Referring to this news, “Sirul likely to be holed up in Australia for a while” (TheStar, 22 January 2015). It seemed that Australia will not allow extradition of convicted murderer if the meted sentence is death (not sure if this is true). It would seem a bad idea to keep a convicted murderer who is an expert in explosives and a well trained “soldier” in ones home country. If Australia does keep him, I guess Malaysia is still considered safer if Sirul is indefinitely kept in Australia. We will have to let the Australians worry about safety (and not to mention the fund needed to sustain Sirul during “his stay”)….
I remembered the Bali bombing that killed scores of Australians and other people in 2002. Some of the convicted murderers/terrorists were sentenced to death and what surprises me was how Australia kept mum over the execution. What didn’t surprised me was that 55% of the population agreed to it (and Australia sort of agreed to the sentence).
Now, did the death sentence meted out against terrorists served as REVENGE for Australia? Some might think of it that way, but I believe majority of Australians do not. I for one think of the death to murderers as a humane way to remove threats from society. It is much more humane than allowing the person to rot in jail. That is because a swift death is better than prolonged vengeful mental torture to the convicts. To lose one’s freedom forever is worst that quick death!
Just a thought.
Two Australians have been found guilty of drug trafficking, and meted the death sentence.
Australia wanted clemency and had been an advocate against death sentence, where some deemed that these traffickers had done “tragic youthful mistake” (read the article here) deserving escape from death sentence. I wonder if Hitler had been a youth, would he had been given a better light regardless of his deed?
Now, how many of anti-death advocates see families living in a death sentence daily because of the drug menace (heroine is no recreation drug)? Unlike the two Australians who were given a date for sentencing, there are families living in hellish neighbourhood fearful of the day when one of their family members are dealt with death (or a life sentence to prostitution). Such death sentence is most cruel than what convicted drug traffickers have to deal with. Death sentence serve to remove threats (and remind others to be a non-threat), it is not revenge.
Drug traffickers did it for the greed of money and the illusion that they won’t be caught. If there is a probability of being caught, it would be one in a few thousands (most probably).
8 kg of heroine can destroy more than hundreds of families (multiplied by family members and multiplied by the victims of crime). I supposed Indonesian lives are more expandable?
Let us say if these two Australians escaped the death sentence and are sent to life imprisonment, will the Australian government foot their bill? If the government will do that, I see no wrong in sparing the death sentence on these two. That way, the surplus from the monetary fund can then be channeled to improve the prison condition for the benefit of locals and foreigners.
What say you?
I’m getting more and regular popups at notification area telling me my friends had invited me to play some games.
I’m sick of these irritating notifications. Unlike good apps, I can’t find a preference/option to opt out/in of the nagging notifications.
Without control, as what normal people would become, I am helpless. Fortunately, there is a way to get control back. It won’t be neat and clean because Facebook is that.
First, go to Android phone setting. Then to general. Select Application Manager. Browse in Downloaded until you get Facebook. Tap on it. Deselect Show Notification.
You won’t miss a thing. It’s not that you are dealing with multimillion contract needing your frequent attention.
What’s good is that you can drop in Facebook to update yourself at the news feed anytime.
It’s saddening to follow the news of another air disaster this year, especially when it was approaching a new year. Previous events had prompted many to suggest that the aviation industry and especially the aviation authorities do something about monitoring flights in real-time (i.e. continuous tracking of flights). If we had incorporated the real-time tracking system earlier, would 9/11 been possible to prevent? Could the crash sites of MH370 and QZ8501 been located quicker?
In my opinion, having a real-time tracking of flights would have allowed a speedy search and rescue missions. That would have been way better than having to search painstakingly and retrieve bodies, wreckage and the “black box”. In addition to having a system to track flights in real time, I think having the correct emergency kits on-board is also crucial, as suggested in this post (“How we can improve evacuation and rescue during plane crash”, 31 Dec 2014). Several suggestions such as having access to potable water and equipped with life-jackets tagged with radio-beacon (or radio transmitter) would be useful in cases where search and rescue might take several days.
Also, if the aircraft is designed such that when it crash-landed on water (either upside-down or not), a mechanism that increases the buoyancy time of the plane will be beneficial to allow sufficient time to evacuate all the passengers.
The provision of slide-turn-raft is useful and I hope that the raft comes with basic necessities such as a flare-gun, blanket to shelter from the intense sun and cold, manual pump (in case of leak), and hopefully in the future, these rafts will be equipped with manual filtration unit to purify sea water (or at least minimize the salinity of water).
Finally, I think the most important item for each evacuees would be to have a radio-beacon attached to their life-jackets so that rescue can locate them in the open sea.
Emma Watson equality is your issue too (UNWomen)
As I’ve mentioned previously, feminism is a word corrupted by overzealous and oversensitive zealots contaminating the true ideal and struggle of the movement, with sadly extremism. Whenever there is hate, it won’t work. I wouldn’t say all feminists hated men, but I would say that any movement (led by extremists who are just handful) are hateful. How could a beautiful ideal be successful if led by (or transformed into) hate?
I will reiterate that gender is not equal (full stop). I strongly believe that we should respect and appreciate such “gender inequality”. It is only when we learn to appreciate the diversity in genders (including homosexuals), that we can appreciate and preserve such qualities.
Take for example,
- We can’t expect men to deliver babies.
- We can’t force women to work in construction (or as lone night watchmen) just because they wanted “equality” in profession.
- We can’t place a quota (e.g. 1-to-1 ratio) on every profession in the world just because women wants “fair share” to professions, because this is illogical. Gender differences in physique and “mental” capacity (used in a positive way), would preclude such scenario.
- We can’t expect men to have same amount of maternity leaves as women (employment rights), because of the differences in dads’ role over moms’ (exceptions are single dads or moms in which case, they have no choice).
- Everyone in this world wants a fair amount of salary for the same amount of work/time at work. Construction workers in some countries are underpaid and their job is undeniably dangerous and important. Domestic helpers are underpaid considering that their responsibility is no less important. Men of different skin colours want equal footing in promotion opportunity and salary and not to be biased. There are so many people of different makes (be it gender, age, race, physique, hair colour, political ideal, etc) who constantly think that they are being marginalized. If we think that we are being marginalized, just move on to better companies because bad companies that prefer sycophants rather than gems, will fall because they can’t identify gems from junks in the company. But to associate all inequality to gender bias is really unhealthy! If it is a government, then use your power to vote against the political party. In my opinion, the struggle by women (and men, especially caring dads) for equal rights to vote by women in general elections is one of the most successful healthy feminism in action, not to mention rights for education.
- Men and women are different. A struggle to abolish gender based product or packaging by overzealous feminists is unhealthy. Being oversensitive and constantly suspicious of campaigns by manufacturers or advertisements to undermine females is unhealthy. Being defensive over normal conversations with friends or family members is unhealthy. Being too proud to be labelled a feminist is very unhealthy! Feminism is a means to a cause, and not a prestige (or exclusive club).
Again, feminism is an unpopular word because their struggle was narrow (not sure about it now). However, as Emma Watson pointed out, if men are involved and their struggle be heard too (especially considering men and women make up family units), it would be a more holistic approach to fight for inequality.
Correction to current perception
- Do men and women behave the same? No, men and women don’t behave the same. If you thought that men don’t talk emotionally just because they were programmed by how they were raised, you were wrong. Boys as young as 2 to 3 years old are not as proficient in expressing themselves as compared to girls and such gender differences should be studied scientifically, rather than “force” boys to be expressive. The sexes are wired differently!
- Aggressive behaviour (inquisitive, daring, etc) is hormonal (or biological) and is neither deliberate nor resultant from child abuse (although abuse is a contributing factor). Males should be recognized positively for this tendency (but not biased); but don’t get me wrong, any behaviour can be conditioned/regulated by the mind. We are primates after all with higher mental capacity. Note that aggressive behaviour is used to be a survival instinct.
- Similarly, girls will be timid and cautious (and some boys do that too, not because they are sissy, but rather it’s a survival skill). So please don’t demerit them for such behaviour because such quality is a survival instinct.
What we can do though
- Equal opportunity to lead not based on gender, but capability and support (in democratic society).
- It’s alright to have a skewed numbers of gender representative in professions, e.g. more females in teaching profession, medical, administrative, whereas more males in other callings.
- Education for all, which is a success in most countries but again zealots in religion/politics are preventing this in some countries.
- “Skewed” benefits for women in workplace is okay, considering that they have a complex role in society. Hence, more maternity leaves, health benefits, flexible work hours etc. should be encouraged. A reciprocal treatment for men in other aspect should not be seen as less acceptable.
Just a thought
If an intruder is in someone’s house in South Africa, it’s negligent lethal force if he/she ends up being shot dead (or killed). So, if you are invited to someone’s house in South Africa, be sure to ask for a black and white proof of invitation.
It’s absurd. If indeed Pistorius suspected that there is an intruder in his house, and being holed up in the toilet. A normal sane person would have called the police. But no, he had the time to grab his illicit gun, moved towards the bathroom, and then fired four shots.
Probably he “forgot” that he invited his girlfriend over, and thus regarded the person “hiding” in the toilet as an “intruder”.
The legal system is fair. It couldn’t prove that Pistorius knew then who was in the toilet. There isn’t proof beyond reasonable doubt, so he is found guilty of a lighter “negligent”/culpable homicide charge. To Pistorius family members, just shut the hell up, and be happy that he’s not convicted of murder. Don’t try to sugarcoat him anymore because (it’s futile and) you are agravating the pain that the victim’s family is going through now.
“A rotten core is rotten no matter how you try to package it”.
These accounts were hacked because users tended to reuse their logins and passwords on other sites that had no automated anti-hijacking systems (or security features), e.g. extra loading time for login attempt (i.e. time delay increases total guessing time that will hamper the hack), locking accounts for failed login attempts, token requirement, login only from certain IP addresses, mobile phone authentication code, two steps authentication, and many more.
Parking such sensitive information in unsafe sites will allow hackers to initiate Brute Force Attacks such as password-guessing attack, and the time hackers succeed in their unrestricted attempts depends on the strength of the password (you can predict the amount of time it takes to guess a password [by Gibson Research Corp.]), e.g. stronger password such as: T_*1s+pq9_1 takes approximately 1.83 years to figure out if the guessing attempt is unrestricted by the server.
Fortunately, Google does invest significant effort to ensure user accounts are not compromised. That is why I prefer not to share my Google account and password with other service providers.
However, it’s really difficult to find out what are the security features provided by service providers, e.g. Yahoo, Facebook, Blogs, Forums, etc. There is no standardization of security requirement for service providers, and thus it’s difficult to decide which sites should be avoided.
The expectation that users are the ones who should constantly increase their password strength and frequently change them is flawed. It’s very improbable to change passwords frequently and increase the complexity of passwords. Human brain is not programmed to be that “dextrous”. There should be a better way to authenticate user identity. That will be the million dollar question.
Just a thought.
- Brute force attack (by System Administration Database)
- WordPress – All in one WP security and firewall