Singapore, not the reported HIV cases in 1980's Romania.) I just did. Read the message. Local culture and false statistics will make the Singapore figures very unreliable for any kind of comparison. As for the rest, you seem a bit fixated on punishment. Let me remind you: they know where we live and they have guns. Some of them would stop from nothing, even if that means their own death, to blow us up. My first instinct is to try and stop this happening again, saving myself, my family and my friends. If others, strangers to me, are also saved in the process, that's an added bonus. Unfortunately punishment can only be applied after, so it's not very helpful. OGR
ogrig wrote: It doesn't. It is about only a 100% chance being an efficient deterrent. Sometimes it helps if you read the original message and don't take things out of context. That is exactly what I was referring to with my question - how does the death deterrent in your example at all relate to the death deterrent in capital punishment? It is your comment that is out of context with the topic. I will refrain from making sarcastic comments about how to read, you can use your own. ogrig wrote: With your "kill all" approach to reality I would be able to sleep at night. Again, eh? I want to kill people... of course. :doh: ogrig wrote: I just did. Read the message No you didn't. You appear to have not thought your argument through in your own head yet, or else you are deliberately spinning what you say. Either way if you bothered to read the content I researched and linked for you you will find some insight into the reliability of statistics over recent years. I was asking you specifically about Singapore and the effectiveness of a 100% certainty of death if your one-and-only appeal fails on preventing violent crime. Yes, preventing. Punishment is only a formality because as you've astutely observed the crime has already been committed by that stage. Coupled with harsh punishments for more minor crimes (by our Western standards) crime rates are lower there. That's results applied before, which are very helpful.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
-
David Wulff wrote: The problem with the death penalty as a deterrent is that it only works when the criminal knows they have a concrete 100% chance of being executed if they are caught. there are a few logical flaws in your argument: - if I step in front of a tram I don't have a 100% chance of getting killed, I might even get away with minor injuries, and on a lucky day the driver could stop in time or have a local hero pull me back to safety at the last second. You still won't see me try the trick too often. - even with a 100% chance of being sentenced to death, how that would deter someone who's willing to die in the attempt anyhow? And the list goes on... As far as the Singapore analogy goes, that's also weak. East European countries used to have very good records as well, and while they had the death penalty it was rarely used. But that good record had two different causes: 1. local culture. That includes very tough police control, and "only" 20 years in prison is not that different from capital punishment when it applies to you personally. And when you went to prison for X years there was no chance of getting out earlier than that. 2. freedom of information. Only very few of the statistics were real, for example Romania didn't "officially" have any HIV cases till 1990, at least. Murders were not advertised for a lot of reasons. This even had some good side-effects, like it creates the impression that the police solves almost all of the cases. OGR
ogrig wrote: - if I step in front of a tram I don't have a 100% chance of getting killed, I might even get away with minor injuries, and on a lucky day the driver could stop in time or have a local hero pull me back to safety at the last second. You still won't see me try the trick too often. What if stepping in front of that tram would get you an easy $500? Or rid you of a nagging wife? Or that "friend" who is getting real insistent about that money you owe him? What if stepping in front of that tram gave you a rush like no other, made you feel powerful, gave you pleasure? You can still say you wouldn't do it. But i can think of a good many people who would...
You must be careful in the forest Broken glass and rusty nails If you're to bring back something for us I have bullets for sale...
-
fakefur wrote: I think we need to rise above the terrorists tactics and address the issues Spoken just liek the UN... So in other words we need to play nice nice with the bullies? How long do we need to take it up the a** before we can fight back? How much are we willing to let a rouge government dictate US policy?
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]
-
So much hatred, hell-fire and brimstone! We are better than that. regards, Paul Watson South Africa PMW Photography Gary Kirkham wrote: The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the cliché...Star Trek had it in spades.
Crime and punishment. Oh, well, maybe I should think about that again. :sigh: Cheers, Vikram.
http://www.geocities.com/vpunathambekar "You still have the coolest name on CodeProject." — David Wulff to me.
-
ogrig wrote: - if I step in front of a tram I don't have a 100% chance of getting killed, I might even get away with minor injuries, and on a lucky day the driver could stop in time or have a local hero pull me back to safety at the last second. You still won't see me try the trick too often. What if stepping in front of that tram would get you an easy $500? Or rid you of a nagging wife? Or that "friend" who is getting real insistent about that money you owe him? What if stepping in front of that tram gave you a rush like no other, made you feel powerful, gave you pleasure? You can still say you wouldn't do it. But i can think of a good many people who would...
You must be careful in the forest Broken glass and rusty nails If you're to bring back something for us I have bullets for sale...
I'm sorry, but I don't see your point. I was saying that even less than 100% chance can be a deterrent, you are saying that even 100% might not be one. Both are non zero-or-one probabilities, there is no logical contradiction there. Are you implying that the suicide bombers are just trying to get away from their nagging wives? And looking at the examples you gave me I won't even comment on the kind of company you keep. OGR
-
<serious> You're right. Public mockery of "the idiot who failed to blow even himself up" would set a hilarious example.:) </serious> "We've replaced Bob's explosives with white phosphorous. Let's see if he notices." Top 10 Geek Resulutions: 5. To decipher what that big room is, which has the blue ceiling and poor climate control.
:laugh: Cheers, Vikram.
http://www.geocities.com/vpunathambekar "You still have the coolest name on CodeProject." — David Wulff to me.
-
ogrig wrote: It doesn't. It is about only a 100% chance being an efficient deterrent. Sometimes it helps if you read the original message and don't take things out of context. That is exactly what I was referring to with my question - how does the death deterrent in your example at all relate to the death deterrent in capital punishment? It is your comment that is out of context with the topic. I will refrain from making sarcastic comments about how to read, you can use your own. ogrig wrote: With your "kill all" approach to reality I would be able to sleep at night. Again, eh? I want to kill people... of course. :doh: ogrig wrote: I just did. Read the message No you didn't. You appear to have not thought your argument through in your own head yet, or else you are deliberately spinning what you say. Either way if you bothered to read the content I researched and linked for you you will find some insight into the reliability of statistics over recent years. I was asking you specifically about Singapore and the effectiveness of a 100% certainty of death if your one-and-only appeal fails on preventing violent crime. Yes, preventing. Punishment is only a formality because as you've astutely observed the crime has already been committed by that stage. Coupled with harsh punishments for more minor crimes (by our Western standards) crime rates are lower there. That's results applied before, which are very helpful.
Ðavid Wulff Audioscrobbler :: flickr Die Freiheit spielt auf allen Geigen (QT)
David Wulff wrote: That is exactly what I was referring to with my question - how does the death deterrent in your example at all relate to the death deterrent in capital punishment? I said that even less than a 100% chance of diing as a result of a voluntary act can deter you from going ahead with your action. I really cannot see what is different here. David Wulff wrote: Again, eh? I want to kill people... of course. Sorry, entirely my mistake here. I have an explanation for it, but it's a long one and it's not an excuse anyway. David Wulff wrote: No you didn't. ... crime rates are lower there. I'm not including your whole last paragraph here, but the logic is still faulty. Just because A and B happen at the same time it doesn't necessarily mean that A is the cause and the only cause of B. While you are right (probably, at least I agree with you here) that the harsh punishments are one of the causes for a lower crime rate, they are not (yes, I know this is just my assumption, and I can also be wrong) the only cause. And I'm pretty sure they are not the most important factor either. Just a minor example: even if you have a mandatory death sentence for a crime, you cannot apply that punishment to criminals you don't catch. Police methods in "non-democratic" states (which in most cases are part of the culture, and not of the legislation of those countries) lead to a lot more cases being solved. Just being a suspect (even if the police fails to prove anything), may be unpleasant enough for you to avoid it. Local culture takes other forms as well. The aboriginal population here in Australia deals very badly with imprisonment. A lot of aboriginals will just die when locked up. Romanian people back home don't find life in prison pleasant, but they will not, as a rule, commit suicide or refuse to eat if it happens. And, for historical and cultural reasons, it is even more acceptable for the large gipsy population there. OGR
-
Reports coming in now.... 0912 EDT 21Jul2005 RTRS - Explosions reported on London tube, bus -police ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LONDON - Emergency services rushed to three London underground stations in London on Thursday after reports of explosions two weeks after bomb attacks killed more than 50 people in the British capital. 0839 EDT 21Jul2005 - Nail bomb said to explode on London tube-source ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ LONDON - A nail bomb exploded at London's Warren Street underground station on Thursday, a source at a city transport company said. The source also said there was a report of one shooting but did not specify where. 14:20 21Jul2005 INSTANT VIEW-Explosions reported on London tube, bus However, this is not thought to be on the scale of the previous London attack... SHANE BRIGHTON, ROYAL UNITED SERVICES INSTITUTE There doesn't seem to be any report of any substantial blasts. The worst-case scenario with the non-explosions or minor explosions would be that these are devices that haven't triggered properly. Beyond that, it looks like it may be people messing around, copycat-type stuff. The absence of any clear evidence of substantial blasts means that this is on the face of it at the moment not a follow-up attack of the same proportion. It may be an attempt by people to cause panic, maybe people with similar ideas or ideological sympathy with the people that did the recent bombings...The nature of the incidents doesn't appear to be anything like as serious. Thursday, 21 July 2005 14:20:13RTRS [nL21246141] {C}ENDS Visit Riverside Internet[^] Visit Mike Puddephat Online[^]
-
Sorry, I am not better than that. I am of the firm believe that we need to publicly execute anyone that does one of these attacks and then survives. If they want to die for a cause so bad then I saw let them, but let it be an option to happen at the hands of a family member who lost someone to one of these cowardly attacks. Apparently all these people understand is fear. Lets give them some.
George Carlin wrote: "Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things." Jörgen Sigvardsson wrote: If the physicists find a universal theory describing the laws of universe, I'm sure the asshole constant will be an integral part of that theory.
My Blog[^]