I don't know exactly whay the desert I'm thinking of is called, but it's in arizonaand the dirt is red and the rocks look the same as the mars rocks. You're right about the plants though.
You don't own corporations, you own an itsy bitsy bit of corporations. You go on to contradict yourself, the corporatization of the US is merchantilist. These corporations have millions or billions of dollars, which they got from the government, that they use to influence government decisions. As long as money is a protected form of speech we will move ever towards a corporate state.
PS Anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron. Anarchism is the destruction of heirarchal systems and capitalism is necessarily heirarchal.
I would agree with that, but is a system of ethics based on a non-subjective principle necessarily legitimate? I don't think so. Using the criteria of The Golden Rule one could establish justification, after the fact, for actions, but not legitimacy. I think that my time as a Political Science major may give me a skewwed view on this. I have primarily looked at legitimacy and justification as related to government, i.e. there is no such thing as a legitimate government, and violence, and if there is no such thing as a legitimate government then the current definition of violence is inherently flawed because it has a basis in the use of legitimate force by a state.
There is no legitimate reason to do, or not do, anything. All moral judgements are based on non-rational criteria and are therefore pointless. I don't think this is a matter of proof. The problem here is definitions. what do you mean by "matters", and i'm not trying to be obtuse here. You are using a framework which implies some sort of overarching value of "what matters". So here is a simple response. It does matter because it matters to me. You can't do something with out it mattering to someone or something.
It would work better to go after the sellers than the buyers. DDoS them, harass them, whatever. This would require a little investigation, i.e. who exactly is trying to sell me this organ enlarger, but it wouldn't be to long before the e-stores got the message.
All thats required is a little investigation. Shit it would be easy enough to focus only on porn, organ enlargement, and weight loss, oh yeah and those damn christian singles, to start with, that would put a serious dent in the amount of spam and.
I'm not a SysAdmin either, but I think the significance is not on an individual level but a ISP level. 500Kb/day/user is a quite significant amount, if you only have 1000 users thats still around 500Mb a day of wasted bandwidth, and ISPs pay for bandwidth on a per byte(or Kb or Mb) basis. So then it is significant. Aol has to pay for 2 petabytes of bandwidth they don't use. I bet that costs a pretty penny.
Another thing often forgotten here is the human factor- I'm going to make a bold statement, that in light of flight 93, and the new, higher stakes, no US passenger airliner will be successfully hijacked and crashed into a building.
I just wish more people would realize this and stop being so damn scared. Home of the brave my ass.
I ride my bike and trust me driving kills more than just bugs and animals. I don't mean just people driving die either. plenty of pedestrians get hit, people on bikes, even people in buildings. Car kill a lot of people, probably more than war.
I'm not trying to say that they have a great reason, none of this has been proven. What I am saying is that Sharon had to know how outrages the palestinians would be, and that is why he did it.
Ack. This is frustrating. I agree that both sides are wrong. In fact I think the methods used by the palestinians are far worse than almost all of what israel does(I'm really not OK with cutting water to entire cities). The reason I am harsher on Israel is the same reason I am harsh on the US because they are powerful and supposedly stand for freedom and, more importantly, as an American I have some effect on what israel and the US do.
All in all i'd really like the palestinians to realize that suicide bombings aren't going to fix anything and start doing something constructive. And i'd like to see Sharon and Arafat both sent to jail for life, preferably in the same cell.
From Wikipedia "During the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, while Ariel Sharon was Defense Minister, a massacre of several hundred Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut was carried out by the Phalanges, a Lebanese-Christian militia allied with Israel. The Kahan Committee investigating the events of Sabra and Shatilla, recommended in early 1983 the removal of Sharon from his post as Defense Minister for reasons of negligence, though not complicity in the planning of the massacre." This is the reason the Palestinians hate him.
If you want to keep up this whole "i'm a neonazi" bullshit then fine. Israel does shitty things to palestinians, if the fact that Israel was founded as a Jewish state makes any critique of them anti-semetic then so be it.
Fine if you feel it necessary to put words in my mouth about how I "hate" Israel, go for it. As for your completely specious charges that I hold Israel to some standard that is miles above the rest is absurd, I find that those who have far more power in a given situation are generally those who have more control. I may have referenced things which you either don't know happened, don't believe happened, or, wait for it, I could be wrong about some events. I certainly don't hate all of Israel. The problem I have is with the Israeli gov't, their actions, and US monetary and military support for above. I have talked many Israelis who have the same views as I do. On the other hand I find Arafat and the entire PA to be just as reprehensible as the Sharon Administration. They support the continuation of violence because it keeps them in power. The thing is the palestinians are really angry, really poor and really powerless. Israel can't be that bad off or there would be Israeli suicidde bombers attacking Hamas. I'm sure if I lamented all the Slavs Nazi Germany killled you'd call me anti-semetic
I was saying the opposite, the terrorists showed no restraint, we did. I just said that we did because we have enough power.
"Please stop trying to explain terrorist actions. I don't care - and neither does anyone else at the other end of your barrel." I you really don't care for explanations then you're a fool. I suspect you don't care for *my* explanation. As illustraated by a thinly vieled threat.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know exactly whay the desert I'm thinking of is called, but it's in arizonaand the dirt is red and the rocks look the same as the mars rocks. You're right about the plants though.
This is a bit wierd, last night when I was looking at the mars pics I commented on the uncanny similarities with the Arizona desert.
next time make it veggie please!
have you read the DMCA?
all of that is now illegal.
You don't own corporations, you own an itsy bitsy bit of corporations. You go on to contradict yourself, the corporatization of the US is merchantilist. These corporations have millions or billions of dollars, which they got from the government, that they use to influence government decisions. As long as money is a protected form of speech we will move ever towards a corporate state.
PS Anarchocapitalism is an oxymoron. Anarchism is the destruction of heirarchal systems and capitalism is necessarily heirarchal.
"digital camera" -retail
works for most thing.
I would agree with that, but is a system of ethics based on a non-subjective principle necessarily legitimate? I don't think so. Using the criteria of The Golden Rule one could establish justification, after the fact, for actions, but not legitimacy. I think that my time as a Political Science major may give me a skewwed view on this. I have primarily looked at legitimacy and justification as related to government, i.e. there is no such thing as a legitimate government, and violence, and if there is no such thing as a legitimate government then the current definition of violence is inherently flawed because it has a basis in the use of legitimate force by a state.
But I think I'm just babbling now.
There is no legitimate reason to do, or not do, anything. All moral judgements are based on non-rational criteria and are therefore pointless. I don't think this is a matter of proof. The problem here is definitions. what do you mean by "matters", and i'm not trying to be obtuse here. You are using a framework which implies some sort of overarching value of "what matters". So here is a simple response. It does matter because it matters to me. You can't do something with out it mattering to someone or something.
Dynamic ;-)
It would work better to go after the sellers than the buyers. DDoS them, harass them, whatever. This would require a little investigation, i.e. who exactly is trying to sell me this organ enlarger, but it wouldn't be to long before the e-stores got the message.
All thats required is a little investigation. Shit it would be easy enough to focus only on porn, organ enlargement, and weight loss, oh yeah and those damn christian singles, to start with, that would put a serious dent in the amount of spam and.
I'm not a SysAdmin either, but I think the significance is not on an individual level but a ISP level. 500Kb/day/user is a quite significant amount, if you only have 1000 users thats still around 500Mb a day of wasted bandwidth, and ISPs pay for bandwidth on a per byte(or Kb or Mb) basis. So then it is significant. Aol has to pay for 2 petabytes of bandwidth they don't use. I bet that costs a pretty penny.
I'd say average for me is about 4Kb, thats still 2K petabytes for a year.
The only way to fix it is to stop going after the spammers and start going after the sellers. You know the links you get in spam? DOS them.
Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
Another thing often forgotten here is the human factor- I'm going to make a bold statement, that in light of flight 93, and the new, higher stakes, no US passenger airliner will be successfully hijacked and crashed into a building.
I just wish more people would realize this and stop being so damn scared. Home of the brave my ass.
yeah I hate those Anti-War Bitches, Too!
Three acronyms
NAFTA, and soon FTAA and CAFTA
Don't worry though, there'll be more agreements, less work and more immigrants real soon.
I ride my bike and trust me driving kills more than just bugs and animals. I don't mean just people driving die either. plenty of pedestrians get hit, people on bikes, even people in buildings. Car kill a lot of people, probably more than war.
I'm not trying to say that they have a great reason, none of this has been proven. What I am saying is that Sharon had to know how outrages the palestinians would be, and that is why he did it.
Ack. This is frustrating. I agree that both sides are wrong. In fact I think the methods used by the palestinians are far worse than almost all of what israel does(I'm really not OK with cutting water to entire cities). The reason I am harsher on Israel is the same reason I am harsh on the US because they are powerful and supposedly stand for freedom and, more importantly, as an American I have some effect on what israel and the US do.
All in all i'd really like the palestinians to realize that suicide bombings aren't going to fix anything and start doing something constructive. And i'd like to see Sharon and Arafat both sent to jail for life, preferably in the same cell.
From Wikipedia
"During the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982, while Ariel Sharon was Defense Minister, a massacre of several hundred Palestinians in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps in Beirut was carried out by the Phalanges, a Lebanese-Christian militia allied with Israel. The Kahan Committee investigating the events of Sabra and Shatilla, recommended in early 1983 the removal of Sharon from his post as Defense Minister for reasons of negligence, though not complicity in the planning of the massacre."
This is the reason the Palestinians hate him.
The difference is that we, I'm american, have no control over what those countries do. We give Israel billions of dollars every year.
If you want to keep up this whole "i'm a neonazi" bullshit then fine. Israel does shitty things to palestinians, if the fact that Israel was founded as a Jewish state makes any critique of them anti-semetic then so be it.
Fine if you feel it necessary to put words in my mouth about how I "hate" Israel, go for it. As for your completely specious charges that I hold Israel to some standard that is miles above the rest is absurd, I find that those who have far more power in a given situation are generally those who have more control. I may have referenced things which you either don't know happened, don't believe happened, or, wait for it, I could be wrong about some events. I certainly don't hate all of Israel. The problem I have is with the Israeli gov't, their actions, and US monetary and military support for above. I have talked many Israelis who have the same views as I do. On the other hand I find Arafat and the entire PA to be just as reprehensible as the Sharon Administration. They support the continuation of violence because it keeps them in power. The thing is the palestinians are really angry, really poor and really powerless. Israel can't be that bad off or there would be Israeli suicidde bombers attacking Hamas. I'm sure if I lamented all the Slavs Nazi Germany killled you'd call me anti-semetic
I was saying the opposite, the terrorists showed no restraint, we did. I just said that we did because we have enough power.
"Please stop trying to explain terrorist actions. I don't care - and neither does anyone else at the other end of your barrel."
I you really don't care for explanations then you're a fool. I suspect you don't care for *my* explanation. As illustraated by a thinly vieled threat.