ember3579

..... Are you serious? Have you NEVER experienced, for example, high school? If not, let me put it in to perspective for you. You remember hearing the old "sticks and stones" line a while back? Personally, that's the biggest pile of [cabbage] that has ever been told on this planet. Sticks and stones cause damage to the body. Words cause damage to the soul. Want proof? Go tell a little kid that their puppy died. [sarcasm]You didn't do anything physically to them, so what's the harm in that?[/sarcasm] The first step to preventing suicide is to understand why people do it. In the cases of people who are actually suicidal and not doing it for the lulz (see people's reactions), in almost all cases they're so mentally and spiritually scarred by their circumstances that they feel the only way to get out of it is with a hot lead injection. It might be a kid who was bullied mercilessly for the duration of their school life, it might be the mother whose child was stillborn. There's MANY different things that could result in suicidal tendencies. We need to recognize these cases, and act appropriately. This means counseling and actual intervention, NOT straitjackets and pills. Those just prolong the problem, and sometimes make it even worse. It would also be prudent to identify the most common reasons for people to try suicide and to change those. For example, the most prominent reason for teen suicide is because of torment inflicted by their peers and the inability or unwillingness of authority figures (school officials, parents, etc.) to do something about it. If memory serves correctly, along with the already-present mental problems they had, the Columbine shooters were also bullied extensively throughout their school days. Things like this would be altogether easily countered if a few things would take place. First, the faculty must be able to recognize when a student is being bullied and take correct action (just talking to the bully or suspension rarely does anything, and can make it worse). Second, the students must realize the damage they're causing when they do this and let it happen. Third, parents must know the warning signs and how to prevent the problem from getting to that level in the first place (interaction with their kids helps a great deal). Sure, not EVERY case can be caught this way, but this should at least help.

Here's what I think. The primary things that this case revolves around are when he got the split lip (before, during, or after his detainment), and if he done it himself (as a "haha, f#$k you" to the SEALs). Considering who it is we're talking about, and the fact that this IS 4 SEALs who are being charged, I think it happened in one of two ways; either he got it during capture, or he done it to himself after. Both are highly plausible, and should be looked in to. I just find it unlikely that a bunch of highly trained and disciplined military personnel from one of the most professional groups IN the military would lose restraint like that. The only two circumstances that would make that likely are if one of the people he killed was a friend/relative of one of the accused or if the accused were Blackwater. As a general rule, it's a very bad idea to use fox as a news source. It's widely viewed by most people besides Republicans to be untrustworthy (so is CNN, but I digress). It will invariably end with the topic being derailed at some point, as you have already seen. If you want to link a news site, pick something else if you want to avoid this idiocy.

Mage, have you just started ignoring what MisterGreen's been saying? Here, let me recap; we are not common animals. If you want to relinquish your claim to that fact, then go ahead and do this. If you want to try and say that "we're the superior species so this is perfectly fine", then I say to you this. What would be your opinion of a group of UFC fighters busted into your home, beat you into a bloody pulp, and took all your stuff? Would you be saying it's alright because they're superior to you?

You see, there's the thing. We don't live in the wild. We actually have capacity for thought beyond the instinctive level, just as you said. This sort of barbarism lowers us to that level. You want to make a claim for being a higher life form? Act like it.

Don't trust prophets, world's been closer to nuclear war before, the planets will only be lined up for what? A day or so? Then their speeds would pick up, how can we predict solar flares? And more importantly, is it a theory because of the 2012 theory, or scientist did stuff and it ended up on 2012. I agree with you on prophets entirely. These people have rarely, if ever, given proof of any kind whatsoever of their prophecies. Personally, a lot of those people are attention [bleep]. The planetary alignment's theorized to have a similar effect on our tectonic plates that the sun and moon have on our oceans (tides). We predict solar storms by paying attention. These things go in cycles; any moron with the proper equipment can figure out that the next solar storm is going to happen between 2011 and 2016 (that's what I last read the estimated due date was). It's a theory because scientists pay attention to this sort of stuff, and it just so happened to land on 2012. Whether or not that's a coincidence (not because of backdoor shenanigans) is up for debate, but I think it's a general consensus among the scientific community that SOMETHING is going to happen somewhere around that time range, they just aren't sure what. I'm not sure what's going to happen, or even IF something's going to happen, on that date, but it's going to be one Hell of a show regardless. Get your popcorn.

..... Why does everything have to be this complicated, from just a simple statement? Well, besides the fact that people want to be smartasses. I know that things improve at an exponential rate in the computer world. However, they don't do so much that something built with keeping up-to-date in mind won't become obsolete in a matter of months, or even one to two years. Adding all of this extra stuff is, in my opinion, spam. Can you please keep it to a minimum? This isn't a debate topic, this is a "help me build a decent computer" topic. PLEASE keep that in mind.

You don't seem to understand what I mean by obsolete. I'm talking about something that simply can't run present-day applications (in this case, video games). There's a difference between that and something being lower-end by comparison to the bleeding edge of technology. Do you get what I'm saying?

Laura, with all due respect, this is a "help me build a decent, cheap computer" thread, not a "random computer news" thread. Besides, that's for notebooks only, what sort of notebook (or even most laptops) is truly effective for online game play?

Pretty much, shiny. As long as it could last a few years without breaking or getting obsolete without it destroying my wallet, I'm good.

I'm wanting something that's not as steep as the average Alienware computer but can still do pretty damn good as both a gaming and a general purpose computer. I'm probably going to have it built. Does that clarify things for you? Tyler, that's exactly the sort of thing I'm asking for. Thanks. ^_^

Doesn't get much more simple than that, does it? I'm wanting one built, but I have no clue what would be a good setup. Can you guys give me a good (and complete) parts list for a good, long-lasting (won't break or become obsolete for at least a few years) computer? If it helps, just assume that I'm an idiot and know absolutely zero about anything involving this sort of thing. I can follow along if you give explanations of the things, though. Thanks for any help!

1) It is entirely possible to be cruel and non-lethal at the same time. Example number one is right here. If you are anywhere in the area of effect of one of those sound cannons, you're going to be in agony. That's why they're so effective at bringing violent people to heel. Also, while I can rebuttal the unusual argument with the fact that heat lasers and noise blasters are about as unusual as it gets, I see your point with the family thing. I mostly thought up that little idea on the spur of the moment; it would only be really feasible if the only people who're going to give a [cabbage] about this guy's funeral arrangements are the prison officials, either because the douchebag in question doesn't have any family or they don't want them. I'm fairly sure that something could be thought up that's cheap, painless, and effective. Although, I still say the simplest thing would be just giving them a hot lead injection to the cerebellum. Personally, giving them much more consideration is insulting to their victims. 2) This doesn't have to be something overly complicated. I'm just wanting something in place that can GUARANTEE, without one shred of doubt, that the monsters of humanity will never be able to harm another person. Prisons can be taken over, and they can even be broken out of. You're not getting out of being dead.

Alright, switch out rabid with bloodthirsty. Same effect, really.

Ted, the discussion is an argument between various view points on the matter. This particular topic would allow all sorts of things to be brought to the table. Also, saying something isn't right only because someone or something told you it isn't is the mark of an idiot, and is generally frowned upon in these sorts of debate. Thank you, please try again.

To me, a sound cannon that could shatter eardrums can be considered unusual. I also consider using attack dogs somewhat of a cruel method of control. That still doesn't change the fact that they're effective without going overboard, right? An explosive helmet is certainly unusual, but it isn't cruel in the sense that it's designed to inflict agony. In fact, it's the exact opposite. That's what we're focusing on, after all; the level of pain the prisoner would feel from the execution method in question. You're still counting the "could possibly be someone else" examples. Again, CP is to be exclusively reserved for when there is undeniable proof, by ANYBODY, that the person that's to be condemned done these things. This removes the "what if" as it applies to guilt. You can come up with better arguments than that. I'm not supporting the current system. What I'm talking about is a refinement of it to increase the accuracy and efficiency of this whole process. I'm willing to accept a small portion of the true monsters into the vaults of this world rather than be executed if it guarantees that the worst of the worst are removed without risking an innocent person to boot. It IS possible to chase these two particular rabbits.

Yes, yes it is. This IS a very hot topic for people in general. 1) The dog's not what I'm worried about. What I'm worried about is how many people they're going to maul before they're subdued and/or put down. Ultra-high aggression is one of the symptoms of rabies in animals, which is why I used that analogy. The people I'm wanting CP to apply to are that sort. 2A) As I said previous, CP should be reserved exclusively for the cases that it's undeniable that the person(s) in question committed the atrocities they're accused of doing (video being one example, and a few other situational examples). This would remove the chance of a wrongful execution almost entirely. 2B) That's the purpose of a double-tap, in case they're not dead from the first shot. Also, we don't need some sort of Saw-like Rube Goldberg machine of death in order to ensure that the person is executed in as quick and painless a way as possible. If a simple double-tap wouldn't work, then maybe a cheap explosive to vaporize the head might cut it. Wouldn't be a pretty sight OR an easy cleanup (unless if the room is designed for that), but it would be pretty painless (head is destroyed before pain is felt). 6) When it comes to these sorts of people, if execution is not an option, then I feel that the only thing sensible is to take every possible measure in order to guarantee that nobody or nothing will ever get out of the prison in question without proper and legal authorization. One of the better ways to do that is to put said prison in a place where nobody can get to or off it without serious hardware and have it soaked to the gills with United States military. Nobody short of a Terminator would be able to even swing at a guard without being wtfpwnt before they can blink. The same can't always be said about regular guards, as evidenced by how often prison riots and takeovers occur around the world (and often in places a lot more hardcore than American prisons). Thanks for toning down the condescending attitude in your recent post. It was starting to get irritating, but you seem to have caught it on your own.

Kreig, please check your quotes. I didn't say those things, gava did. This proves undeniably that we absolutely NEED to refine our military training in at least one branch. This dude should have been sniffing dirt after 5 shots, not 40+. Also, we need to stop using so many civilian contractors. They're extremely costly, and the express focus of them is how to make the most money. That is NOT a proper military force, people.

I'll number these so you know which I'm talking about with each. 1) No, that's not what I'm talking about. Let me give you an example. You like your dog, right? What would you do if he came down with rabies? You'd set your love of the family pet aside and put him down, so he doesn't hurt anybody else. It's a similar thing with the "people" I'm talking about. 2) I'm not wanting to use this for the people who make stupid mistakes. I'm wanting to use capital punishment for the true monsters of society. The people I'm talking about are the kind who'd massacre everyone they can just because they like the look of internal organs on their hands, or the people who'd enslave dozens of innocent children for their own profit. THOSE are the kind of people I'm wanting to see excised from humanity. This is what I'm talking about when I think of people who relinquished their claim to humanity. 3) This is essentially a retelling of the previous one, but alright. Again, I'm not talking about the people who have made mistakes (the buildings with small cracks in the structure). I'm talking about the people who are little more than animals in regard to their actions (the buildings that are one feather away from crashing to the ground). There is a HUGE difference in my eyes, and they should be treated as such. One can (and should) be repaired, and the other should be removed before it damages/destroys surrounding buildings. 4) The people I'm referring to are above and beyond "dangerous prison inmates". These are the people who'd kill anybody just because it's fun. If they're kept anywhere near the redeemable inmates, they can either corrupt or kill them with altogether minimal difficulty. This is an argument for having separate prisons for various crime types, but that's a different discussion. 5) Technically, no method of execution ever is painless. However, it is undeniable that a headshot is quick, and is cheap. Also, in the cases that I'm thinking about in reference to capital punishment, there is no other reasonable course of action besides complete lockdown of the inmate for the duration of their life in some underground bunker beneath the ocean. That's the only thing that I can think of that would be damn near inescapable, but I think you can see the problems with that. 6) I agree with removing (or at least retooling) the 3 strikes rule in altogether minor cases. I'm also in favor of the creation of higher security prisons for the worse criminals. However, the military prison idea wouldn't work very well unless if kept in a very out-of-the-way place and manned by actual military. The reason being that sort of prison is above and beyond the capacity for normal civilian groups to handle, both in terms of money and clearance (being able to use this stuff in a safe/efficient manner). This would be a somewhat larger money sink than any other prison, too. Do the (forgive the movie references) Freddy Krugers and Michael Myers of this world REALLY deserve that sort of special attention?

Gava, people like you are why America is so hated right now. Either grow a sense of common decency, or shut the f%$# up. This is just plain sad, I think, though not to be unexpected. We've went a long, long time since a military personnel cracked on base and went bat[cabbage], and a psychiatrist, who gets to see the worst of whatever deployment is going on right now, being given a deployment order to the place in question is one of the more stressful indirect situations to be offered. What I don't get is why this guy was able to kill and injure so many people before being taken down. This IS a military base, it should follow that there should be at least one combat-ready person per 10 meters in that place, not to mention all the well-trained personnel that would populate the area. Where in the base did he go nuts at?

I'll respond to this. Here's my definition of the prison/capital punishment system. Prison: Meant to keep dangerous people away from society; not from other dangerous people. If two murderers want to have a brawl at each other even under the common knowledge that they're currently under lock down, then so be it; let them have their fun. Capital Punishment (CP): Kill people for crimes they've committed. I've pointed out why CP is pointless, but I'll paraphrase the most important one, in my opinion. It's not ethical in anyway to MURDER someone for something they're currently being detained for. If they're not a threat to society, there's no reasonable justification to kill them. Why not just use them for labor so they can give something back to society? If it were up to me, I'd make them clean up national parks under very close supervision or even have them make some raw products. Assuming that someone might escape while in prison is just idiotic. I'm not calling you an idiot, but basing an entire system around the probability of something occurring undermines entire system in itself. Why have a free market at all if we know it's going to crash and burn sooner or later? CP is very expensive and inaccurate. I can easily name more than 10 people who have been wrongfully killed for not doing anything. The same goes for people who are on death row but haven't been killed; A LOT of them get off because they didn't actually commit the crime they were prosecuted for or it was deemed that their crime wasn't harsh enough to justify CP. My question is, what if they were killed? Suck for them I guess, right? Thanks for responding. Anyway, I'll get on with my rebuttal. I'm not considering ethics in this particular case. In my eyes, the things that people who this would apply to have rescinded their right to ethical treatment and mercy by way of destroying another person(s) physically and/or mentally. Once it gets to this point, and it is certain that they have absolutely no remorse and no good reason for it (don't get cute with this, you know what I'm talking about), then they have revoked their own claim to humanity and should be regarded as such. Deny it all you will, but prison escapes and other acts (hostile takeovers by inmates, for example) DO happen, if only on a limited basis. I want to limit the impact of those as much as is feasibly possible. One method of that is to take the most dangerous offenders (the true monsters) and remove them from the equation entirely. To go with your "free market" analogy, it would be like taking a rotted-out building and deconstructing it rather than risk its eventual collapse damaging surrounding structures and people. Capital punishment is expensive and inaccurate for two reasons. One, the officials in charge absolutely insist on the more complex and expensive disposal methods (namely, lethal injection). Switching these out for something both quick and efficient (for example, a bullet to the brain) should fix that problem nicely. Two, these cases are in all examples drawn out needlessly. A large portion of appeals are on things entirely unrelated to the crime itself, and just multiply the costs while failing to do their job entirely. Refining the original process itself to the point that appeals become redundant is the best counter to this. I'm not advocating capital punishment as it is. I'm advocating a refurbishment of the entire system surrounding it, making it more efficient, effective, and cheap. The current way of doing it is costly, both in money and in innocent blood.

..... Are you even reading my posts, dude? I'm sorry, but my troll detector just went off with that post, and I need to double check.

Let me clarify on my opinions of the legal system. Its purpose should be first and foremost to ensure that dangerous people are not allowed to run wild, and second to reform those that can be reformed. There should be systems in place on every level to assist the criminals to no longer be criminals. Right now, the majority of people in prison are non-violent offenders, and are (comparatively) easily returned to normalcy. Even the violent offenders are redeemable in a lot of cases. However, acting like all people can be saved if given time is a ludicrous idea, and can prove costly in more ways than one. We need to identify these people, and make sure they don't get the chance to destroy any more innocent lives than they already have. If this means an explosive frontal lobotomy by way of hot lead, so be it. The purpose of capital punishment isn't to cast vengeance on people, it is to make sure a rabid dog doesn't maul anybody else. Do you get my point?

Or they could not die after the first few lethal injections and then go back to prison where they can escape. Assuming something will happen doesn't mean we should design our system around the probability it will occur. Just the same way we should drive around with a shield over our cars assuming an asteroid could hit and kill us at any moment. ..... I have a few things to say. One, lethal injection is NOT an efficient and cost-effective method of execution, and it's too complicated for it to have minimal realistic chance of failure and infliction of agony. As such, I don't think that it should be used. Two, this isn't an unreasonable assumption. That rule only applies if it is one. Ignoring a plausible possibility (for example, a .01% chance of a medicine killing the patient) is how things go raw so often (the hypothetical drug would kill thousands if used on a wide scale).

ABC, here's the problem. No containment facility is perfect. If there's any amount of monsters in a particular prison WHEN it fails, they have a high chance of going free, if only for a few days. This puts everything in the surrounding area in danger. I'd prefer to circumvent that, thanks. Although, the idea of having prisoners work while they're locked up does have merit. Maybe the level of security in the prison could determine what variety of work they're doing? For example, a minimum security prison could have gardening and trash clean-up, and a maximum security could do manufacturing and construction. In the case of minor to moderate offenders, what extra cash they made from their work (most is used to pay for their stay in the prison), they can keep so they don't have to resort to crime immediately to get themselves a place to stay and some food.

ABC, would you prefer the alternative of risking true monsters to be released into the public? I'm not expecting this to be perfect, but I'm expecting this to be better than the current system. Everything can be improved.