"Malware" does not refer to a specific type of software; rather, it is a blanket term used to define all malicious software, including virii, trojans, worms, adware, et. al.
I surmise the reason for not creating a law to specifically outlaw malware is twofold: The first (and, IMO, rational) reason being that criminalizing malware in general would cripple the efforts of businesses and academics who make their living researching and creating countermeasures for such code.
The second, less rational (again, IMO) reason being that if the government criminalized all forms of malware, the advertising companies who profit from drive-by downloads of your personal information would stop donating so generously to political re-election campaigns.
So, essentially, the "real" reason such software isn't illegal to create is that doing so might cut into someone powerful's profit margins... and we just can't have that, now can we?
Preface: IMO, these sort of rhetoricals are stupid and counter-productive. They do nothing to foster intelligent debate, and merely serve as a strawman argument designed to distract the reader from the topic at hand./rant.
Back to your question - maybe. The expense of health care in the US is a consistent, non-partisan issue, so there is an extremely high likelihood that similar legislation (similar to what was actually passed by Congress, not the public option plan Obama wanted) would have been proposed regardless of who took office.
He was responsible and deserves credit.
No; he was responsible for positing an idea (which, FWIW, I still maintain was the best idea he ever had) that Congress basically ignored so they could pass the trickle-up plan their corporate masters wanted all along. Obama didn't design the ACA, nor did he vote it into law. When it hit his desk, he signed it (probably without actually reading word 1, just like the idiots who created said legislation). The only thing Obama deserves 'credit' for is not vetoing the law, which doesn't reflect well upon his administration in my book.
There are no such things as degrees of falsehood - a statement is either true, or it isn't. As I doubt anyone is ignorant enough to truly lack the ability to grasp such a base concept, I have to assume you're being hyperbolic for hyperbole's sake. Please don't muddy the waters unnecessarily.
Read your damn Constitution; the President has no authority to create legislation, only the opportunity to sign or veto it.
So unless you're claiming that the ACA would still have been proposed and passed if McCain had been elected in 2008, you're missing the forest for the trees.
I'm not claiming squat, I'm pointing out facts, and the fact is that the President, regardless of party affiliation, has no power to enact legislation, only to enforce it.
Also, thanks for being smart enough to not refer to the ACA as "Obamacare." Obamacare involved a public option, which was squashed as part of the 'bipartisan compromise' that lead to ACA's passage.
No use explaining that to me; I'm not a "math guy." I just saw my opportunity to rip on one of the mainstream presidential candidates (who, IMO, are both total D-bags) and took it.
Your mention in my post was merely collateral damage... probably in gross violation of the Geneva Conventions of Trolling.
Who said anything about lower pay? When I was hired it was because of the knowledge and capabilities that I have because of the effort I put in. I would be a good developer if I never studied or worked on personal projects outside of work, but I wouldn't be as good. And based on discussions I have had with friends in the field about their pay, I am well paid for the extra skillsets I bring to the table.
Aah, there's the miscommunication - you apparently work somewhere cool.
FTR, most employers I've encountered out there don't give 2 shits about your knowledge and capabilities, all they want is another drone who will earn them money while accepting shit for compensation, working far more hours than what they're really being paid for ('salaried' apparently == slave), and who won't stand up for themselves when said employer decides to put a little more boot pressure on their throats.
Employees should get paid less than me if all they do in their free time is go boating. They are less valuable (unless their natural skill is great enough that it trumps my extra work).
The irony, of course, is that the people who spend all their free time boating are typically the ones above you, getting paid more for doing less.
Are you kidding me? Finally we have a tablet with a full-blown OS. Finally tablets can no longer be considered toys.
Aw, cool, so it has stylus support, a modern desktop processor, interchangeable components (i.e., upgradable RAM/GPU), and will run the latest AutoCAD Inventor?
No?
Then it's just another overpriced child's bauble, and I will have no part of it.
So, your premise is that somehow Hamza is worse than van Impe and Falwell, because the mosque he preaches/preached at was funded and attended by the congregants, whereas van Impe and Falwell's churches were/are... funded and attended by the congregants?
I can only conclude that you have problems with reading comprehension because that was not my premise at all.
Yea, 'cuz obviously the possibility of you lacking the faculties to posit intelligible statements is completely off the table... Jesus, the ego on this guy...
Seriously, if that's the only conclusion you can think of, you must have the deductive reasoning skills of a seagull. Maybe a slug...
I know you're trying desperately to draw some distinction between Muslim and Christian extremists (and somehow imply that the Muslim extremists are 'worse'), but I ain't seeing it.
Once again, you are arguing against things that I have not written. I condemn religious intolerance and I condemn any person who claims to be religious yet advocates violence and hate, irrespective of what their religion is.
There really is no point arguing any further with you because: a) you are an idiot. and b) why should I keep discussing points that you think I am trying to make, but in fact came from your imagination?
So, instead of clarifying your statements in concise, intelligible context, you resort to middle school tactics of ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies?
I think you missed it there sparky. He did not say ALL people of Muslim faith should be out there protesting the girl getting shot. He was saying that the ones out there protesting right now should ALSO be protesting that girl getting shot.
Yea, no, I don't buy that, although I can see what you're saying... which is still a silly point to try and make. Of course they wouldn't condemn the girls shooting, they're asshole extremists!
OTH, OPs statement seems a bit incomplete to make such a conclusion:
X Imams denounced event A;
Y Imams engaged in event B;
Therefore... ?
Really, what's the point of such a statement, if not to incite anti-Muslim sentiment? Even the underpants gnomes understand there's a step that comes after "?"
JOBS. The cable and media companies are suffering innumerable loses due to piracy, of cable content. This is costing America innumerable number of jobs. Encryption alone will save tons of jobs, while affecting no legitimate cable watcher.
Yea, that excuse will work on the (sadly, large) percentage of the population who don't think any further than what the sound bites they base their political philosophies on require... I think that particular demographic is most oft referred to as the "voting public."
Those of us capable of cogent reasoning will explain, likely for naught, that encrypted OTA == no more truck rolls for connect/disconnect orders == less jobs total, as the now-useless techs who used to install your service are given pink slips.
Any good antennas you can suggest? Indoor or outdoor would be fine. I would prefer not to have to move it though. Multiple would also be better than having to move one.
OK, truth time: I was trying to find some ridiculously massive, hopefully homemade mess of an antenna to post for kicks, when I came across this gem:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005US5M50?tag=wppk-20
Motorized, 360 degree rotation, multiple outputs, and comes with a remote?
Count me in!
...aaaaaaand upon reading the reviews, never-fuckin-mind...
Man, what did we do for ensuring we were purchasing quality goods before peer review? Oh, right - we actually made quality shit ourselves.
Any good antennas you can suggest? Indoor or outdoor would be fine. I would prefer not to have to move it though. Multiple would also be better than having to move one.
OK, truth time: I was trying to find some ridiculously massive, hopefully homemade mess of an antenna to post for kicks, when I came across this gem: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005US5M50?tag=wppk-20
Motorized, 360 degree rotation, multiple outputs, and comes with a remote?
What part of own in " own television station." do you not understand? Jerry Falwell also founded his own church.
Abu Hamza did not build his own mosque. He preached hate and violence in a mosque built with funds and support from mainstream muslims.
So, your premise is that somehow Hamza is worse than van Impe and Falwell, because the mosque he preaches/preached at was funded and attended by the congregants, whereas van Impe and Falwell's churches were/are... funded and attended by the congregants?
I know you're trying desperately to draw some distinction between Muslim and Christian extremists (and somehow imply that the Muslim extremists are 'worse'), but I ain't seeing it.
The venue is very important. If someone preaches in my church, then I am implicitly agreeing with their philosophy. If they create their own venue in which to preach, I do not provide either explicit or implicit support for their philosophy.
Huh? What on Earth are you trying to say here? A church cannot exist without congregants, so there really is no such thing as "their own venue" when referring to the churches founded by Falwell and van Impe. So, what's your point? That Hamza didn't found the church he preaches in (as if that really matters)? Congregation size? Seriously, what's your metric?
Are you a regular attendee of the East London Mosque? If so, then I totally understand your position. If not... well, I honestly have no clue what you're on about, and assume it's just yet another "Muslim == bad" rant which I will, as with all equally ignorant rants, ignore with gusto.
If you've read Breivik's manifesto, you know that he isn't a Christian. His ideology is violent cultural supremacism, and Christianity only figures in it insofar as it's a part of what he considers traditional Western / European culture.
Well, IMO, anyone who thinks that killing other people they disagree with is acceptable behavior is as far from Christian as one can be... my fault for paying too much attention to the words written in red.
IMO aside, lots of "non-Christians" have used Christianity to justify their horrible actions: Breivik, McVeigh, the KKK, the Crusaders, et. al. Also, discounting Breivik does nothing to counter the other examples I offered.
And how many times did the free speech laws work as they're supposed to? Especially when compared to how many times they were challenged?
What? If it's not 100% perfect it's horribly broken? Hate to ruin your world view, but no system that involves people is perfect.
Not sure I get your point: are you excusing the ruining of the lives of people who make unpopular statements, because 'no system involving people will be perfect?'
Blackstone's Formulation suddenly springs to mind: "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
Abu Hamza preached hate and violence in the biggest Mosque in London for 5 years, Muslims did not stop him from preaching his message of hate (eventually he was arrested). The inaction by muslims shows that hate and violence are part of Islam.
So, I take it you condemn all Christians for "allowing" people like Terry Jones, Jack van Impe, Jerry Falwell, and a host of others to preach hate and violence in churches? If so, you're being a douche. If not, you're being a hypocritical douche.
I condemn anyone who allows Terry Jones and others to preach in their church.
What you overlooked was that the people you list mostly preach in their own churches, while Abu Hamza preached in the largest mosque in London.
Jack van Impe has his own television station. Jerry Falwell is (was) one of the most well known, well respected (at least in Christian fundie circles) hate-mongers our society has ever seen.
That aside, what does the venue have to do with condemning an entire population for the actions of a small handful? OPs point, essentially, was that every Muslim is responsible for the actions of this one particular dillhole because they haven't actively denounced him (although I highly doubt OP knows enough of the 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet to make such an assertion with any amount of accuracy).
My point was, if one is going to take that particular avenue regarding Muslims, they A) are an ignorant douche, and B) they must apply the same rationale to extremists of all faiths, or be a hypocritical, ignorant douche.
When Terry Jones and others preach for 5 years in Westminster Abbey, or whatever is the largest christian church in Washington D.C., then it may be equivalent.
See above reference to Falwell and Van Impe with their globally-reaching mega-ministries of hate.
...equivalence.
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.
Just like with any large population of a particular demographic, you will have outliers. Expecting the entire population to take responsibility for the actions of a fringe minority is silly and irresponsible, not to mention absolving those who engage in such negative actions of at least some responsibility.
You can't cherry pick the things you want to bitch about and think others will play ball.
Not really sure what your point here is... care to elucidate?
Slashdot Mirror
Democracty NOW! covered that topic as well.
"Malware" does not refer to a specific type of software; rather, it is a blanket term used to define all malicious software, including virii, trojans, worms, adware, et. al.
I surmise the reason for not creating a law to specifically outlaw malware is twofold: The first (and, IMO, rational) reason being that criminalizing malware in general would cripple the efforts of businesses and academics who make their living researching and creating countermeasures for such code.
The second, less rational (again, IMO) reason being that if the government criminalized all forms of malware, the advertising companies who profit from drive-by downloads of your personal information would stop donating so generously to political re-election campaigns.
So, essentially, the "real" reason such software isn't illegal to create is that doing so might cut into someone powerful's profit margins... and we just can't have that, now can we?
Would it have happened without Obama?
Preface: IMO, these sort of rhetoricals are stupid and counter-productive. They do nothing to foster intelligent debate, and merely serve as a strawman argument designed to distract the reader from the topic at hand. /rant.
Back to your question - maybe. The expense of health care in the US is a consistent, non-partisan issue, so there is an extremely high likelihood that similar legislation (similar to what was actually passed by Congress, not the public option plan Obama wanted) would have been proposed regardless of who took office.
He was responsible and deserves credit.
No; he was responsible for positing an idea (which, FWIW, I still maintain was the best idea he ever had) that Congress basically ignored so they could pass the trickle-up plan their corporate masters wanted all along. Obama didn't design the ACA, nor did he vote it into law. When it hit his desk, he signed it (probably without actually reading word 1, just like the idiots who created said legislation). The only thing Obama deserves 'credit' for is not vetoing the law, which doesn't reflect well upon his administration in my book.
You must be a camper.
It's a legitimate strategy!
Your generalization is far more false.
There are no such things as degrees of falsehood - a statement is either true, or it isn't. As I doubt anyone is ignorant enough to truly lack the ability to grasp such a base concept, I have to assume you're being hyperbolic for hyperbole's sake. Please don't muddy the waters unnecessarily.
Most Christians don't ever protest a dang thing.
"Christians" protest everything from other people having abortions to honoring soldiers who die in combat. Your statement is complete and utter bullshit, smacking strongly of bearing false witness, and I have a powerful suspicion you already know that.
Read your damn Constitution; the President has no authority to create legislation, only the opportunity to sign or veto it.
So unless you're claiming that the ACA would still have been proposed and passed if McCain had been elected in 2008, you're missing the forest for the trees.
I'm not claiming squat, I'm pointing out facts, and the fact is that the President, regardless of party affiliation, has no power to enact legislation, only to enforce it.
Also, thanks for being smart enough to not refer to the ACA as "Obamacare." Obamacare involved a public option, which was squashed as part of the 'bipartisan compromise' that lead to ACA's passage.
And yet Obama gave you Obamacare. Hardly powerless it seems. Unless perhaps you think socialized healthcare is a plot by the ruling elite.
Obama didn't do that - Congress did.
Read your damn Constitution; the President has no authority to create legislation, only the opportunity to sign or veto it.
No use explaining that to me; I'm not a "math guy." I just saw my opportunity to rip on one of the mainstream presidential candidates (who, IMO, are both total D-bags) and took it.
Your mention in my post was merely collateral damage... probably in gross violation of the Geneva Conventions of Trolling.
Who said anything about lower pay? When I was hired it was because of the knowledge and capabilities that I have because of the effort I put in. I would be a good developer if I never studied or worked on personal projects outside of work, but I wouldn't be as good. And based on discussions I have had with friends in the field about their pay, I am well paid for the extra skillsets I bring to the table.
Aah, there's the miscommunication - you apparently work somewhere cool.
FTR, most employers I've encountered out there don't give 2 shits about your knowledge and capabilities, all they want is another drone who will earn them money while accepting shit for compensation, working far more hours than what they're really being paid for ('salaried' apparently == slave), and who won't stand up for themselves when said employer decides to put a little more boot pressure on their throats.
Employees should get paid less than me if all they do in their free time is go boating. They are less valuable (unless their natural skill is great enough that it trumps my extra work).
The irony, of course, is that the people who spend all their free time boating are typically the ones above you, getting paid more for doing less.
At zero interest rate, 150 * 6 / 20 is still 45 years...
Man I would kill to know the tax loopholes you are using to keep all 150k of that income.
Perhaps vlm is actually Mitt Romney's sock puppet?
Any of the Bain boys, really...
Are you kidding me? Finally we have a tablet with a full-blown OS. Finally tablets can no longer be considered toys.
Aw, cool, so it has stylus support, a modern desktop processor, interchangeable components (i.e., upgradable RAM/GPU), and will run the latest AutoCAD Inventor?
No?
Then it's just another overpriced child's bauble, and I will have no part of it.
I can only conclude that you have problems with reading comprehension because that was not my premise at all.
Yea, 'cuz obviously the possibility of you lacking the faculties to posit intelligible statements is completely off the table... Jesus, the ego on this guy...
Seriously, if that's the only conclusion you can think of, you must have the deductive reasoning skills of a seagull. Maybe a slug...
Once again, you are arguing against things that I have not written. I condemn religious intolerance and I condemn any person who claims to be religious yet advocates violence and hate, irrespective of what their religion is. There really is no point arguing any further with you because: a) you are an idiot. and b) why should I keep discussing points that you think I am trying to make, but in fact came from your imagination?
So, instead of clarifying your statements in concise, intelligible context, you resort to middle school tactics of ad hominem attacks and logical fallacies?
Color me not surprised.
I think you missed it there sparky. He did not say ALL people of Muslim faith should be out there protesting the girl getting shot. He was saying that the ones out there protesting right now should ALSO be protesting that girl getting shot.
Yea, no, I don't buy that, although I can see what you're saying... which is still a silly point to try and make. Of course they wouldn't condemn the girls shooting, they're asshole extremists!
OTH, OPs statement seems a bit incomplete to make such a conclusion:
X Imams denounced event A;
Y Imams engaged in event B;
Therefore... ?
Really, what's the point of such a statement, if not to incite anti-Muslim sentiment? Even the underpants gnomes understand there's a step that comes after "?"
JOBS. The cable and media companies are suffering innumerable loses due to piracy, of cable content. This is costing America innumerable number of jobs. Encryption alone will save tons of jobs, while affecting no legitimate cable watcher.
Yea, that excuse will work on the (sadly, large) percentage of the population who don't think any further than what the sound bites they base their political philosophies on require... I think that particular demographic is most oft referred to as the "voting public."
Those of us capable of cogent reasoning will explain, likely for naught, that encrypted OTA == no more truck rolls for connect/disconnect orders == less jobs total, as the now-useless techs who used to install your service are given pink slips.
Any good antennas you can suggest? Indoor or outdoor would be fine. I would prefer not to have to move it though. Multiple would also be better than having to move one.
OK, truth time: I was trying to find some ridiculously massive, hopefully homemade mess of an antenna to post for kicks, when I came across this gem: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005US5M50?tag=wppk-20 Motorized, 360 degree rotation, multiple outputs, and comes with a remote? Count me in!
...aaaaaaand upon reading the reviews, never-fuckin-mind...
Man, what did we do for ensuring we were purchasing quality goods before peer review? Oh, right - we actually made quality shit ourselves.
Any good antennas you can suggest? Indoor or outdoor would be fine. I would prefer not to have to move it though. Multiple would also be better than having to move one.
OK, truth time: I was trying to find some ridiculously massive, hopefully homemade mess of an antenna to post for kicks, when I came across this gem:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B005US5M50?tag=wppk-20
Motorized, 360 degree rotation, multiple outputs, and comes with a remote?
Count me in!
Naivete is not cute at all, from my perspective
"Cute" in the most drippingly venomous, sardonic manner physically possible.
By no means did I intend to detract from the very real, very terrifying threat of Creeping Fascism that is smothering our allegedly free society.
Fuck you, FBI, you are traitors to everything our country once stood for. You will never defeat me.
I stand beside, you, friend - Fuck 'em. Fuck 'em hard.
Mors Omnibus Tyrannis
What part of own in " own television station." do you not understand? Jerry Falwell also founded his own church.
Abu Hamza did not build his own mosque. He preached hate and violence in a mosque built with funds and support from mainstream muslims.
So, your premise is that somehow Hamza is worse than van Impe and Falwell, because the mosque he preaches/preached at was funded and attended by the congregants, whereas van Impe and Falwell's churches were/are... funded and attended by the congregants?
I know you're trying desperately to draw some distinction between Muslim and Christian extremists (and somehow imply that the Muslim extremists are 'worse'), but I ain't seeing it.
The venue is very important. If someone preaches in my church, then I am implicitly agreeing with their philosophy. If they create their own venue in which to preach, I do not provide either explicit or implicit support for their philosophy.
Huh? What on Earth are you trying to say here? A church cannot exist without congregants, so there really is no such thing as "their own venue" when referring to the churches founded by Falwell and van Impe. So, what's your point? That Hamza didn't found the church he preaches in (as if that really matters)? Congregation size? Seriously, what's your metric?
Are you a regular attendee of the East London Mosque? If so, then I totally understand your position. If not... well, I honestly have no clue what you're on about, and assume it's just yet another "Muslim == bad" rant which I will, as with all equally ignorant rants, ignore with gusto.
I'm thinking, "Kon-Kup"
This Kon, for our non-anime fans out there.
I offer my manual breast examination services to the control group, and promise to spend far more time fondling da boobies than medically necessary.
Note to self: Pointing out inconvenient, unpleasant truths = Flamebait.
Duly noted.
If you've read Breivik's manifesto, you know that he isn't a Christian. His ideology is violent cultural supremacism, and Christianity only figures in it insofar as it's a part of what he considers traditional Western / European culture.
Well, IMO, anyone who thinks that killing other people they disagree with is acceptable behavior is as far from Christian as one can be... my fault for paying too much attention to the words written in red.
IMO aside, lots of "non-Christians" have used Christianity to justify their horrible actions: Breivik, McVeigh, the KKK, the Crusaders, et. al. Also, discounting Breivik does nothing to counter the other examples I offered.
And how many times did the free speech laws work as they're supposed to? Especially when compared to how many times they were challenged? What? If it's not 100% perfect it's horribly broken? Hate to ruin your world view, but no system that involves people is perfect.
Not sure I get your point: are you excusing the ruining of the lives of people who make unpopular statements, because 'no system involving people will be perfect?'
Blackstone's Formulation suddenly springs to mind: "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."
I condemn anyone who allows Terry Jones and others to preach in their church. What you overlooked was that the people you list mostly preach in their own churches, while Abu Hamza preached in the largest mosque in London.
Jack van Impe has his own television station. Jerry Falwell is (was) one of the most well known, well respected (at least in Christian fundie circles) hate-mongers our society has ever seen.
That aside, what does the venue have to do with condemning an entire population for the actions of a small handful? OPs point, essentially, was that every Muslim is responsible for the actions of this one particular dillhole because they haven't actively denounced him (although I highly doubt OP knows enough of the 1.6 billion Muslims on the planet to make such an assertion with any amount of accuracy).
My point was, if one is going to take that particular avenue regarding Muslims, they A) are an ignorant douche, and B) they must apply the same rationale to extremists of all faiths, or be a hypocritical, ignorant douche.
When Terry Jones and others preach for 5 years in Westminster Abbey, or whatever is the largest christian church in Washington D.C., then it may be equivalent.
See above reference to Falwell and Van Impe with their globally-reaching mega-ministries of hate.
...equivalence.
You keep using that word; I do not think it means what you think it means.
Except Christians don't come out of hiding to protest about a stupid movie.
This time
Just like with any large population of a particular demographic, you will have outliers. Expecting the entire population to take responsibility for the actions of a fringe minority is silly and irresponsible, not to mention absolving those who engage in such negative actions of at least some responsibility.
You can't cherry pick the things you want to bitch about and think others will play ball.
Not really sure what your point here is... care to elucidate?