You won't get a population that has 99 percent approval rate for the action of going into a bank with a gun and getting money. At that point it's no longer a population, it's an angry mob.
As far as basic economics go, one of the reasons it's so effective in the real world is that one of its basic assumptions is that people are selfish greedy bastards that care most about themselves.
It works so well because that's what people are really like.
When companies have shareholders breathing down their necks, they'll do anything really.
Insulating shareholders from the non-monetary aspects of the business they have a slice of does wonders for blinding their ethical and moral senses. All they have the privilege of seeing up close is the figures on the dividend check. They'll often never even know what their business is up to.
And when those shareholders happen to be an inter-owned web of collectively self-owning corporations, well, you have a feedback loop of greed. Consider corporations A, B, and C that each own one half of the two others. There's no place for the dividends to go except as bonuses to the top execs, and this lucrative arrangement will probably mean that barring anti-trust actions (which can be held at bay with "campaign contributions"), things will stay just as they are.
It shouldn't be about self incrimination, it should be about probable cause for search and seizure.
A password acts just like a key, and should be treated as such.
If someone wants to crack into a protected computer, and they want a password, they should go to a judge and get a fucking warrant like with everything else.
Blood tests aren't considered self incrimination, but they are considered a search.
Spam is illegal because in the vast majority of cases it is generated by stolen computers being used as zombies, and often times the content itself is fraudulent because a good deal of spam involves fraud by itself. Furthermore, spamming is already against the TOS of most ISPs, as well it should be, because spam has no value except to drum up business for Cisco and friends. It clogs the tubes, funds crime rings, and generally is a major nuisance on the internet.
Torrents, however, are not quite so cut and dried. It's entirely possible that a torrent is legit. We have linux ISOs, WoW updates, and the like that are clearly within the bounds of the law...no matter what the MAFIAA/ISP complex would lead us to believe. And of course, there's always the vast majority of them which are illegal. But there are enough exceptions (in my book even ONE is enough) that there's too much potential for collateral damage if ISPs act against torrents preemptively.
Either way, if it really is bad traffic then someone somewhere is going to complain about it, and any decent ISP should know better not to meddle in their customer's traffic if nobody's complaining.
Slashdot Mirror
The lobbyists will have corrupted everybody on the ballot.
Kodos and Kang.
You won't get a population that has 99 percent approval rate for the action of going into a bank with a gun and getting money. At that point it's no longer a population, it's an angry mob.
As far as basic economics go, one of the reasons it's so effective in the real world is that one of its basic assumptions is that people are selfish greedy bastards that care most about themselves.
It works so well because that's what people are really like.
Especially when the stuff that lapses into the public domain can then be clawed back retroactively.
Simple.
We keep it because if push comes to shove, ICANN operates on american soil.
The way I figure a REAL religion is that God isn't scared of scientists.
I presume that fully patched disqualifies anything that doesn't use Windows Update, yes?
The assault and battery was intentional, and under the doctrine of transferred intent, your intended target becomes the undercover cop.
There seems to be potential for escalation from a simple misdemeanor assault to a felonious assault on a peace officer.
It could even be construed as justification for self defense if you wound up assaulting the under cover guy.
Some hit man comes in offering bling to kill your wife...maybe you'd think it's just hush money to keep you quiet.
The problem with letting a fool be parted from his money is that it often winds up in the wrong pockets anyway.
Agreed.
Power loss is a foreseeable circumstance. Hell it's why there's a market for UPS's.
Any hardware device that can get bricked by losing power during a firmware update is too fragile in the first place.
Nope, I don't.
When companies have shareholders breathing down their necks, they'll do anything really.
Insulating shareholders from the non-monetary aspects of the business they have a slice of does wonders for blinding their ethical and moral senses. All they have the privilege of seeing up close is the figures on the dividend check. They'll often never even know what their business is up to.
And when those shareholders happen to be an inter-owned web of collectively self-owning corporations, well, you have a feedback loop of greed. Consider corporations A, B, and C that each own one half of the two others. There's no place for the dividends to go except as bonuses to the top execs, and this lucrative arrangement will probably mean that barring anti-trust actions (which can be held at bay with "campaign contributions"), things will stay just as they are.
Interesting how both wireless phones and televisions use the airwaves.
I wonder if firmware tampering could rile the FCC if it causes a device's certs to be voided.
A large part of the difficulty is political wrangling about who gets to push their features into HTML5.
We never did settle on a standard video codec because everyone was squabbling about who got to pick.
Except they didn't actually start the fire.
Personally I'd be more looking at whoever screwed up the trash burn for negligence.
Simple.
Put a fireman's lien on the property.
Seeing as county fire protection has been voted down, I think both him and his neighbor got what they deserved.
Since he started the fire through negligent trash burning, how about making him liable for any damage done to his neighbor's property?
Unfortunately there's one test all patents do have to pass: Not pissing off the legal industry.
Anything that stops lawyers from doing their thing will never fly.
A patent on patenting would never be upheld because it would derail the gravy train for the legal industry.
In theory yes.
In practice you'll never survive a trial long enough to prove it.
Lawyers, and by extension politicians, would never let that happen.
It shouldn't be about self incrimination, it should be about probable cause for search and seizure.
A password acts just like a key, and should be treated as such.
If someone wants to crack into a protected computer, and they want a password, they should go to a judge and get a fucking warrant like with everything else.
Blood tests aren't considered self incrimination, but they are considered a search.
Too bad politicians are considered a good in this so called "free market"
Spam is illegal because in the vast majority of cases it is generated by stolen computers being used as zombies, and often times the content itself is fraudulent because a good deal of spam involves fraud by itself. Furthermore, spamming is already against the TOS of most ISPs, as well it should be, because spam has no value except to drum up business for Cisco and friends. It clogs the tubes, funds crime rings, and generally is a major nuisance on the internet.
Torrents, however, are not quite so cut and dried. It's entirely possible that a torrent is legit. We have linux ISOs, WoW updates, and the like that are clearly within the bounds of the law...no matter what the MAFIAA/ISP complex would lead us to believe. And of course, there's always the vast majority of them which are illegal. But there are enough exceptions (in my book even ONE is enough) that there's too much potential for collateral damage if ISPs act against torrents preemptively.
Either way, if it really is bad traffic then someone somewhere is going to complain about it, and any decent ISP should know better not to meddle in their customer's traffic if nobody's complaining.
I'm sure the allied victory back in WW2 didn't hurt to make Japan more willing to negotiate with/yield to american interests.