London Explosions - Tubes - Bus
-
<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[^]