By comparison, having a static fine means that while everyone pays the same amount in cash, that amount becomes a smaller percentage of the total taxeable income of a rich individual compared to a poor individual. In short; The poor pay more in such a system.
It also means that for rich enough people the laws will become meaningless, the punishments virtually non-existent... We all know the stereotype of a rich brat ignoring laws and just throwing what equals to pennies for him to buy the right to break the law.
I think this, if anything, is the most important reason for non-static fines. They are meant to be punishment, not something you get to buy without considering the price if you are rich enough, and the punishment should not be lesser because one is rich. It's not a sale, it's a punishment.
As am I. Not to say they don't exist, just that I haven't really ever had a good talk with someone who actually hates Finland so bad it makes moving away seem tempting idea... Not posting with sarcasm tags now either, I would honestly be interested to hear from such fellow Finn - thanks to you I might add.
I'd expect it to be pretty small minority... sure, there are no places, governments, systems, whatever without someone getting upset about it, but really it's really rare when I've heard anyone criticizing really strongly this particular aspect of our society - sure, there are some who do criticize somewhat on it, but it's really mostly a minor issue, not a deal breaker. Maybe that minority has been all leaving 1st moment they can? I mean, I would leave if I was "utterly disgusted with my country".
But on another topic, how brainwashed must a person be to actually think that because a country is different from his/hers country/ideal and people there mostly seem to like it then obvious explanation has to be those people being brainwashed to be happy about it?
Here's a tip: look for expensive houses with expensive cars in front on expensive neighborhood - you are more likely to avoid accidentally picking a rich ascetic with nothing worth of robbing this way;)
Ballmer did recognize Linux as a threat in an interview - however the big Linux based threat for MS now is not desktop Linux OS but mobile Linux based Android OS (as well as iOS - though I don't know if I should talk about threat, it's hard to threat a company on a field where it's not dominating anything).
OMG, despite the fact that I knew about all this in theory I really had to see the difference with firefox + torbutton in non-tor mode vs. tor-mode, let alone tor-mode with noscript blocking scripts - the difference was staggering.
Amazingly I've also seen it used and used it myself (in Finnish though so not exact same line) to, you know, to get the time. And I do mean the time, not the clock;p
Seems to me that theist governments have not been doing that well either...
Of course the reasons have little to do with that - except that theist countries with bloody history often justify their horrors via religion, but I don't blame the religion for that, nor atheism for that matter. In the end it's politics - people can be theists or atheists, governments are not people. And people have a skill to come up with ethics without religion telling them - as well as ignoring them despite of religion telling them.
At least atheists don't get to put blame on some imaginary higher being for their actions.
No, you're right of course - they should be totally not punished for any of that until they are 18, after which everything changes and they are fully formed adults.
It's a weird weird world... but thanks for the info:)
I never thought I could be banned because of being bi-sexual (although if they don't ask that and only if I'm gay then I guess that would not ban me as I'm not, lol - that is if I was qualified otherwise).
Or in case of accident, that is the one adding you to group doing it with good intentions and you know him/her to be reasonable to understand why it was bad you can just have a talk with him/her... that's how things are resolved in real life too...
However the problem remains, and there is little reason to expect average user to understand it if not heard of it before that facebook, which even though anyone with half brain understands to be doing this for money gained harvesting your information, is so arrogant that it actually would not fix an issue such as this - even after accidents like this. And they are assholes for it, they should not be used, but most don't really understand this issue that well and as said: they are assholes, they are doing wrong here, and it is an issue no matter how one puts it.
Finnish voting system works great as it is, to propose online voting is to introduce problems our way does away with, such as bullying others to vote by your choice.
Imagine violent chauvinist demanding his wife to vote his way - well, that won't work under current system, no matter what he does he cannot get in the booth nor check the pad before it gets put in ballot box. But at privacy of homes? We know dark things happen there - much darker than this, so don't even begin with online voting ever being "secure".
I don't agree. You don't just choose one day to be sexually attracted to either the same, opposite sex (or perhaps both), you just are attracted to whatever your innate attraction is. Being gay is no more a learned behaviour than being straight.
Yeah, so you can act or not act on your sexual orientation, hell you can even fake to others (and often yourself) that you're sexual orientation is something else, what you don't get to choose is your sexual orientation. That's what you are saying here - and I agree, but it seems that you're trying to use these words to claim that because you can choose to not act on it means that your sexual orientation is a choice.
I strongly disagree. I have religious friends, I have gay friends, I have some few extreme guys as friends.
Did you ever consider staying friends with these people in real life, but not on facebook?
And with "these people", I don't mean all religious friends, all gay friends, and all friends with extreme views, but only those that would add you to groups without your consent...
...it's a bit hard to know who those would be before they do it...
At least where I'm from (and I'm pretty sure that I was referred to UN/WHO standards that essentially every country agrees to) along with the opt in box is a disclaimer that you shouldn't donate if you've recently been in prison, a IV drug addict, HIV positive etc. An opt out policy assumes that everyone is a safe doner which is not the case.
Obviously the organs should be tested at least for some viruses, doners health record should be known, etc. and perhaps the organs could also be labeled with "for critical emergencies only" for cases where the condition of organ is not known well enough to label it safe but where it could be used to save a life where no other organs are available at the time, checking a paper should not be enough to label your organ safe.
There is a reason for practice of testing the donated blood for viruses even if doner has drawn an X on a box next to "I have no STD's" - or do you not have such tests!?! (well nothing really surprises me anymore about USA so if you live there then I dunno). Why would they automatically assume organs safe where they don't assume blood to be safe even if doner claims so?
I opened up the can of worms once when it made no sense to me that someone that was out of prision for 2 years was "safe" but someone that had done drugs in the past ever, or had sex with or been a prostitute was banned for life. Apparently diseases get purged from your system when your record gets cleared. But doing things that may never have resulted in any criminal punishment makes you unqualified for life. Nice.
Also why is use of legal drugs not reason for ban? It's about condition of the organs, not legality of those actions after all - and what on earth does having been in prison have to do with anything in itself?
I would take it up my ass being the worst part of being exploited over having to work for less money and loose my health because of toxic chemicals or other unhealthy stuff - there are plenty of people who are offered nothing else to do than really awful jobs (you eat those chiquita bananas, just ignore what health hazards the people picking them suffer from and don't tell me they are exploited less than if they had to take a dick up their ass instead) and are paid little more than nothing *because there are people who will be forced to do that job anyway or fucking die* (of course most die from consequences of that job anyway, only those who accidentally die or get a disease before that don't)!
Not going to make a list, it would probably end up being too large anyway.
And yes, I myself have a good understanding of what issues sexual abuse can have - I also have experienced some, though very little in comparison to having to work as a prostitute against your own will.
Slashdot Mirror
By comparison, having a static fine means that while everyone pays the same amount in cash, that amount becomes a smaller percentage of the total taxeable income of a rich individual compared to a poor individual. In short; The poor pay more in such a system.
It also means that for rich enough people the laws will become meaningless, the punishments virtually non-existent... We all know the stereotype of a rich brat ignoring laws and just throwing what equals to pennies for him to buy the right to break the law.
I think this, if anything, is the most important reason for non-static fines. They are meant to be punishment, not something you get to buy without considering the price if you are rich enough, and the punishment should not be lesser because one is rich. It's not a sale, it's a punishment.
As am I. Not to say they don't exist, just that I haven't really ever had a good talk with someone who actually hates Finland so bad it makes moving away seem tempting idea... Not posting with sarcasm tags now either, I would honestly be interested to hear from such fellow Finn - thanks to you I might add.
I'd expect it to be pretty small minority... sure, there are no places, governments, systems, whatever without someone getting upset about it, but really it's really rare when I've heard anyone criticizing really strongly this particular aspect of our society - sure, there are some who do criticize somewhat on it, but it's really mostly a minor issue, not a deal breaker.
Maybe that minority has been all leaving 1st moment they can? I mean, I would leave if I was "utterly disgusted with my country".
But on another topic, how brainwashed must a person be to actually think that because a country is different from his/hers country/ideal and people there mostly seem to like it then obvious explanation has to be those people being brainwashed to be happy about it?
rotflmao. nuff said :D
Yeah, no :)
Here's a tip: look for expensive houses with expensive cars in front on expensive neighborhood - you are more likely to avoid accidentally picking a rich ascetic with nothing worth of robbing this way ;)
PS. Not talking out of experience.
Hey, I run my WinSlow - and really my WinBlows.
Ballmer did recognize Linux as a threat in an interview - however the big Linux based threat for MS now is not desktop Linux OS but mobile Linux based Android OS (as well as iOS - though I don't know if I should talk about threat, it's hard to threat a company on a field where it's not dominating anything).
OMG, despite the fact that I knew about all this in theory I really had to see the difference with firefox + torbutton in non-tor mode vs. tor-mode, let alone tor-mode with noscript blocking scripts - the difference was staggering.
Yeah, it feels strange but for the first time since... ever? not sure... I'm siding with MS on this one :x
I applaud you
Amazingly I've also seen it used and used it myself (in Finnish though so not exact same line) to, you know, to get the time. And I do mean the time, not the clock ;p
Seems to me that theist governments have not been doing that well either...
Of course the reasons have little to do with that - except that theist countries with bloody history often justify their horrors via religion, but I don't blame the religion for that, nor atheism for that matter. In the end it's politics - people can be theists or atheists, governments are not people. And people have a skill to come up with ethics without religion telling them - as well as ignoring them despite of religion telling them.
At least atheists don't get to put blame on some imaginary higher being for their actions.
P.S. Not atheist myself. Not christian either.
No, you're right of course - they should be totally not punished for any of that until they are 18, after which everything changes and they are fully formed adults.
I know we do - and it's a damn shame, as well as stupid :/
Ah, one of those newfangled space age words, I wouldn't know about those obviously :D Thanks for info - and sounds like pretty stupid laws...
It's a weird weird world... but thanks for the info :)
I never thought I could be banned because of being bi-sexual (although if they don't ask that and only if I'm gay then I guess that would not ban me as I'm not, lol - that is if I was qualified otherwise).
Or in case of accident, that is the one adding you to group doing it with good intentions and you know him/her to be reasonable to understand why it was bad you can just have a talk with him/her... that's how things are resolved in real life too...
However the problem remains, and there is little reason to expect average user to understand it if not heard of it before that facebook, which even though anyone with half brain understands to be doing this for money gained harvesting your information, is so arrogant that it actually would not fix an issue such as this - even after accidents like this. And they are assholes for it, they should not be used, but most don't really understand this issue that well and as said: they are assholes, they are doing wrong here, and it is an issue no matter how one puts it.
So I'm assuming that the people were overturning government decision to change away from name Doris Day, or what?
Amusing as it may have be, this was not same as Switzerland.
Finnish voting system works great as it is, to propose online voting is to introduce problems our way does away with, such as bullying others to vote by your choice.
Imagine violent chauvinist demanding his wife to vote his way - well, that won't work under current system, no matter what he does he cannot get in the booth nor check the pad before it gets put in ballot box. But at privacy of homes? We know dark things happen there - much darker than this, so don't even begin with online voting ever being "secure".
I don't agree. You don't just choose one day to be sexually attracted to either the same, opposite sex (or perhaps both), you just are attracted to whatever your innate attraction is. Being gay is no more a learned behaviour than being straight.
Yeah, so you can act or not act on your sexual orientation, hell you can even fake to others (and often yourself) that you're sexual orientation is something else, what you don't get to choose is your sexual orientation. That's what you are saying here - and I agree, but it seems that you're trying to use these words to claim that because you can choose to not act on it means that your sexual orientation is a choice.
It's a logical fallacy.
I strongly disagree. I have religious friends, I have gay friends, I have some few extreme guys as friends.
Did you ever consider staying friends with these people in real life, but not on facebook?
And with "these people", I don't mean all religious friends, all gay friends, and all friends with extreme views, but only those that would add you to groups without your consent...
...it's a bit hard to know who those would be before they do it...
At least where I'm from (and I'm pretty sure that I was referred to UN/WHO standards that essentially every country agrees to) along with the opt in box is a disclaimer that you shouldn't donate if you've recently been in prison, a IV drug addict, HIV positive etc. An opt out policy assumes that everyone is a safe doner which is not the case.
Obviously the organs should be tested at least for some viruses, doners health record should be known, etc. and perhaps the organs could also be labeled with "for critical emergencies only" for cases where the condition of organ is not known well enough to label it safe but where it could be used to save a life where no other organs are available at the time, checking a paper should not be enough to label your organ safe.
There is a reason for practice of testing the donated blood for viruses even if doner has drawn an X on a box next to "I have no STD's" - or do you not have such tests!?! (well nothing really surprises me anymore about USA so if you live there then I dunno). Why would they automatically assume organs safe where they don't assume blood to be safe even if doner claims so?
I opened up the can of worms once when it made no sense to me that someone that was out of prision for 2 years was "safe" but someone that had done drugs in the past ever, or had sex with or been a prostitute was banned for life. Apparently diseases get purged from your system when your record gets cleared. But doing things that may never have resulted in any criminal punishment makes you unqualified for life. Nice.
Also why is use of legal drugs not reason for ban? It's about condition of the organs, not legality of those actions after all - and what on earth does having been in prison have to do with anything in itself?
"sexing each other"?
I would take it up my ass being the worst part of being exploited over having to work for less money and loose my health because of toxic chemicals or other unhealthy stuff - there are plenty of people who are offered nothing else to do than really awful jobs (you eat those chiquita bananas, just ignore what health hazards the people picking them suffer from and don't tell me they are exploited less than if they had to take a dick up their ass instead) and are paid little more than nothing *because there are people who will be forced to do that job anyway or fucking die* (of course most die from consequences of that job anyway, only those who accidentally die or get a disease before that don't)!
Not going to make a list, it would probably end up being too large anyway.
And yes, I myself have a good understanding of what issues sexual abuse can have - I also have experienced some, though very little in comparison to having to work as a prostitute against your own will.