EPT
and synthetic diamonds even if they have a similar structure as the natural ones, they have different proprieties, including being harder then natural diamonds. Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 204
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
xM(Z
Romania5278 Posts
and synthetic diamonds even if they have a similar structure as the natural ones, they have different proprieties, including being harder then natural diamonds. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On March 10 2015 16:56 xM(Z wrote: you couldn't find any evidence =/= there isn't any evidence. also, do you really expect the government to fix the justice?. woaaa that's precious. imo, the people within the justice apparatus should fix it because they (should)know what's wrong with it (at least they should be the one pitching to the gov. the issues). all of them justice dep. suck-ups should be sent on a guild trip. the complacency is strong within them. But that is a discussion about absolute knowledge (something unattainable) vs available knowledge (something always true) If person A knows something person B does not know, then Person B cannot make a judgement assuming that he knows what person A knows. Now, you can argue that person A should be forced to divulge to person B, but you can't force a person to do things that they don't agree to do. Because Person B does not make decisions for Person A, a person's autonomy is their own and no one else's. Now, we can limit and/or remove personal freedom as something less important than Justice and have it so that we don't need full evidence to pursue justice because we "know they obviously did it," but I feel the abuses that spurn from that will much worse than the abuses spurned from a system without that. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5278 Posts
But that is a discussion about absolute knowledge (something unattainable) what does something unattainable mean?. once you classify something as unattainable do you turn your back on it, on trying to attain it(if you can skip over the self-defeating logic there and just see "unattainable" as something limited only by context) and just continue to wallow in your mediocrity, fully aware and knowledgeable about the fails within your available knowledge?. basically, all i want to hear here is an admission that things are good-ish for the time being but we're(the dudes within the justice apparatus) trying to make them better everyday because what i understand when i read that statement is: there's nothing better, things are how they are and we just have to deal with them; basically a status-quo defender's attitude. things change all the time, just account for evolution. what is not attainable today will be attainable tomorrow. that should be the attitude here. | ||
Fecalfeast
Canada11355 Posts
| ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On March 12 2015 05:59 Fecalfeast wrote: I'm confused, xM(Z, are you saying that an omnipotent justice system is desirable? I've read Minority Report, I think it is a pretty fool proof system. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5278 Posts
On March 12 2015 05:59 Fecalfeast wrote: I'm confused, xM(Z, are you saying that an omnipotent justice system is desirable? i'd call it evidence-potent and yes. if an objective piece of evidence exists, why not use it?. or you're talking here about not even looking for it and just cut a deal with the DA or w/e?. as far as punishments go, it's better to go with a human take on it. omnipotent sounds to merciless (note: your question sounds weird to me - like you'd want to punish everyone found guilty of something so i wikid some and if you meant In the scholastic understanding, omnipotence is generally understood to be compatible with certain limitations or restrictions. then sure) | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 12 2015 06:35 xM(Z wrote: i'd call it evidence-potent and yes. if an objective piece of evidence exists, why not use it?. or you're talking here about not even looking for it and just cut a deal with the DA or w/e?. as far as punishments go, it's better to go with a human take on it. omnipotent sounds to merciless (note: your question sounds weird to me - like you'd want to punish everyone found guilty of something so i wikid some and if you meant then sure) whats an "objective piece of evidence?" i assume you mean something not reasonably subject to dispute (i.e., weather conditions on a certain date), and you are excluding everything else (i.e., a lay witness' description of weather conditions). | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5278 Posts
it leads the discussion towards something like: the perpetrator being the only lay witness at his crime which would then mean that i couldn't use his testimony nor his confession given to his lawyer. that's pretty much back to where this started . i could give you my opinion on that specific issue and it wouldn't go against what i said previously but, would your reasoning/train of thought end with something like: a flawed creature deserves and needs a flawed justice system because ...<insert reasons>?. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On March 12 2015 17:19 xM(Z wrote: yes, mostly; but the way you phrased it and then emphasized certain aspects of it, looks more like entrapment. it leads the discussion towards something like: the perpetrator being the only lay witness at his crime which would then mean that i couldn't use his testimony nor his confession given to his lawyer. that's pretty much back to where this started . i could give you my opinion on that specific issue and it wouldn't go against what i said previously but, would your reasoning/train of thought end with something like: a flawed creature deserves and needs a flawed justice system because ...<insert reasons>?. Wherein lies the problem. We can't guarantee perfect execution. We can't guarantee perfect information. As such, we can only have a systems that is willing to risk guilty people going free over innocent people being punished. For example, a system where accusations require zero evidence and punishment is guaranteed would risk 0% of guilty people going free at the result of 0% of innocent people going free as well. The opposite is also true wherein we have no court systems and 100% of innocent people go free at the cost of 100% of guilty people going free. The various justice systems is trying to find a middle ground between both risking a % of guilty people going free and % of innocent people being punished. What those percentages should be is determined by the philosophy of each system. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17947 Posts
On March 13 2015 00:00 Thieving Magpie wrote: Wherein lies the problem. We can't guarantee perfect execution. We can't guarantee perfect information. As such, we can only have a systems that is willing to risk guilty people going free over innocent people being punished. For example, a system where accusations require zero evidence and punishment is guaranteed would risk 0% of guilty people going free at the result of 0% of innocent people going free as well. The opposite is also true wherein we have no court systems and 100% of innocent people go free at the cost of 100% of guilty people going free. The various justice systems is trying to find a middle ground between both risking a % of guilty people going free and % of innocent people being punished. What those percentages should be is determined by the philosophy of each system. Anybody plotted a ROC chart of the justice system yet? :D | ||
|
dAPhREAk
Nauru12397 Posts
On March 12 2015 17:19 xM(Z wrote: yes, mostly; but the way you phrased it and then emphasized certain aspects of it, looks more like entrapment. it leads the discussion towards something like: the perpetrator being the only lay witness at his crime which would then mean that i couldn't use his testimony nor his confession given to his lawyer. that's pretty much back to where this started . i could give you my opinion on that specific issue and it wouldn't go against what i said previously but, would your reasoning/train of thought end with something like: a flawed creature deserves and needs a flawed justice system because ...<insert reasons>?. the first example i gave is something that can be taken judicial notice of in most american courts because its unimpeachable; the second is not considered unimpeachable so cannot be taken judicial notice of. i dont want to join the discussion on justice system because its a banal pursuit. i was just curious what you meant by objective evidence. | ||
|
SoSexy
Italy3725 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17947 Posts
On March 13 2015 06:24 SoSexy wrote: Best program for cleaning the pc? I am talking about things like AVG Tune Up, Everest, etc. I really need one to clean stuff :/ ![[image loading]](http://www.melbournecleaningsupplies.com.au/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/800x/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/h/h/hh14338.jpg) | ||
|
NubbleST
United States86 Posts
On March 13 2015 06:24 SoSexy wrote: Best program for cleaning the pc? I am talking about things like AVG Tune Up, Everest, etc. I really need one to clean stuff :/ CCleaner is pretty good. Not sure about the registry cleaner though. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On March 13 2015 01:03 Acrofales wrote: Anybody plotted a ROC chart of the justice system yet? :D Give me a dataset with known truth, and I'll do it.  Surveys to everyone ever being in a trial: "Were you actually guilty? (Completely anonymised, promise!)" Probably wouldn't do it though.  | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
 Damn justice system not allowing proper research! Can we do an experiment where we take 100 known guilty and known innocent people and send them through mock trials?? Can someone apply for ethics permits for that? | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
The mock trials have to be realistic enough so that the Mafia will bother to threaten the jury, pay the judge etc. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On March 13 2015 13:43 Cascade wrote: Then we do studies on suspects with or without Mafia connections, and compare ROC curves. The mock trials have to be realistic enough so that the Mafia will bother to threaten the jury, pay the judge etc. 0_0 I would so LOVE to see this | ||
|
Najda
United States3765 Posts
Personally I define it as the ability one has to learn something. A smart person will only need to be told something once, whereas a less smart person will need multiple explanations or more time and self study to learn the thing. The thing about this though, is it's very hard to demonstrate or quantify, which leaves me confused as to how people get that impression about people through a limited conversation about trivial topics. I suppose factors such as vocabulary and your demeanor when talking come into play but those aren't real indicators of being smart how I define it. | ||
|
icystorage
Jollibee19343 Posts
| ||
| ||
