As for Microsoft "chucking" Mozilla money, I can't see where Mozilla users would find Microsoft terribly useful like they do Google, Yahoo, and our other search defaults.
You can't understand why Mozilla users would want the mozilla foundation to get more money? Mozilla users want a better browser, and they believe that money helps developers make it better. I doubt there's a single user on the planet who wouldn't believe money from Microsoft would be helpful. And the fact of the matter is, that the mozilla foundation accepts donations from anyone, even Microsoft, if they should want to.
The other question is: What's in it for Microsoft? And the answer is: nothing. Microsoft has their own browser. They prefer people to use their own browser. Internet Explorer already has 90% marketshare, or more, so giving money to a competitor doesn't make any financial sense. If microsoft didn't have Internet Explorer, it might make sense for them to donate to the mozilla foundation, as long as they could get in certain features they wanted. But that's not how the world is.
Alternatively, does there *need* to be a hierarchy? Can't *everyone* take responsibility? A commercial venture seems like the perfect place for constitutional direct democracy as anyone who isn't taking responsibility can simply be ejected by popular vote.
I agree. And most likely we will see more companies like that in the future. The company "Gore" (behind Gore-Tex) is the only one I know about. But actually, I'm quite happy to work in a normal abusive corporate hierarchy too. There's no way you are going to make the workplace a completely "shit-free" environment. In a corporate hierachy, shit moves downwards, but it still had to start somewhere, which is at the top. In a "everybody take responsibility" environment, the amount of shit isn't reduced, it just takes a different form, and is equally distributed, instead of just moving from the top and down.
By definition, the CEO has to pay more than the job below it, otherwise there is no motivation to get people to take the job.
Prestige is also a motivator. There is more prestige in being "the boss", than in "the employee". And some people seem to actually enjoy working with people instead of computers.
Then again, I doubt they want just about anyone who is willing to take the job, as CEO. They want someone who is well qualified to do the job. And if so, they need to have a competitive salary. The way it is, CEOs typically are paid more than software engineers, and software engineers are typically paid more than fast-food customer representatives. That's because there are fewer people who are qualified, and would do a good job as a CEO, than as a fast-food customer representative.
Who the fuck cares about all this history? Here are the facts:
Taiwan is a part of China, as long as the Chinese government says so, and nobody starts a war against them to dispute it (or find some other way of convincing the Chinese government, which is not very likely right now)
Many people view Taiwan as a country that should be independent
Of course, saying that "Taiwan is the country that is a part of China" isn't very precise, as that description fits Tibet even better.
Besides, there are other territories in the world, where the people who live there feel they have "a common identity", "a common language", and all the other things that should make them "a national state", without being so. And there are also several "national states" created late in history, who didn't have a long history of political independence prior to that. If the Taiwanese people want to be a national state, that's what they want, regardless of recent history. Then again, if Taiwan was part of something else, such as USA, they might not be so eager to get rid of their masters. I too would want to get out of China, if I lived in a part of it, that could function well without it.
Just sign it. But before you do, make any modifications to the text you feel you are justified to do. Sign the modifications to the text as well.
In most cases, the person handing you the "agreement" will not notice, and you're off the hook. And if they decide to make a fuss out of it, it's time to threaten to get a lawyer. If that doesn't work, then maybe, it's time to actually get a lawyer.
Safety for everyone on the ground. Regulation. Don't fly over densely populated areas below a certain altitude
Safety for driver and passengers. Regulation. Follow these safety rules, or lose your license
Economics - gas prices will go up. It will become a luxury item, just like cars used to be. An expensive flying car is still a flying car. Price haven't stopped people from creating other planes, rockets, or helicopters
Legal issues - Is it a car or an aircraft? It may have to cope with regulations from both domains. And your problem was? (Besides, if they would become more common, better regulation would be created)
It will be a great getaway-vehicle for bankrobbers. Huh? Are you serious? I guess we should start by outlawing regular cars first. And certainly nylon stockings need to be outlawed. But you can't seriously be speaking of this car, which is probably terrible in traffic, and needs an airport for takeoff (at which point it would be easily tracked by radar anyway)
Terrorist anybody? Huh? What was your reason again?
No. The greatest reason this will not become a success, is because it's not a practical VTOL flying car. It's a plane with foldable wings that would be legal to drive on roads, which is something different, and not what most people dream about. Besides, the company will go bankrupt soon anyway. Either that, or they will continue to take investor money and preorders infinitely, as certain other flying car companies do.
The reason there's never been a "skycar" has always been computing, not engineering
I've heard people repeat this mantra a lot of times. It still doesn't make it true. If somebody could build a flying car that was practical, but required training comparable to, or in excess of an ordinary pilot license, it would sell. It wouldn't sell much, but rich people who could afford it, and didn't mind the training or general inconvenience of strict rules about everying including start-up check-lists, service, and inspection, would buy it.
Giving such a car to everybody, is the second problem. Sure, it would be hard to scale up production and use to Joe Sixpack, but so far, there's nothing to be scaled up. Just because computing is a potential problem, doesn't mean that that's what's stopping the flying car right now. What's stopping the flying car is flight technology. We still haven't been able to make a single flying car, no matter how talented the pilot is. And the worlds longest flight with a rocket belt is still about 30 seconds. Computing isn't the cause of that either.
Falling air cars will invariably involve houses. In many many many cases. And worse off, you won't have any idea that it's coming until WHAM! it crashes through your roof and kills your family.
There are flats all three floors above me, and an additional floor for storage above that. And I'm single, so I don't have a family to get killed. Besides, flying cars would obviously need some UFO hoovering principle, so there's no reason they should come tumbling down, unless you live in Roswell.
The question is: What is the best way in terms of cost, speed, and environmental factors to move people and goods from place to place that works well at high volume times (rush hour) AND for those occasional times (like moving, new construction, or whatnot)?
Walking. It takes less space, works well in crowded areas, the energy usage is low, and the health benefits immense. It is guaranteed to work regardless of gas prices, or shortage. The downside is that it only works at very low speed, so it's best for short distances, which means that people will have to move to cities (or closer to work) instead of living in the suburbs and commuting long distances to work which is somewhere completely different.
There is also a limit to the amount of cargo it is practical to carry while walking. But by pushing or dragging cargo carts, moving something big such as a fridge or a king-size bed, is actually not such a big problem. The main problem is that we're accustomed to something better, which depends upon fossil fuel to work. But walking is actually a quite nice way of transportation. You should try it!
Yeah, that would reduce the wear and tear on the roads immensely. Ground planes are pretty easy to design and create. The only problem with using them instead of cars, is that prefer to go straight ahead at a fixed speed. Which pretty much means that it would be like a car without brakes or a steering wheel (at least no sharp turns or abrupt accelerations). But watch out, ground planes work well on water, and will probably eventually replace some of the current high-speed boats and ferrys, such as katamarans and hoovercrafts.
It's the most common complaint I've seen about the Gimp UI: people with inferior window managers complain that Gimp doesn't try to reinvent the window manager for them.
No, we complain because GIMP clutters the workspace with zillions of windows. We don't want a "GIMP window manager", we want less windows! There's nothing wrong about floating toolbars, but they should never clutter the window-list, and they should only be visible when you are working on an image.
The problem with GIMP isn't really that it opens too many windows, or that some/most window managers doesn't handle it "correctly". The problem is that GIMP isn't document-centric. If you fire up a word-processor, you'll look at a document. If you fire up GIMP, you'll see dozens of toolbars and palettes, and maybe, if you're lucky, somewhere you'll find your image. The name "GIMP" reflects this well, it's the "gnu image manipulation program". The program is what's important, and not the image.
People were used to this sort of inconvenience in the 1970s, but in the 1980s we got accustomed to something better. Having the ability to rearrange buttons doesn't help correct the problem that the GIMP UI basically sucks. It's actually so bad that I had to go read the fucking manual just to get started with it. A redesign is badly needed.
For all the times that people say they aren't interested in running, it would be amusing to find out if there is any way a person really can be elected against their will?:)
That sounds like a good form of government. And to avoid the whole "fair election" issue, we should elect our (forced) representatives by lottery. At least the representatives would be more representative than now, on the other hand, I'm still unsure whether that is a good or bad idea. Do you want politics to be dominated by professional politicians who couldn't care less about anything except amassing power and winning elections, or by ignorant stupid common people who couldn't care less except cheaper booze and not having to work?
(in some parliamentary governments, there is a quaint little tradition of dragging the "speaker" of the house to their chair because in the old days, nobody really wanted to be the one designated to deliver the demands and decisions of the people to the king)
Very cool. Does that include England, or is it even quainter?
Saying I'm against jumping into freezing cold water, doesn't mean that I'm opposed to swimming if some idiot throws me into it. The same can be said for Iraq. People who were in favour of the Iraq invasion can (at least in my book) only be described accurately as "some idiot". Meanwhile, the rest of us still have to swim.
It's worth noting that really, no operation is 100% safe. Especially when it comes to the brain. Even something as simple as brain biopsy is avoided whenever possible.
I believe an autopsy is considered safe.
From what I've heard, few, if any of those who have an autopsy performed on them come out alive.
But they only do it on dead patients, so how would you really know?
Why should scientists care more for a faulty argument than the rest of the population? If you want to look for an explanation in why scientists believe in God, it would be smarter to look at why humans in general believe in God. And the answer is in Jesus own words: "let the small children come to me". Children are raised to believe in God, and as a child, you are at your most gullible time in your life.
Also of importance is the fact that religious communities form a frame of security among their individual members. Your friends and family are members. You have a sense of community, "us" against "them", and so on... And it feels meaningful, spiritual, all those are basic human needs. Rejecting that is hard, probably a lot harder than stopping to believe in Santa when you were six.
Myself, I have a problem with Pascal's Wager
Then why do you believe it should convince any others? I've never even heard about anyone who found Pascals wager convincing. Except perhaps Pascal, of course.
everyone else had blinders on.. to the point of teachers and classmates mocking me.
Yeah, you know, it's always the smart guys they mock. Bullshit! Maybe you were good at math or something, but you probably failed where it counts, such as in your understanding and ability to participate in social interaction.
I have absolutely no desire to watch porn, etc.
Either you're a liar, or you have proven my point above, to the point where it far exceeds my original accusations. Wanting to watch porn is part of being human.
It's worth noting that really, no operation is 100% safe. Especially when it comes to the brain. Even something as simple as brain biopsy is avoided whenever possible.
It really doesn't matter much what the mothers intention of distribution was. She put it up on youtube, and that means worldwide distribution. Period.
It also doesn't matter whether Universal has an even better distribution system. At best, it is worldwide too. So obviously, what she's allowed to do, they are allowed to do.
The question then, is whether there are other laws that can help the baby from being exploited by universal. And in fact it is. The courts usually rule different regarding "fair use" when it's for commercial use. That's why you usually don't see a picture of Arnold Scharzenegger on the cover of every book about bodybuilding, or a picture of Donald Trump in the advertizing for every investment fund on the planet.
. Normally this would only happen if they had given permission to do so.
You have a weird way of misunderstanding and misrepresenting others to fit your twisted world-view, mate. She sued them for sending the take-down notice in the first place, and it's not a stupid case. If a lawyer sends you a threatening letter, he/she had better done at least some legal work to see if they have something that at least looks like a case.
But more importantly, she has a child! Having a child makes you a saint and should protect you from the repercussions of doing anything wrong!
Uh? Did you watch the video? If they hadn't told me it was Prince playing in the background, I wouldn't have been able to even recognize it. If anything is fair use, this is it. I doubt there will be any music-pirates downloading this, and then being able to tick off "Prince - Let's Go Crazy" in their mp3-collection, so they don't have to buy that song.
And see, that is the thing... youtube makes money off the site, because of the videos people put up to draw traffic to it. So this copyrighted song is being used for a commercial application. If she was posting this on her own non-commercial website, I doubt anyone would have cared
Uhm, no. That's not how the world works. And no, this video didn't buy much traffic to youtube.
but in an era where there is (comparatively) little immediate threat to life, we are not overly prepared to deal with subtle threats to information or technology
If somebody breaks into my computer, will I die? No. Will I become sick of temporarily disabled? No. Will I lose money? Possible, but unlikely, and in any case the insurance company will get them back for me. Should I therefore hire a security consultant? NO!
I believe most people get this analysis right.
We are prepared to react to predators that want to eat us and starvation, but ill prepared to deal with people that want to defraud us and steal possessions that may not be immediately with us.
More importantly, we are unable to plan for long-term security. If the planets ecosystem is under attack from global warming, creating and/or spreading lots of new diseases (harming us, our food, or in some other indirect way), do we stop emitting pollutants contributing to global warming? No. Do we invest money into biological research and education so we can handle the new diseases? No. Do we invest significantly in technological countermeasures, such as painting Sahara white, building dams against floods or the rising ocean, or even storing CO2? No. Do we do anything at all? Not really, unless you count selling quotas to each other.
While this study is interesting, it's not that difficult to disagree with some of the conclusions you make from it, and that are referred to in the article. Do you believe that someone who pays the babysitter in cash to avoid taxation is a criminal? Sure, we both agree that, technically, it's an act of crime, but it's not a serious offence, and not enough for us to call that person a criminal.
More importantly, as is suggested in the article, this is something most people perceive as a "victimless crime". While it can be debated whether that is true (as paying taxes is important for a well-functioning society), many people obviously believe it to be not that important.
I don't need to be a politician to talk about the "law-abiding majority". While rampant so-called "victimless" crime might be a reality, these are not the same people who break into several cars nightly to steal the GPS. Something that will cost the owner of the car (or the insurance company) at least 10 times the amount the criminal can get by selling the stolen GPS.
I stole a chocolate in my teens. And I have a habit of stealing pens from everyone. This does not make me a criminal, any more than jumping a bit up and down makes me an astronaut.
Things have changed in the last 2000 years about how much character it takes to avoid criminality.
I doubt it. Just because we now have laws against speed driving, doesn't mean that you are "a criminal" just because you speeded a bit on the way to work this morning.
The state of being a criminal is defined solely by law.
From a philosophical viewpoint, I disagree. Criminals are people who willfully and actively do things that cause damage to other people, whether that damage is physical, emotional, or economical. Laws merely help codify this into a system that most people view as "fair" for all people.
There are two main categories of crime. Let's arbitrarily name the first one "pleasure crime". This involves anything done just for kicks, such as kicking the shit out of somebody you dislike (even just at the moment), painting grafitti on a wall, or raping a woman. The other category is the "crime for gain" category. This involves theft, burglary, robbery, fraud, extortion, black-market transactions, etc... These categories are universal, and does not change merely because laws differ between different regions.
In the last 2000 years, laws have become increasingly broad. It takes an increasingly restricted character to abide by the laws of the land, where ever you are.
Just don't attribute crime as a fault of character. It is not. Crime is always a result of law.
No, crime is a mindset. Most people are not criminals, and will never become criminals. Laws help create a system where the society is able to protect itself from criminals, but at the same time avoiding treating non-criminals badly. This is viewed as "fair" by most people, even many criminals. The laws exists because of the criminals, not the other way around.
Ideal situation for reverse auction. What happens is you get all the passengers standing round in a circle, and you start counting up from zero. When a passenger shouts, they pay that much money and their bags are loaded onto the plane. Bags come off in reverse order. Anyone who fails to bid gets their bags on the next plane.
This does not make sense. It's also not what a "reverse auction" is. If you start counting from zero, everybody will bid zero. A "reverse auction" would start counting downwards from e.g. $1000. As the price reaches zero, all the baggage will normally have been sold, and it doesn't matter if the remaining baggage are disintegrated in an atomic blaster, placed in a warehouse, or sent with another plance. Except that plane-fuel is expensive.
Slashdot Mirror
You can't understand why Mozilla users would want the mozilla foundation to get more money? Mozilla users want a better browser, and they believe that money helps developers make it better. I doubt there's a single user on the planet who wouldn't believe money from Microsoft would be helpful. And the fact of the matter is, that the mozilla foundation accepts donations from anyone, even Microsoft, if they should want to.
The other question is: What's in it for Microsoft? And the answer is: nothing. Microsoft has their own browser. They prefer people to use their own browser. Internet Explorer already has 90% marketshare, or more, so giving money to a competitor doesn't make any financial sense. If microsoft didn't have Internet Explorer, it might make sense for them to donate to the mozilla foundation, as long as they could get in certain features they wanted. But that's not how the world is.
I agree. And most likely we will see more companies like that in the future. The company "Gore" (behind Gore-Tex) is the only one I know about. But actually, I'm quite happy to work in a normal abusive corporate hierarchy too. There's no way you are going to make the workplace a completely "shit-free" environment. In a corporate hierachy, shit moves downwards, but it still had to start somewhere, which is at the top. In a "everybody take responsibility" environment, the amount of shit isn't reduced, it just takes a different form, and is equally distributed, instead of just moving from the top and down.
Prestige is also a motivator. There is more prestige in being "the boss", than in "the employee". And some people seem to actually enjoy working with people instead of computers.
Then again, I doubt they want just about anyone who is willing to take the job, as CEO. They want someone who is well qualified to do the job. And if so, they need to have a competitive salary. The way it is, CEOs typically are paid more than software engineers, and software engineers are typically paid more than fast-food customer representatives. That's because there are fewer people who are qualified, and would do a good job as a CEO, than as a fast-food customer representative.
Who the fuck cares about all this history? Here are the facts:
Of course, saying that "Taiwan is the country that is a part of China" isn't very precise, as that description fits Tibet even better.
Besides, there are other territories in the world, where the people who live there feel they have "a common identity", "a common language", and all the other things that should make them "a national state", without being so. And there are also several "national states" created late in history, who didn't have a long history of political independence prior to that. If the Taiwanese people want to be a national state, that's what they want, regardless of recent history. Then again, if Taiwan was part of something else, such as USA, they might not be so eager to get rid of their masters. I too would want to get out of China, if I lived in a part of it, that could function well without it.
Just sign it. But before you do, make any modifications to the text you feel you are justified to do. Sign the modifications to the text as well.
In most cases, the person handing you the "agreement" will not notice, and you're off the hook. And if they decide to make a fuss out of it, it's time to threaten to get a lawyer. If that doesn't work, then maybe, it's time to actually get a lawyer.
Regulation. Don't fly over densely populated areas below a certain altitude
Regulation. Follow these safety rules, or lose your license
It will become a luxury item, just like cars used to be. An expensive flying car is still a flying car. Price haven't stopped people from creating other planes, rockets, or helicopters
And your problem was? (Besides, if they would become more common, better regulation would be created)
Huh? Are you serious? I guess we should start by outlawing regular cars first. And certainly nylon stockings need to be outlawed. But you can't seriously be speaking of this car, which is probably terrible in traffic, and needs an airport for takeoff (at which point it would be easily tracked by radar anyway)
Huh? What was your reason again?
No. The greatest reason this will not become a success, is because it's not a practical VTOL flying car. It's a plane with foldable wings that would be legal to drive on roads, which is something different, and not what most people dream about. Besides, the company will go bankrupt soon anyway. Either that, or they will continue to take investor money and preorders infinitely, as certain other flying car companies do.
I've heard people repeat this mantra a lot of times. It still doesn't make it true. If somebody could build a flying car that was practical, but required training comparable to, or in excess of an ordinary pilot license, it would sell. It wouldn't sell much, but rich people who could afford it, and didn't mind the training or general inconvenience of strict rules about everying including start-up check-lists, service, and inspection, would buy it.
Giving such a car to everybody, is the second problem. Sure, it would be hard to scale up production and use to Joe Sixpack, but so far, there's nothing to be scaled up. Just because computing is a potential problem, doesn't mean that that's what's stopping the flying car right now. What's stopping the flying car is flight technology. We still haven't been able to make a single flying car, no matter how talented the pilot is. And the worlds longest flight with a rocket belt is still about 30 seconds. Computing isn't the cause of that either.
There are flats all three floors above me, and an additional floor for storage above that. And I'm single, so I don't have a family to get killed. Besides, flying cars would obviously need some UFO hoovering principle, so there's no reason they should come tumbling down, unless you live in Roswell.
Walking. It takes less space, works well in crowded areas, the energy usage is low, and the health benefits immense. It is guaranteed to work regardless of gas prices, or shortage. The downside is that it only works at very low speed, so it's best for short distances, which means that people will have to move to cities (or closer to work) instead of living in the suburbs and commuting long distances to work which is somewhere completely different.
There is also a limit to the amount of cargo it is practical to carry while walking. But by pushing or dragging cargo carts, moving something big such as a fridge or a king-size bed, is actually not such a big problem. The main problem is that we're accustomed to something better, which depends upon fossil fuel to work. But walking is actually a quite nice way of transportation. You should try it!
Yeah, that would reduce the wear and tear on the roads immensely. Ground planes are pretty easy to design and create. The only problem with using them instead of cars, is that prefer to go straight ahead at a fixed speed. Which pretty much means that it would be like a car without brakes or a steering wheel (at least no sharp turns or abrupt accelerations). But watch out, ground planes work well on water, and will probably eventually replace some of the current high-speed boats and ferrys, such as katamarans and hoovercrafts.
No, we complain because GIMP clutters the workspace with zillions of windows. We don't want a "GIMP window manager", we want less windows! There's nothing wrong about floating toolbars, but they should never clutter the window-list, and they should only be visible when you are working on an image.
The problem with GIMP isn't really that it opens too many windows, or that some/most window managers doesn't handle it "correctly". The problem is that GIMP isn't document-centric. If you fire up a word-processor, you'll look at a document. If you fire up GIMP, you'll see dozens of toolbars and palettes, and maybe, if you're lucky, somewhere you'll find your image. The name "GIMP" reflects this well, it's the "gnu image manipulation program". The program is what's important, and not the image.
People were used to this sort of inconvenience in the 1970s, but in the 1980s we got accustomed to something better. Having the ability to rearrange buttons doesn't help correct the problem that the GIMP UI basically sucks. It's actually so bad that I had to go read the fucking manual just to get started with it. A redesign is badly needed.
That sounds like a good form of government. And to avoid the whole "fair election" issue, we should elect our (forced) representatives by lottery. At least the representatives would be more representative than now, on the other hand, I'm still unsure whether that is a good or bad idea. Do you want politics to be dominated by professional politicians who couldn't care less about anything except amassing power and winning elections, or by ignorant stupid common people who couldn't care less except cheaper booze and not having to work?
Very cool. Does that include England, or is it even quainter?
Saying I'm against jumping into freezing cold water, doesn't mean that I'm opposed to swimming if some idiot throws me into it. The same can be said for Iraq. People who were in favour of the Iraq invasion can (at least in my book) only be described accurately as "some idiot". Meanwhile, the rest of us still have to swim.
But they only do it on dead patients, so how would you really know?
Why should scientists care more for a faulty argument than the rest of the population? If you want to look for an explanation in why scientists believe in God, it would be smarter to look at why humans in general believe in God. And the answer is in Jesus own words: "let the small children come to me". Children are raised to believe in God, and as a child, you are at your most gullible time in your life.
Also of importance is the fact that religious communities form a frame of security among their individual members. Your friends and family are members. You have a sense of community, "us" against "them", and so on... And it feels meaningful, spiritual, all those are basic human needs. Rejecting that is hard, probably a lot harder than stopping to believe in Santa when you were six.
Then why do you believe it should convince any others? I've never even heard about anyone who found Pascals wager convincing. Except perhaps Pascal, of course.
Yeah, you know, it's always the smart guys they mock. Bullshit! Maybe you were good at math or something, but you probably failed where it counts, such as in your understanding and ability to participate in social interaction.
Either you're a liar, or you have proven my point above, to the point where it far exceeds my original accusations. Wanting to watch porn is part of being human.
It really doesn't matter much what the mothers intention of distribution was. She put it up on youtube, and that means worldwide distribution. Period.
It also doesn't matter whether Universal has an even better distribution system. At best, it is worldwide too. So obviously, what she's allowed to do, they are allowed to do.
The question then, is whether there are other laws that can help the baby from being exploited by universal. And in fact it is. The courts usually rule different regarding "fair use" when it's for commercial use. That's why you usually don't see a picture of Arnold Scharzenegger on the cover of every book about bodybuilding, or a picture of Donald Trump in the advertizing for every investment fund on the planet.
You have a weird way of misunderstanding and misrepresenting others to fit your twisted world-view, mate. She sued them for sending the take-down notice in the first place, and it's not a stupid case. If a lawyer sends you a threatening letter, he/she had better done at least some legal work to see if they have something that at least looks like a case.
Uh? Did you watch the video? If they hadn't told me it was Prince playing in the background, I wouldn't have been able to even recognize it. If anything is fair use, this is it. I doubt there will be any music-pirates downloading this, and then being able to tick off "Prince - Let's Go Crazy" in their mp3-collection, so they don't have to buy that song.
Uhm, no. That's not how the world works. And no, this video didn't buy much traffic to youtube.
Touché
If somebody breaks into my computer, will I die? No. Will I become sick of temporarily disabled? No. Will I lose money? Possible, but unlikely, and in any case the insurance company will get them back for me. Should I therefore hire a security consultant? NO!
I believe most people get this analysis right.
More importantly, we are unable to plan for long-term security. If the planets ecosystem is under attack from global warming, creating and/or spreading lots of new diseases (harming us, our food, or in some other indirect way), do we stop emitting pollutants contributing to global warming? No. Do we invest money into biological research and education so we can handle the new diseases? No. Do we invest significantly in technological countermeasures, such as painting Sahara white, building dams against floods or the rising ocean, or even storing CO2? No. Do we do anything at all? Not really, unless you count selling quotas to each other.
While this study is interesting, it's not that difficult to disagree with some of the conclusions you make from it, and that are referred to in the article. Do you believe that someone who pays the babysitter in cash to avoid taxation is a criminal? Sure, we both agree that, technically, it's an act of crime, but it's not a serious offence, and not enough for us to call that person a criminal.
More importantly, as is suggested in the article, this is something most people perceive as a "victimless crime". While it can be debated whether that is true (as paying taxes is important for a well-functioning society), many people obviously believe it to be not that important.
I don't need to be a politician to talk about the "law-abiding majority". While rampant so-called "victimless" crime might be a reality, these are not the same people who break into several cars nightly to steal the GPS. Something that will cost the owner of the car (or the insurance company) at least 10 times the amount the criminal can get by selling the stolen GPS.
I stole a chocolate in my teens. And I have a habit of stealing pens from everyone. This does not make me a criminal, any more than jumping a bit up and down makes me an astronaut.
I doubt it. Just because we now have laws against speed driving, doesn't mean that you are "a criminal" just because you speeded a bit on the way to work this morning.
From a philosophical viewpoint, I disagree. Criminals are people who willfully and actively do things that cause damage to other people, whether that damage is physical, emotional, or economical. Laws merely help codify this into a system that most people view as "fair" for all people.
There are two main categories of crime. Let's arbitrarily name the first one "pleasure crime". This involves anything done just for kicks, such as kicking the shit out of somebody you dislike (even just at the moment), painting grafitti on a wall, or raping a woman. The other category is the "crime for gain" category. This involves theft, burglary, robbery, fraud, extortion, black-market transactions, etc... These categories are universal, and does not change merely because laws differ between different regions.
No, crime is a mindset. Most people are not criminals, and will never become criminals. Laws help create a system where the society is able to protect itself from criminals, but at the same time avoiding treating non-criminals badly. This is viewed as "fair" by most people, even many criminals. The laws exists because of the criminals, not the other way around.
This does not make sense. It's also not what a "reverse auction" is. If you start counting from zero, everybody will bid zero. A "reverse auction" would start counting downwards from e.g. $1000. As the price reaches zero, all the baggage will normally have been sold, and it doesn't matter if the remaining baggage are disintegrated in an atomic blaster, placed in a warehouse, or sent with another plance. Except that plane-fuel is expensive.