I, as you am speaking in moral and ethical terms. Morally, since this is a contract thrust upon me, it should be read in a way that is mostly favorable to me. It is indeed questionable that I didn't get a chance to negotiate. It is questionable that it was thrust upon me at birth, a time when I had no ability (legally or practically) to enter into any sort of contract.
But even by the rules of the people thrusting this upon me, it can only be a contract if I receive consideration. It creates in the society a duty to me. To deny that without also abolishing all law is simple thuggary.
DDS drives were somewhat expensive, but nothing like the cost of LTO today. Using your figures, the break even on cost was 2 tapes worth of data and that amount of data was well withing the amount a 'power user' might want to safely store.
But since, in fact, I am expected to obey the law including laws that may limit my ability to provide for myself and my family, society does in fact owe me compensatory assistance in that regard.
Most likely what was really going on is that for people with the right passport it was a party school and for others, it was not. So naturally the people who chose a party school did worse than those who were there to study.
They need to work out how many of the students chose that university BECAUSE it featured legal access to cannabis. There is little doubt that some of the students there are there exactly because they have a tendency to over-indulge.
The answer was in your first paragraph. If the FBI allows themselves to be 'recruited' into the action, then arrests everyone once the plan is about to happen, I would be fine with it. That's not what they are doing these days.
Instead, the FBI actively recruits people to their fake cause.
You might want to read up on the Milgram, and Stanford experiments.
If he had ACTUALLY pushed the button on the dummy bomb, you would have a point about intent.
Otherwise, go ahead and credit me and my childhood friend with digging a hole all the way to China, because we certainly had the 'intent' to do so and that's what counts.
I'm saying the guy probably lacks executive ability. I'm saying he'd probably still be sitting on his butt dreaming of one day being a suicide bomber if not for the FBI providing the logistics, the plan, and most of the execution.
If the FBI really wants to stop people with the desire AND fortitude to actually be harmful, they shouldn't get involved until they actually take some concrete step. Alas, that's not what they do in these cases. They look for morons who post stupid stuff online and then do 100% of the heavy lifting and then arrest the guy who is essentially a spectator in it all.
McVeigh was clearly not in the same category. He actually took the steps to carry out his plan.
Doesn't matter. I'm not claiming the seriousness was the issue, it was the level of motivation, the actual ability to create a plan, manage logistics, and execute the plan. I suspect that minus the FBI doing 99% of the work, dude would still have his butt planted on the couch talking about how he'd like to be a suicide bomber (one day, eventually, yeah, that'd be cool).
If stoners actually managed to do all the things they planned to do 'one day', we would live in a really strange place!
On the other hand, without the FBI keeping him on track, next week he would talk of his desire to be a lion tamer. The week after, an F1 driver...
The FBI did likely get him to do something he wouldn't have done otherwise. That is, get up off the couch and actually take steps to reach his stated goal.
Actually, followup studies suggest that the scared straight approach leads to more offenses in the future.
A juvenile prank (and that's all this was) calls for the more conventional consequences such as detention, writing an essay, note to parents and such. Perhaps a suggestion in the parent's note that they should change the kid's wallpaper to "Barney and Friends" for a week.
No. In fact, Netflix offered to meet them halfway by supplying a cache box that would greatly reduce the needed upstream traffic (a saving to Comcast) in exchange for somewhere to put it. Comcast refused.
Have you ever seen a meet-me or an interchange? Usually there are open ports just begging for a 6 foot ethernet cable to connect them. The begging falls on deaf ears because of all of the scheming to try to convince someone that it would be a much more expensive fix than that and get them to hand over a boatload of money for that 6 ft cable to be plugged in.
The claim was that zero regulation makes a free market makes everyone rich. Meanwhile, Scandinavia has a lot of regulation, so everyone is dirt poor and in need of food and medical aid, right?!?
Now the real howler. The link you provided is about a part of Somalia where the war is gone that has declared itself an independent republic. It is on shaky ground, and things just got worse because Barclays decided to pull the rug out from under them.
Again, how's that light handed regulation working out?
Slashdot Mirror
I, as you am speaking in moral and ethical terms. Morally, since this is a contract thrust upon me, it should be read in a way that is mostly favorable to me. It is indeed questionable that I didn't get a chance to negotiate. It is questionable that it was thrust upon me at birth, a time when I had no ability (legally or practically) to enter into any sort of contract.
But even by the rules of the people thrusting this upon me, it can only be a contract if I receive consideration. It creates in the society a duty to me. To deny that without also abolishing all law is simple thuggary.
There is no d. There never was. Even Anarchy fails to eliminate all of the social contract.
Not at all arbitrary. DDS2 tapes and drive came in at about 10% the cost of drives.
DDS drives were somewhat expensive, but nothing like the cost of LTO today. Using your figures, the break even on cost was 2 tapes worth of data and that amount of data was well withing the amount a 'power user' might want to safely store.
QIC 80 was very much marketed to consumers and the tapes held more data than a typical HD of the day. They were quite common on high end PCs.
Now get off my lawn!
But since, in fact, I am expected to obey the law including laws that may limit my ability to provide for myself and my family, society does in fact owe me compensatory assistance in that regard.
Most likely what was really going on is that for people with the right passport it was a party school and for others, it was not. So naturally the people who chose a party school did worse than those who were there to study.
They need to work out how many of the students chose that university BECAUSE it featured legal access to cannabis. There is little doubt that some of the students there are there exactly because they have a tendency to over-indulge.
Likewise if you talk to them about availability of decent paying jobs needed to earn your living.
So since I never signed on the dotted line agreeing to obey the law, I am immune?
Essentially they're selling discount blackjacks "for entertainment purposes only" at football matches.
How is that worse?
The answer was in your first paragraph. If the FBI allows themselves to be 'recruited' into the action, then arrests everyone once the plan is about to happen, I would be fine with it. That's not what they are doing these days.
Instead, the FBI actively recruits people to their fake cause.
FOADIAF
Note how McVeigh was NOT stopped at all.
Since you were apparently raised by wolves:
*PLONK*
You might want to read up on the Milgram, and Stanford experiments.
If he had ACTUALLY pushed the button on the dummy bomb, you would have a point about intent.
Otherwise, go ahead and credit me and my childhood friend with digging a hole all the way to China, because we certainly had the 'intent' to do so and that's what counts.
I'm saying the guy probably lacks executive ability. I'm saying he'd probably still be sitting on his butt dreaming of one day being a suicide bomber if not for the FBI providing the logistics, the plan, and most of the execution.
If the FBI really wants to stop people with the desire AND fortitude to actually be harmful, they shouldn't get involved until they actually take some concrete step. Alas, that's not what they do in these cases. They look for morons who post stupid stuff online and then do 100% of the heavy lifting and then arrest the guy who is essentially a spectator in it all.
McVeigh was clearly not in the same category. He actually took the steps to carry out his plan.
Doesn't matter. I'm not claiming the seriousness was the issue, it was the level of motivation, the actual ability to create a plan, manage logistics, and execute the plan. I suspect that minus the FBI doing 99% of the work, dude would still have his butt planted on the couch talking about how he'd like to be a suicide bomber (one day, eventually, yeah, that'd be cool).
If stoners actually managed to do all the things they planned to do 'one day', we would live in a really strange place!
HAve a look at 'line loss'. The grid isn't 100% either. A lot depends on how local the net demand is.
I'm not sure, but as an example perhaps you could enlighten us?
I'm thinking he was about as likely as a typical internet tough guy to actually go anything untim the FBI did all the heavy lifting for him.
On the other hand, without the FBI keeping him on track, next week he would talk of his desire to be a lion tamer. The week after, an F1 driver...
The FBI did likely get him to do something he wouldn't have done otherwise. That is, get up off the couch and actually take steps to reach his stated goal.
More likely, he just has a much better sense of humor than you do.
Actually, followup studies suggest that the scared straight approach leads to more offenses in the future.
A juvenile prank (and that's all this was) calls for the more conventional consequences such as detention, writing an essay, note to parents and such. Perhaps a suggestion in the parent's note that they should change the kid's wallpaper to "Barney and Friends" for a week.
No. In fact, Netflix offered to meet them halfway by supplying a cache box that would greatly reduce the needed upstream traffic (a saving to Comcast) in exchange for somewhere to put it. Comcast refused.
Have you ever seen a meet-me or an interchange? Usually there are open ports just begging for a 6 foot ethernet cable to connect them. The begging falls on deaf ears because of all of the scheming to try to convince someone that it would be a much more expensive fix than that and get them to hand over a boatload of money for that 6 ft cable to be plugged in.
The claim was that zero regulation makes a free market makes everyone rich. Meanwhile, Scandinavia has a lot of regulation, so everyone is dirt poor and in need of food and medical aid, right?!?
Now the real howler. The link you provided is about a part of Somalia where the war is gone that has declared itself an independent republic. It is on shaky ground, and things just got worse because Barclays decided to pull the rug out from under them.
Again, how's that light handed regulation working out?