>> With Mutex style locks, if the locking thread crashes (or otherwise forgets to unlock the mutex) then the entire program grinds to a halt as other threads start waiting on the lock.
Not in Java. I will give you $1000 if you can:
1. Kill a thread prematurely. 2. Cause it not to release a lock inside the JVM.
Nowhere in the article is it mentioned anywhere that they are running "700 hardware threads". Thousands of threads are typical of java applications even running on Pentium IIIs. Every J2EE Application server spawns a new thread for every request. It's part of the specification. The real issue with Java is the hard thread limit in most JVMs where even calling -Xss will not override the limit. These limits are both asinine and arbitrary. Linux can very easily handle the instantiation of millions of pthreads on a single core host, and we all have multi-core machines these days. The JVM ought to scale to millions of threads, otherwise if a JVM can only support 20k concurrent threads, there really isn't any reason to ever pay more than a few hundred dollars for a web server since you quickly reach the maximum thread count while 99% of your opteron system is pretty much sitting there doing nothing.
Furthermore, the need to synchronize a collection is an indication of poor design (i.e. lack of encapsulation) that is better solved by writing better code that doesn't use disgusting global data structures, but if you really wanted to use a shared collection, all you would have to do is create an implementation that makes each object in the data structure lockable individually, like a linked list where any index could be locked independent of the list itself, and new capacity could be created and then added in bulk. But in the end, updating a collection is a simple constant time operation (just update the reference to point to a new location), so you should never have performance problems even when locking an entire collection to do the update. If you are having performance problems with that, then chances are, it is the way that you are interacting with the collection.
Anyway, here's to hoping that people can learn basic programming concepts so that the world can move on to solving real problems.
You figured me out. Only a cat hater would waste his time trying to point out the obvious biological facts about cats and dogs to a bunch of raving psychotics.
I guess it started when I was born. A cat clawed me while I was still in a hospital incubator. Ever since, I have been sacrificing them to Satan on an hourly basis, and chucking them off of cliffs just for my sheer amusement, a trick I picked up from U.S. Marines:
There are many Communist traps being laid by intellectuals under the name of "libertarianism" on behalf of the fascist state. Geolibertarianism (an oxymron), libertarian-socialism (another oxymoron), minarchism seem to be the most popular.
Geolibertarianism is just despotism (i.e. what we have now) on a global scale. Who will collect the taxes? From what warrant does the right to collect taxes (i.e. engage in the violent robbery of others) issue? It cannot be justified using the rules of logic or justice. What you call Geolibertarianism is just a euphemism for a global communist state. Why tax only land and not other forms of property such as oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water, timber, beef, etc?
Libertarianism (as defined by For A New Liberty) is an absolute belief in the rights of the individual. You cannot be a libertarian and be for the existence of government or taxes. They are mutually exclusive concepts.
There are no logical ethical grounds on which you can stand and claim that government has a right to exist or that someone else has a right to engage in armed robbery of another persons property.
The refutations of geolibertarianism by real libertarians (as opposed to National Socialists masquerading as "libertarians") are legion and I am not going to type them all here.
>> Half right. The same can be expected for cloned cats. Personality is not 100% genetic based.
True, but cats inherit more behavior from DNA than dogs do. Genetic Savings & Clone used to have a reference section regarding this on their web page.
>> The whole "dogs are smarter than cats" is pure opinion.
This is a cliche frequently spouted by the masses, but it is of course, absolutely ridiculous. Just because something is babbled ad infinitum by hordes of idiots doesn't make it true. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that dogs are smarter than cats regardless of whether or not they eat their own feces. Whether or not to eat feces is a value judgment and not a sign of intelligence. On the contrary, since the dog eats feces (clearly not inherited behavior) this is a sign that the dog is smarter, not dumber than the cat.
Intelligence is:
1. THE ABILITY TO LEARN (i.e. cognitive capacity). 2. Higher neo-cortical function. 3. The ability to overcome biological programming and reprogram biology (i.e. learning, epigenetics). 3. Evolutionary across species.
FACTS:
1. Cats inherit most of their behavior, where as dogs learn most of theirs. 2. Dogs can learn more than cats. 3. Dogs have less behavior programmed by their biology and are influenced more by the environment and their adaptation to the environment. (note: "adaptation to the environment" is synonymous with intelligence).
Therefore: since dogs are more capable of learning and are more driven by semantic processes (i.e. logic) and less by biological programming than cats, the fact that dogs are indeed smarter than cats is both axiomatic and self-evident (to anyone looking at evidence).
Ethology, biological anthropology, and neuroscience all validate this claim.
For a model of how intelligence evolves I recommend the following sources:
It still amazes me how completely ignorant people can be. Taking ECON101 is a requirement in order to get a Bachelor's degree from any university, but slashdotters are usually to busy hitting the bong and playing WOW, which explains why most of them turn into ignorant and violent communists. All you have to do on this site to get moderated as insightful or interesting is to spew out some Marx or Mao.
There is only one valid and logical claim to property:
Thank you for that wonderful insight on human rights Chairman Mao.
To say you have a right to property that you did not lawfully obtain is to say you have a right to STEAL. This is the same ridiculous argument as a "right to national health care" that you refuse to pay for.
>> (Yeah, I know that the wired article says "Dead cats", but Genetic Savings & Clone was also a dog cloning company)
Actually, they never really got dog cloning off of the ground since it is a lot more complicated to clone dogs, but they were only charging 1/3 of the current auction price. What they might have done (if they had the good business sense usually not found in scientists dependent on government handouts) is make it profitable to clone cats first, build a stable business and then spend the revenues in dog R&D.
Since dogs are smarter than cats, their behavior is more likely to be the product of conditioning rather than genetics. With cats, you can generally expect the same behavior from the cloned animal. Your cloned dog is not likely to look or behave like your previous dog (without training anyway).
Of course there are thousands of dogs and cats without loving owners who get put to sleep each year...
>> We are both arguing the same thing, I think: That the defendant didn't commit a crime. She should be sued, yes. She is human garbage for harrassing a 13 year old to death, absolutely. But violation of terms of Service IS NOT A CRIME. At worst its a small scale contract violation addressable in civil court. Its simply not the same thing as hacking into someone's computer.
Sorry about the confusion, when I use the term "crime" I am referring to an "ethical violation" (rape, robbery, murder, etc.), not an infringement on a law, since the existence of government is a crime, and laws are derived from government. All crimes are disputes between individuals and no third party has an uninvited right to interfere with the victim's right to justice, or to enforce their will through the use of violence on an individual who has not committed a crime, as is the case here.
Other than that I think we are on the same page, and the woman should definitely not be thrown in jail (even though she is a terrible person), anymore than someone should be thrown in jail for any other form of speech, which causes no physical harm to anyone or their property. I think we both agree that the defendant has not committed a crime against the united states government or the deceased parents and as such they have no claim to redress of grievances.
People need to accept responsibility for their actions. No one can force you to commit suicide.
>> Posted something bad about cowboy neal on slashdot? oh shit, it says in the terms of service you can't do that. That makes you a criminal. See where that's going?
Are you using the word "criminal" in the legalism or ethical sense? Obviously, the government has no right to throw the defendant in jail, since the government has no right to exist let alone lock people up against their will (i.e. kidnapping). Justice and restitution belong to the victim (MySpace), not some arbitrary third party that has ordained themselves absolute overlords of a particular geographical area.
Semantically, it is undeniable that the defendant violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, since she entered a secure computer system violating the explicit consent of it's owners forbidding her to do so under terms.
However:
This is clearly a civil matter between the defendant and MySpace. The problem with the legal ramifications of what is going on here stem from the fact that the United States government is committing an ethical crime by existing in the first place. They are further compounding that crime by interfering in a civil matter, another crime. What we have here is a terrible law, being enforced by an even more terrible government.
>> That's a bad analogy. For onething, it doesn't involve a car.
That's irrelevant to the argument. It does involve personal property and the violation of personal property. I never used the term car anyway.
>> For another thing, there is just no comparison. MySpace didn't ask the woman to leave when she broke the rules. Myspace's terms of service which is probably like 16 pages long and full of terms only a lawyer can understand said she had to leave. A better analogy would be, "You invite someone to sit in your car, only after handing them a 16 page legal contract to read through and agree to. They violate that contract and don't leave the car, but you don't say shit about it.
If she could not or (more likely) did not read the contract then she has no one to blame but herself. The point is that she agreed to the terms of service as a provision of her using the service. This is a clear contract violation and stupidity is no excuse.
Consider the following:
An individual (let's call him George) has signed a contract with you to lease your car only on weekends and only for ranges of 100 miles per day. George then steals your car for several months straight during weekdays and puts 300,000 miles on the car. You return from out of town to realize what has happened and are obviously upset. George then claims immunity from theft because he is illiterate or because he neglected to read the contract he signed. In addition, George claims that his theft is completely legitimate since no one was in the car at the time, and no one was present to voice a complaint. (Note: If people could be watched 100% of the time, there would be no need for contracts.)
>> Then months later, you discover that your cigarette lighter is broken so you try to punish them retroactively based on something, anything you can desperately find in the contract, because they *may* have broken your lighter, and you don't want to pay for a new one, or admit that it could have been your fault too."
This is a clear violation of proportionality and does not fit the circumstances of the case. Let's say that the car that was originally was worth $50000 and that any car with 300,000 miles on it is intrinsically worthless. $50000 was then stolen by George when he ruined your car. Restitution then would be for George to provide you with $50000 plus a reasonable amount of interest for the time period that had elapsed so as to also compensate you for your opportunity cost or George should also compensate you for any lost rental fees.
Also, George should be punished in proportion to the crime. A proportional punishment would be equal to the original amount. In addition, George should pay any additional costs involved with the dispensation
Fraud is any act of deception or trickery, which may or may not be crime depending on the circumstances. There are two definitions of the word "crime" in my vocabulary:
1. Crime (ethical): that is any aggressive invasion of another person's liberty or personal property. 2. Crime (legalistic): Any action prohibited by government legislation.
The second definition is the one generally meant by the masses when they use the word crime. This is the definition installed by the mass-media and the public education system since it serves the purpose of giving the fascist state a license to do what ever it wants. This logical fallacy is generally referred to as "legalism" and amounts to anyone being able to commit any atrocity that they want provided that they do it under the labels of "law" and "government".
Consider the following:
An individual living in 1940s Germany is Jewish. When entering a town, he provides false paperwork to the soldiers so that they will not shoot him on the spot. This individual has committed an act of fraud (deception) and also committed a legal crime by violating the documented anti-social compulsions (i.e. laws) of the National Socialists. He has not however, committed an ethical crime. On the contrary, since he is undermining the worst crime ever committed against the human race (government), we can say that ethically, his act of fraud is an example of absolute heroism.
The defendant in this case however has violated her contract with MySpace and infringed on their personal property (an ethical crime), also since the contract was violated, she has forcefully entered the computer system, since her license to use the system was revoked the moment she violated the terms of service. A good analogy would be inviting someone over to your property and then having them refuse to leave when you ask them or break in later after they violated your rules of the house.
>> The worst thing is that you can't see what he's done to you. Mental abuse is abuse just as bad as physical
That is certainly true, but free speech is an unalienable human right. While this type of action should be considered morally reprehensible, the deceased girls parents do not have a claim against the defendant.
However:
If MySpace's terms of service prohibit this kind of behavior then the defendant has violated her contract with MySpace (i.e. committed an act of fraud).
Since this is government spending and they are restricted by the $11 million dollar budget, they wont even be able to put a team together before they run out of funding.
You do realize that the average shareholder has basically no voting power at google? Google's series a stock has 10 times the voting strenght of the series b variety. Less than a dozen key employees of google hold enough series a that they can outvote all of the series b.
Which means that the publicly traded stock is worth about fuck all just like the Federal Reserve Bank Notes used to purchase it.
That all of the power companies in this country have a government enforced monopoly. Since there isn't any competition, they have no need to innovate. What incentive do they have to do the work required if they can just pass costs on to the customer and the customer has no way of leaving the power company?
Socialism is fundamentally inimical to innovation.
The hell they aren't. How many millions of dollars do you think amazon will have to spend on development and compliance in order to accommodate this? What do you think will happen to them if they slip up and accidentally ship something to new pork without charging sales tax? What about all of the other online retailers? How much will they have to spend just to comply with this bullshit?
What will happen when other states start demanding money from online retailers as well?
>> while local communities step up and render the feds irrelevant could do the job without firing a shot.
I wonder what would happen if a state immediately threatened the CIA's drug trafficking monopoly by legalizing cocaine or heroin? I think that would piss at least a few people in D.C. off. The states who legalized marijuana seem to be winning out against the federal government...
It's definitely worth trying to see, but I think your next statement "if, of course, enough people wanted it" hits closest to home since I personally believe that this government could not exist if this nation wasn't populated by 300 million violent psychotics.
As long as America is filled with people who think that jet fuel fires can collapse steel skyscrapers or that it is perfectly okay to rob your neighbors at gunpoint as long as you do it in the most cowardly way possible (i.e. voting), I don't see how we will ever live in a free country. Also, I think there are way to many people in this country who still live completely off of the robbery of others: public "school" teachers, law enforcement, professors at state universities, bureaucrats, etc.
What people in this country need is therapy on a massive scale. Something that overcome all of the lies that are broadcast daily on the news networks and state run "schools". How could we ever hope to live in a free country when the majority of citizens have the right to vote and the majority of citizens are mind controlled slaves?
The funny thing is that after decades of "deregulation" we have less of a market economy than ever before. The largest businesses in the country (and this is especially true in telecom) hold their positions with a massive buttress of government contracts and protectionist legislation. Government regulation doesn't do half the damage to a market that government favor brokering does.
Telecom must be one of the most subsidized industries in this country. Your apartment complex only allows one cable company into the complex. Your local cable company has a government enforced monopoly. The long distance carriers have a government enforced monopoly. The state steals the airwaves only to turn around and hand them over for free to a handful of corporations.
All of this on top of the fact that the amount of government hoops and horse shit that people have to go through to start any communications company invariably assures that competition will not exist and the industry will be the exclusive realm of billionaires.
The only solution is to get rid of the government. AT&T built their entire monopoly out of government edict enforced by the barrel of a gun (see the willis graham act). Now American voters are reaping the fruits of what they have sewn with their fascist patterns of behavior:
Create a socialist state, and live in misery and poverty.
Slashdot Mirror
>> With Mutex style locks, if the locking thread crashes (or otherwise forgets to unlock the mutex) then the entire program grinds to a halt as other threads start waiting on the lock.
Not in Java. I will give you $1000 if you can:
1. Kill a thread prematurely.
2. Cause it not to release a lock inside the JVM.
Thanks for the awesome advice. x86 assembler is clearly the obvious choice for anyone writing a web or desktop application.
Nowhere in the article is it mentioned anywhere that they are running "700 hardware threads". Thousands of threads are typical of java applications even running on Pentium IIIs. Every J2EE Application server spawns a new thread for every request. It's part of the specification. The real issue with Java is the hard thread limit in most JVMs where even calling -Xss will not override the limit. These limits are both asinine and arbitrary. Linux can very easily handle the instantiation of millions of pthreads on a single core host, and we all have multi-core machines these days. The JVM ought to scale to millions of threads, otherwise if a JVM can only support 20k concurrent threads, there really isn't any reason to ever pay more than a few hundred dollars for a web server since you quickly reach the maximum thread count while 99% of your opteron system is pretty much sitting there doing nothing.
Furthermore, the need to synchronize a collection is an indication of poor design (i.e. lack of encapsulation) that is better solved by writing better code that doesn't use disgusting global data structures, but if you really wanted to use a shared collection, all you would have to do is create an implementation that makes each object in the data structure lockable individually, like a linked list where any index could be locked independent of the list itself, and new capacity could be created and then added in bulk. But in the end, updating a collection is a simple constant time operation (just update the reference to point to a new location), so you should never have performance problems even when locking an entire collection to do the update. If you are having performance problems with that, then chances are, it is the way that you are interacting with the collection.
Anyway, here's to hoping that people can learn basic programming concepts so that the world can move on to solving real problems.
You figured me out. Only a cat hater would waste his time trying to point out the obvious biological facts about cats and dogs to a bunch of raving psychotics.
I guess it started when I was born. A cat clawed me while I was still in a hospital incubator. Ever since, I have been sacrificing them to Satan on an hourly basis, and chucking them off of cliffs just for my sheer amusement, a trick I picked up from U.S. Marines:
http://urbanlegends.about.com/b/2008/03/04/the-marines-puppy-throwing-video.htm
Just remember that all of my posts stem from my deep hatred for cats. I am a liar and dogs are clearly dumber than cats:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/04/eveningnews/main647343.shtml
There are many Communist traps being laid by intellectuals under the name of "libertarianism" on behalf of the fascist state. Geolibertarianism (an oxymron), libertarian-socialism (another oxymoron), minarchism seem to be the most popular.
Geolibertarianism is just despotism (i.e. what we have now) on a global scale. Who will collect the taxes? From what warrant does the right to collect taxes (i.e. engage in the violent robbery of others) issue? It cannot be justified using the rules of logic or justice. What you call Geolibertarianism is just a euphemism for a global communist state. Why tax only land and not other forms of property such as oxygen, carbon dioxide, nitrogen, water, timber, beef, etc?
Libertarianism (as defined by For A New Liberty) is an absolute belief in the rights of the individual. You cannot be a libertarian and be for the existence of government or taxes. They are mutually exclusive concepts.
There are no logical ethical grounds on which you can stand and claim that government has a right to exist or that someone else has a right to engage in armed robbery of another persons property.
The refutations of geolibertarianism by real libertarians (as opposed to National Socialists masquerading as "libertarians") are legion and I am not going to type them all here.
I suggest you start here: http://mises.org./
>> Half right. The same can be expected for cloned cats. Personality is not 100% genetic based.
True, but cats inherit more behavior from DNA than dogs do. Genetic Savings & Clone used to have a reference section regarding this on their web page.
>> The whole "dogs are smarter than cats" is pure opinion.
This is a cliche frequently spouted by the masses, but it is of course, absolutely ridiculous. Just because something is babbled ad infinitum by hordes of idiots doesn't make it true. Anyone with an ounce of sense knows that dogs are smarter than cats regardless of whether or not they eat their own feces. Whether or not to eat feces is a value judgment and not a sign of intelligence. On the contrary, since the dog eats feces (clearly not inherited behavior) this is a sign that the dog is smarter, not dumber than the cat.
Intelligence is:
1. THE ABILITY TO LEARN (i.e. cognitive capacity).
2. Higher neo-cortical function.
3. The ability to overcome biological programming and reprogram biology (i.e. learning, epigenetics).
3. Evolutionary across species.
FACTS:
1. Cats inherit most of their behavior, where as dogs learn most of theirs.
2. Dogs can learn more than cats.
3. Dogs have less behavior programmed by their biology and are influenced more by the environment and their adaptation to the environment. (note: "adaptation to the environment" is synonymous with intelligence).
Therefore: since dogs are more capable of learning and are more driven by semantic processes (i.e. logic) and less by biological programming than cats, the fact that dogs are indeed smarter than cats is both axiomatic and self-evident (to anyone looking at evidence).
Ethology, biological anthropology, and neuroscience all validate this claim.
For a model of how intelligence evolves I recommend the following sources:
The 8 Circuit Model (specifically circuits two and three)
Prometheus Rising
On Intelligence
General Semantics
HTM Theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociobiology
It still amazes me how completely ignorant people can be. Taking ECON101 is a requirement in order to get a Bachelor's degree from any university, but slashdotters are usually to busy hitting the bong and playing WOW, which explains why most of them turn into ignorant and violent communists. All you have to do on this site to get moderated as insightful or interesting is to spew out some Marx or Mao.
There is only one valid and logical claim to property:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_property
Waiting to be modded as a troll...
Thank you for that wonderful insight on human rights Chairman Mao.
To say you have a right to property that you did not lawfully obtain is to say you have a right to STEAL. This is the same ridiculous argument as a "right to national health care" that you refuse to pay for.
>> (Yeah, I know that the wired article says "Dead cats", but Genetic Savings & Clone was also a dog cloning company)
Actually, they never really got dog cloning off of the ground since it is a lot more complicated to clone dogs, but they were only charging 1/3 of the current auction price. What they might have done (if they had the good business sense usually not found in scientists dependent on government handouts) is make it profitable to clone cats first, build a stable business and then spend the revenues in dog R&D.
Since dogs are smarter than cats, their behavior is more likely to be the product of conditioning rather than genetics. With cats, you can generally expect the same behavior from the cloned animal. Your cloned dog is not likely to look or behave like your previous dog (without training anyway).
Of course there are thousands of dogs and cats without loving owners who get put to sleep each year...
>> Well, I'm glad that google abides by the law here in canada.
Well they abide by the law in India and China too which is why they put people in prison.
>> Bush and Cheney's "free speech zones" are going to have big black boxes around the edges.
Don't be silly. This has nothing to do with that. It's clearly for curing headaches.
>> We are both arguing the same thing, I think: That the defendant didn't commit a crime. She should be sued, yes. She is human garbage for harrassing a 13 year old to death, absolutely. But violation of terms of Service IS NOT A CRIME. At worst its a small scale contract violation addressable in civil court. Its simply not the same thing as hacking into someone's computer.
Sorry about the confusion, when I use the term "crime" I am referring to an "ethical violation" (rape, robbery, murder, etc.), not an infringement on a law, since the existence of government is a crime, and laws are derived from government. All crimes are disputes between individuals and no third party has an uninvited right to interfere with the victim's right to justice, or to enforce their will through the use of violence on an individual who has not committed a crime, as is the case here.
Other than that I think we are on the same page, and the woman should definitely not be thrown in jail (even though she is a terrible person), anymore than someone should be thrown in jail for any other form of speech, which causes no physical harm to anyone or their property. I think we both agree that the defendant has not committed a crime against the united states government or the deceased parents and as such they have no claim to redress of grievances.
People need to accept responsibility for their actions. No one can force you to commit suicide.
>> Posted something bad about cowboy neal on slashdot? oh shit, it says in the terms of service you can't do that. That makes you a criminal. See where that's going?
Are you using the word "criminal" in the legalism or ethical sense? Obviously, the government has no right to throw the defendant in jail, since the government has no right to exist let alone lock people up against their will (i.e. kidnapping). Justice and restitution belong to the victim (MySpace), not some arbitrary third party that has ordained themselves absolute overlords of a particular geographical area.
Semantically, it is undeniable that the defendant violated the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, since she entered a secure computer system violating the explicit consent of it's owners forbidding her to do so under terms.
However:
This is clearly a civil matter between the defendant and MySpace. The problem with the legal ramifications of what is going on here stem from the fact that the United States government is committing an ethical crime by existing in the first place. They are further compounding that crime by interfering in a civil matter, another crime. What we have here is a terrible law, being enforced by an even more terrible government.
>> That's a bad analogy. For onething, it doesn't involve a car.
That's irrelevant to the argument. It does involve personal property and the violation of personal property. I never used the term car anyway.
>> For another thing, there is just no comparison. MySpace didn't ask the woman to leave when she broke the rules. Myspace's terms of service which is probably like 16 pages long and full of terms only a lawyer can understand said she had to leave. A better analogy would be, "You invite someone to sit in your car, only after handing them a 16 page legal contract to read through and agree to. They violate that contract and don't leave the car, but you don't say shit about it.
If she could not or (more likely) did not read the contract then she has no one to blame but herself. The point is that she agreed to the terms of service as a provision of her using the service. This is a clear contract violation and stupidity is no excuse.
Consider the following:
An individual (let's call him George) has signed a contract with you to lease your car only on weekends and only for ranges of 100 miles per day.
George then steals your car for several months straight during weekdays and puts 300,000 miles on the car.
You return from out of town to realize what has happened and are obviously upset.
George then claims immunity from theft because he is illiterate or because he neglected to read the contract he signed.
In addition, George claims that his theft is completely legitimate since no one was in the car at the time, and no one was present to voice a complaint. (Note: If people could be watched 100% of the time, there would be no need for contracts.)
>> Then months later, you discover that your cigarette lighter is broken so you try to punish them retroactively based on something, anything you can desperately find in the contract, because they *may* have broken your lighter, and you don't want to pay for a new one, or admit that it could have been your fault too."
This is a clear violation of proportionality and does not fit the circumstances of the case. Let's say that the car that was originally was worth $50000 and that any car with 300,000 miles on it is intrinsically worthless. $50000 was then stolen by George when he ruined your car. Restitution then would be for George to provide you with $50000 plus a reasonable amount of interest for the time period that had elapsed so as to also compensate you for your opportunity cost or George should also compensate you for any lost rental fees.
Also, George should be punished in proportion to the crime. A proportional punishment would be equal to the original amount. In addition, George should pay any additional costs involved with the dispensation
Fraud is any act of deception or trickery, which may or may not be crime depending on the circumstances. There are two definitions of the word "crime" in my vocabulary:
1. Crime (ethical): that is any aggressive invasion of another person's liberty or personal property.
2. Crime (legalistic): Any action prohibited by government legislation.
The second definition is the one generally meant by the masses when they use the word crime. This is the definition installed by the mass-media and the public education system since it serves the purpose of giving the fascist state a license to do what ever it wants. This logical fallacy is generally referred to as "legalism" and amounts to anyone being able to commit any atrocity that they want provided that they do it under the labels of "law" and "government".
Consider the following:
An individual living in 1940s Germany is Jewish. When entering a town, he provides false paperwork to the soldiers so that they will not shoot him on the spot. This individual has committed an act of fraud (deception) and also committed a legal crime by violating the documented anti-social compulsions (i.e. laws) of the National Socialists. He has not however, committed an ethical crime. On the contrary, since he is undermining the worst crime ever committed against the human race (government), we can say that ethically, his act of fraud is an example of absolute heroism.
The defendant in this case however has violated her contract with MySpace and infringed on their personal property (an ethical crime), also since the contract was violated, she has forcefully entered the computer system, since her license to use the system was revoked the moment she violated the terms of service. A good analogy would be inviting someone over to your property and then having them refuse to leave when you ask them or break in later after they violated your rules of the house.
For more information you can go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ethics_of_Liberty
Free Audio book:
http://www.mises.org/media.aspx?action=category&ID=95
>> The worst thing is that you can't see what he's done to you. Mental abuse is abuse just as bad as physical
That is certainly true, but free speech is an unalienable human right. While this type of action should be considered morally reprehensible, the deceased girls parents do not have a claim against the defendant.
However:
If MySpace's terms of service prohibit this kind of behavior then the defendant has violated her contract with MySpace (i.e. committed an act of fraud).
Since this is government spending and they are restricted by the $11 million dollar budget, they wont even be able to put a team together before they run out of funding.
Just add a sysV service that sends a self-destruct command.
Slashdot will disavow any knowledge of your actions.
You do realize that the average shareholder has basically no voting power at google? Google's series a stock has 10 times the voting strenght of the series b variety. Less than a dozen key employees of google hold enough series a that they can outvote all of the series b.
Which means that the publicly traded stock is worth about fuck all just like the Federal Reserve Bank Notes used to purchase it.
That all of the power companies in this country have a government enforced monopoly. Since there isn't any competition, they have no need to innovate. What incentive do they have to do the work required if they can just pass costs on to the customer and the customer has no way of leaving the power company?
Socialism is fundamentally inimical to innovation.
Actually they do:
http://activemq.apache.org/
>>The state isn't taxing Amazon, though.
The hell they aren't. How many millions of dollars do you think amazon will have to spend on development and compliance in order to accommodate this? What do you think will happen to them if they slip up and accidentally ship something to new pork without charging sales tax? What about all of the other online retailers? How much will they have to spend just to comply with this bullshit?
What will happen when other states start demanding money from online retailers as well?
>> while local communities step up and render the feds irrelevant could do the job without firing a shot.
I wonder what would happen if a state immediately threatened the CIA's drug trafficking monopoly by legalizing cocaine or heroin? I think that would piss at least a few people in D.C. off. The states who legalized marijuana seem to be winning out against the federal government...
It's definitely worth trying to see, but I think your next statement "if, of course, enough people wanted it" hits closest to home since I personally believe that this government could not exist if this nation wasn't populated by 300 million violent psychotics.
As long as America is filled with people who think that jet fuel fires can collapse steel skyscrapers or that it is perfectly okay to rob your neighbors at gunpoint as long as you do it in the most cowardly way possible (i.e. voting), I don't see how we will ever live in a free country. Also, I think there are way to many people in this country who still live completely off of the robbery of others: public "school" teachers, law enforcement, professors at state universities, bureaucrats, etc.
What people in this country need is therapy on a massive scale. Something that overcome all of the lies that are broadcast daily on the news networks and state run "schools". How could we ever hope to live in a free country when the majority of citizens have the right to vote and the majority of citizens are mind controlled slaves?
Has anyone considered eating the Irish?
http://art-bin.com/art/omodest.html
Well in the US "deregulation" is typically a term that refers to corporate socialism. ref : http://www.tispa.org/node/14
The funny thing is that after decades of "deregulation" we have less of a market economy than ever before. The largest businesses in the country (and this is especially true in telecom) hold their positions with a massive buttress of government contracts and protectionist legislation. Government regulation doesn't do half the damage to a market that government favor brokering does.
Telecom must be one of the most subsidized industries in this country. Your apartment complex only allows one cable company into the complex. Your local cable company has a government enforced monopoly. The long distance carriers have a government enforced monopoly. The state steals the airwaves only to turn around and hand them over for free to a handful of corporations.
All of this on top of the fact that the amount of government hoops and horse shit that people have to go through to start any communications company invariably assures that competition will not exist and the industry will be the exclusive realm of billionaires.
The only solution is to get rid of the government. AT&T built their entire monopoly out of government edict enforced by the barrel of a gun (see the willis graham act). Now American voters are reaping the fruits of what they have sewn with their fascist patterns of behavior:
Create a socialist state, and live in misery and poverty.