There will still be a vast drug trade, perhaps even larger. The gangs just won't be able to monopolize the trade. The tobacco and alcohol companies will compete with the cartels, and use both their own private armies and the government's police to protect their legal trade.
What exactly would be the point of more violence from the cartels? They'll just launder their money into monopolizing the supply to the legal retailers. Like they did with bananas before drugs got so popular.
Because they don't tax alcohol enough, and don't count the money saved by undercutting a booze mafia. Cocaine could be enough to keep its prices at about $50 a (real, not diluted) gram and it would bring in about 90% its current revenue $billions in taxes. While reducing the costs (money and personally) of the cocaine mafia. Converting Mexico, Colombia and much of Bolivia, Peru, Panama and the rest of Latin America back from drug lord countries would save the Western Hemisphere and much of the Eastern many $billions every year.
How much cocaine do I have to buy to get to keep the wrapper, these "subs"?
If they're not being used to smuggle the cash back to the jungle, maybe I can get the sub here in NYC, rather than let it swim home and possibly get caught.
Except if firefighters use electricity instead of water to extinguish the flames, they won't be wet. Fire trucks seem like good places to keep a large mobile battery, or a capacitor for recharging from power lines nearby the disconnected building, or a transformer while the building is disconnected. Or maybe buildings will have fire suppression power equipment installed that uses this electric effect.
The point is that electricity replaces water, so they don't have to mix.
The time to discuss critical views of risks is precisely when the majority of the public is talking about a real episode that shows the nature of the risk.
If people don't want to watch _The Simpsons_ because its jokes will upset them, they don't have to watch. If publishers want to protect those people, the episodes can include a message that they make fun of the very not funny current disaster unfolding in Japan. The vast majority of people in Austria and elsewhere don't need Daddy protecting them from decade old jokes about somewhere else that are still true about Japan today.
Preventing public discussion of problems when the problems hurt most is one of the biggest reason we never learn from the problems and avoid them in the future.
There should be no income tax. Only a sales tax on everything bought.
Since the first amount spent is the hardest, consuming all (or more) of the poorest people's income just to survive, necessities should not be taxed. Raw food, used clothing or materials to make it, rent or cost of the cheapest 20% of housing in each zipcode (excluded for everyone in that zipcode), the cost of power and telecom utilities on that 20%, public education, public transit, a national "minimum healthcare standard" - all excluded. Everything else is taxed.
In our $15T GDP, that means probably $12T taxed. Our Federal government should spend something like $3T max, so that's 25%. That would mean no new borrowing. We could cut big, wasteful expenses to pay down our debt. Meanwhile the taxes would decrease our most wasteful consumption.
In the financial economy that has completely taken over our real economy (and crashed it, over and over again), any equity sale that doesn't transfer ownership (50%+1) is taxed at 0.01%. But any sale that finally does transfer ownership is taxed at the full cumulative rate (25%) deferred on all previous transactions. The inhibition on speculation, the stability advantages from coalition control of property among minority owners, and the requirement that finance, so expensive to govern, finally pay its costs to the public, would decrease our most wasteful and risky business activities.
Then there's the advantage to the government collecting taxes from only a much smaller group: sellers. Who already keep more detailed records as part of their business. Who are easier to audit, catch and shut down or fine. Reducing the parasitic accounting industry and the IRS at the top to a tiny fraction. Leaving the effort of "doing your taxes" minimized, saving probably $BILLIONS in simplification alone. Taking back that money from the government withholding that only encourages it to spend money it doesn't have, while preventing us from spending it. And of course the vast privacy invasion run for a century by the IRS would finally end.
National sales tax. It's gotten a bad name from the quacks who make it a totally "flat tax" that cuts deepest to the poorest. But with a few simple tweaks it could be written into law on a single page. And actually fund the country's public activities on a basis that actually makes sense: those getting the most out of the country in undeniable material terms pay the most to keep the country running. And actually fund it enough that we can get out from under the unbearable debt we accumulated under the blatantly failed income tax we experimented with so badly for a century.
No, irony is what I described it as, and not what the person I corrected used it as.
The people making up stats like you just are far too many on Slashdot (as elsewhere), regardless of whether there are more of them than there are people citing stats correctly.
I have no problem expecting that MySQL.com will be compromised by a vulnerability in MySQL. That is not ironic, situational or otherwise. It is two entirely consistent conditions, not any that defy truly reasonable expectations.
No, hypocrisy is holding everyone else to a behavior standard, whether by words or otherwise, but violating that standard yourself. Hypocrisy is ironic when the hypocrite uses words to hold others to the standard.
Just because one is vulnerable to a weakness in one's defining characteristic doesn't make damage by that weakness ironic.
Merely related ideas are not "ironic". Ironic is when one's words say one thing and one's actions another that contradict it. If MySQL.com claimed SQL injections in MySQL were impossible, then this attack's success would be ironic. If MySQL.com attacked some DB with a SQL injection, that would be ironic. Not all coinciding events are "ironic".
Growing up to be bankers is one thing. Often, for those lucky enough to be in on whatever is the scam of that decade, it's very lucrative. Mama might not be proud, but she might get a fat retirement condo from a grateful banker offspring.
But engineers don't make that much off the scams. I worked deep in Midtown Manhattan's hedge fund world through last year. I worked directly on the production database for one of the world's 10 biggest hedge funds, which has continued to make $billions in profits each year through the "collapse" and bailouts. I made a good amount of money. But when I left to run tech at a smallish NYC company in the energy management industry, I started to make a lot more money. My share of this new company's profits I could claim to enable is thousands of times smaller than at the hedge fund gig, but I get a significantly larger share of it.
And I'm not covered in evil the way I was before. I get paid better to do more good. I feel much better about the whole thing. If these banksters would just pay the losses they created, while I continue to get paid to help people save, I'd feel entirely good.
BTW, you're clearly a bigot. That requires not simply judging someone "they don't even know". It requires judging entire classes of people based on wrong certainties about them. You demonstrated undeniable bigotry about Indian people, that you continue to demonstrate on the issue - despite proving your expertise is only ignorance. That's all we need to know about you to know you're a bigot. The rest of your life is irrelevant, now that your actually relevant behavior is on display.
Though you underscored your status with your assholery in response.
Now enough free clues for you. You've got more than you need to change into someone decent enough to be worth corresponding with.
No, you were wrong about the premise on which you based your assertion. Totally wrong.
Now your non-apology apology just makes you look like an asshole. An asshole who can't accept that being so wrong in public requires at least some humility, and really some introspection. You put it on the line, you lost, and you should change at least a little. But you aren't. Therefore, irredeemable asshole. Anyone can be wrong. It takes your kind of self-absorbed arrogance to be an asshole.
No. The article says CMU is eliminating OOP training, saying it's bad. You agree, saying "it doesn't suit every type of programming problem". You therefore are saying that since OOP isn't good for everything, there should be no OOP. Ignoring the alternative of teaching some OOP, but not exclusively OOP. In other words, "No OOP" == "Not some OOP".
Yours is the fallacy of the excluded middle. Look it up. And don't ask me for any programming jobs. Or any that require logic. Or recognizing your own limitations, even when they're shoved in your face. Because then you engage in the denial projection that makes fallacists like you so annoying.
So all people fighting their local murderous tyrants must fully understand networking technologies before they trust email they've had reason to believe is secure.
No, it's pretty clear that post means a religious person telling anyone other than themself what to do according to a moral code. In Christianity, that kind of meddling control freakery is all too common, especially in the US. And for many American Christians, that freakery rises to the level of theocracy. So far it's the exception and usually local. But it's despite long tradition and wide opposition (when people are aware of it), often the product of large scale organization, and shouldn't happen at all. So its regular gains in power over the lives of people who don't believe, through government rather than directly through religion, is a troubling threat of theocracy in general.
A religion is defined by how it's practiced and defined by its officials. Of the ones you mentioned, I know that Islam and Christianity are full of officials putting people up to enforcing their definition of morality on other people. Buddhism very well might also - I don't know that many Buddhists or see them on TV, print or Web.
If you study up on the theological aspect of practically any religion you can find plenty of justifications for doing nearly anything, no matter how self-contradictory. That is the great value of a rule system based on a nonexistent yet all-powerful being.
The cost of people assuming you don't do something wrong only because it's illegal is minor compared to the savings from the law preventing people doing that wrong who otherwise would have done it.
So your only response to being shown totally wrong by several people is to attack the latest of them for being one of many? You should at least also apologize for being wrong and looking like a bigot. But since you didn't, you tend to confirm that you're a bigot, and don't really care whether you're right or wrong.
Dude its a fricking bug. It isn't even a fricking bug that blocks HTTPS, it just doesn't set it as default. Big fricking whoop, you just have to go in and set it. And anybody who is in a repressive country and sending shit that may get them in trouble to their email account without even using Tor or some other obfuscation is seriously asking for it anyway.
Their "bug" (if that is really what it is) has just exposed a lot of people to arrest, abuse, and murder. Just because you're laying your life on the line every day with what you say in your email because it reflects opposition to your local mass murdering tyrant doesn't mean you should also know a lot about Web technologies. Until today it was sufficiently responsible to use Hotmail with HTTPS. Suddenly it's not, and lots of people at risk will be at much greater risk than they can be expected to realize. And some of them might get killed, beaten or kidnapped for it.
But it's so easy for you to say "ZOMG" safely from your Web terminal while you do nothing remotely as risky as these people are doing every day.
Slashdot Mirror
There will still be a vast drug trade, perhaps even larger. The gangs just won't be able to monopolize the trade. The tobacco and alcohol companies will compete with the cartels, and use both their own private armies and the government's police to protect their legal trade.
What exactly would be the point of more violence from the cartels? They'll just launder their money into monopolizing the supply to the legal retailers. Like they did with bananas before drugs got so popular.
Because they don't tax alcohol enough, and don't count the money saved by undercutting a booze mafia. Cocaine could be enough to keep its prices at about $50 a (real, not diluted) gram and it would bring in about 90% its current revenue $billions in taxes. While reducing the costs (money and personally) of the cocaine mafia. Converting Mexico, Colombia and much of Bolivia, Peru, Panama and the rest of Latin America back from drug lord countries would save the Western Hemisphere and much of the Eastern many $billions every year.
How much cocaine do I have to buy to get to keep the wrapper, these "subs"?
If they're not being used to smuggle the cash back to the jungle, maybe I can get the sub here in NYC, rather than let it swim home and possibly get caught.
How much for just the sub?
Except if firefighters use electricity instead of water to extinguish the flames, they won't be wet. Fire trucks seem like good places to keep a large mobile battery, or a capacitor for recharging from power lines nearby the disconnected building, or a transformer while the building is disconnected. Or maybe buildings will have fire suppression power equipment installed that uses this electric effect.
The point is that electricity replaces water, so they don't have to mix.
The time to discuss critical views of risks is precisely when the majority of the public is talking about a real episode that shows the nature of the risk.
If people don't want to watch _The Simpsons_ because its jokes will upset them, they don't have to watch. If publishers want to protect those people, the episodes can include a message that they make fun of the very not funny current disaster unfolding in Japan. The vast majority of people in Austria and elsewhere don't need Daddy protecting them from decade old jokes about somewhere else that are still true about Japan today.
Preventing public discussion of problems when the problems hurt most is one of the biggest reason we never learn from the problems and avoid them in the future.
There should be no income tax. Only a sales tax on everything bought.
Since the first amount spent is the hardest, consuming all (or more) of the poorest people's income just to survive, necessities should not be taxed. Raw food, used clothing or materials to make it, rent or cost of the cheapest 20% of housing in each zipcode (excluded for everyone in that zipcode), the cost of power and telecom utilities on that 20%, public education, public transit, a national "minimum healthcare standard" - all excluded. Everything else is taxed.
In our $15T GDP, that means probably $12T taxed. Our Federal government should spend something like $3T max, so that's 25%. That would mean no new borrowing. We could cut big, wasteful expenses to pay down our debt. Meanwhile the taxes would decrease our most wasteful consumption.
In the financial economy that has completely taken over our real economy (and crashed it, over and over again), any equity sale that doesn't transfer ownership (50%+1) is taxed at 0.01%. But any sale that finally does transfer ownership is taxed at the full cumulative rate (25%) deferred on all previous transactions. The inhibition on speculation, the stability advantages from coalition control of property among minority owners, and the requirement that finance, so expensive to govern, finally pay its costs to the public, would decrease our most wasteful and risky business activities.
Then there's the advantage to the government collecting taxes from only a much smaller group: sellers. Who already keep more detailed records as part of their business. Who are easier to audit, catch and shut down or fine. Reducing the parasitic accounting industry and the IRS at the top to a tiny fraction. Leaving the effort of "doing your taxes" minimized, saving probably $BILLIONS in simplification alone. Taking back that money from the government withholding that only encourages it to spend money it doesn't have, while preventing us from spending it. And of course the vast privacy invasion run for a century by the IRS would finally end.
National sales tax. It's gotten a bad name from the quacks who make it a totally "flat tax" that cuts deepest to the poorest. But with a few simple tweaks it could be written into law on a single page. And actually fund the country's public activities on a basis that actually makes sense: those getting the most out of the country in undeniable material terms pay the most to keep the country running. And actually fund it enough that we can get out from under the unbearable debt we accumulated under the blatantly failed income tax we experimented with so badly for a century.
No, irony is what I described it as, and not what the person I corrected used it as.
The people making up stats like you just are far too many on Slashdot (as elsewhere), regardless of whether there are more of them than there are people citing stats correctly.
I have no problem expecting that MySQL.com will be compromised by a vulnerability in MySQL. That is not ironic, situational or otherwise. It is two entirely consistent conditions, not any that defy truly reasonable expectations.
No. None of that Morrisette babble is ironic.
No, hypocrisy is holding everyone else to a behavior standard, whether by words or otherwise, but violating that standard yourself. Hypocrisy is ironic when the hypocrite uses words to hold others to the standard.
Just because one is vulnerable to a weakness in one's defining characteristic doesn't make damage by that weakness ironic.
Merely related ideas are not "ironic". Ironic is when one's words say one thing and one's actions another that contradict it. If MySQL.com claimed SQL injections in MySQL were impossible, then this attack's success would be ironic. If MySQL.com attacked some DB with a SQL injection, that would be ironic. Not all coinciding events are "ironic".
Where are instructions for rooting the Kobo or Aluratek ereaders?
Growing up to be bankers is one thing. Often, for those lucky enough to be in on whatever is the scam of that decade, it's very lucrative. Mama might not be proud, but she might get a fat retirement condo from a grateful banker offspring.
But engineers don't make that much off the scams. I worked deep in Midtown Manhattan's hedge fund world through last year. I worked directly on the production database for one of the world's 10 biggest hedge funds, which has continued to make $billions in profits each year through the "collapse" and bailouts. I made a good amount of money. But when I left to run tech at a smallish NYC company in the energy management industry, I started to make a lot more money. My share of this new company's profits I could claim to enable is thousands of times smaller than at the hedge fund gig, but I get a significantly larger share of it.
And I'm not covered in evil the way I was before. I get paid better to do more good. I feel much better about the whole thing. If these banksters would just pay the losses they created, while I continue to get paid to help people save, I'd feel entirely good.
BTW, you're clearly a bigot. That requires not simply judging someone "they don't even know". It requires judging entire classes of people based on wrong certainties about them. You demonstrated undeniable bigotry about Indian people, that you continue to demonstrate on the issue - despite proving your expertise is only ignorance. That's all we need to know about you to know you're a bigot. The rest of your life is irrelevant, now that your actually relevant behavior is on display.
Though you underscored your status with your assholery in response.
Now enough free clues for you. You've got more than you need to change into someone decent enough to be worth corresponding with.
Until then, goodbye.
No, you were wrong about the premise on which you based your assertion. Totally wrong.
Now your non-apology apology just makes you look like an asshole. An asshole who can't accept that being so wrong in public requires at least some humility, and really some introspection. You put it on the line, you lost, and you should change at least a little. But you aren't. Therefore, irredeemable asshole. Anyone can be wrong. It takes your kind of self-absorbed arrogance to be an asshole.
Shut up already.
Goodbye.
No. The article says CMU is eliminating OOP training, saying it's bad. You agree, saying "it doesn't suit every type of programming problem". You therefore are saying that since OOP isn't good for everything, there should be no OOP. Ignoring the alternative of teaching some OOP, but not exclusively OOP. In other words, "No OOP" == "Not some OOP".
Yours is the fallacy of the excluded middle. Look it up. And don't ask me for any programming jobs. Or any that require logic. Or recognizing your own limitations, even when they're shoved in your face. Because then you engage in the denial projection that makes fallacists like you so annoying.
Goodbye.
No, you have terrible reading and logic skills, because what I summarized is exactly what the post to which I replied actually means.
So all people fighting their local murderous tyrants must fully understand networking technologies before they trust email they've had reason to believe is secure.
You are a sad person living in Sim City.
Goodbye.
So "no OOP" == "some non-OOP"?
You must be a terrible programmer.
No, it's pretty clear that post means a religious person telling anyone other than themself what to do according to a moral code. In Christianity, that kind of meddling control freakery is all too common, especially in the US. And for many American Christians, that freakery rises to the level of theocracy. So far it's the exception and usually local. But it's despite long tradition and wide opposition (when people are aware of it), often the product of large scale organization, and shouldn't happen at all. So its regular gains in power over the lives of people who don't believe, through government rather than directly through religion, is a troubling threat of theocracy in general.
A religion is defined by how it's practiced and defined by its officials. Of the ones you mentioned, I know that Islam and Christianity are full of officials putting people up to enforcing their definition of morality on other people. Buddhism very well might also - I don't know that many Buddhists or see them on TV, print or Web.
If you study up on the theological aspect of practically any religion you can find plenty of justifications for doing nearly anything, no matter how self-contradictory. That is the great value of a rule system based on a nonexistent yet all-powerful being.
The cost of people assuming you don't do something wrong only because it's illegal is minor compared to the savings from the law preventing people doing that wrong who otherwise would have done it.
So your only response to being shown totally wrong by several people is to attack the latest of them for being one of many? You should at least also apologize for being wrong and looking like a bigot. But since you didn't, you tend to confirm that you're a bigot, and don't really care whether you're right or wrong.
Actually, my dog is on the right side of every issue, except sometimes "feed me that" and "walk me now".
But they're not saying that. They're saying very little, that will be received by very few of the people it puts at risk and understood by even fewer.
MS' actions are putting people's lives at increased risk without those people knowing about it.
Dude its a fricking bug. It isn't even a fricking bug that blocks HTTPS, it just doesn't set it as default. Big fricking whoop, you just have to go in and set it. And anybody who is in a repressive country and sending shit that may get them in trouble to their email account without even using Tor or some other obfuscation is seriously asking for it anyway.
Their "bug" (if that is really what it is) has just exposed a lot of people to arrest, abuse, and murder. Just because you're laying your life on the line every day with what you say in your email because it reflects opposition to your local mass murdering tyrant doesn't mean you should also know a lot about Web technologies. Until today it was sufficiently responsible to use Hotmail with HTTPS. Suddenly it's not, and lots of people at risk will be at much greater risk than they can be expected to realize. And some of them might get killed, beaten or kidnapped for it.
But it's so easy for you to say "ZOMG" safely from your Web terminal while you do nothing remotely as risky as these people are doing every day.