Except that most software does not spread itself and automatically replace the software you normally use. It's more like virus writers suing you copyright infringement when your computer gets infected by their 'products'.
Just start assassinating enemy leaders as the basic response to attacks and there will be a lot more peace in the world. Imagine if every time N Korea created an incident, their leader got shot/bombed. Or if the UK killed off the leadership of Argentina when the Falklands were invaded.
Proportional response is a good thing. But why direct it at cannon fodder and not at the people in charge? If you come under attack by state sponsored hackers, then kill off their heads of state. You'll get a much more satisfactory result with fewer casualties.
Ah ok, I though you said the difference between marriage and mating for life was ceremony, but i guess you meant that the fact that it's a ceremony means that it's based on religion.
Does that mean that you don't believe ceremonies can have origins other then religion?
So what more do you want? You say you don't want the state involved in marriage, but at the same time do want some authority to enforce extra rights you get from being married. Which is it?
What kind of ceremony? Considering the number of cultures that exist/have ever existed, there must be thousands of ceremonies. So why not include two people living together and being faithful to each other for a few years one of them? Do two homosexual men/women having the same ceremony count as a marriage? What about a man and a dog?
Yes, and if you want the government to back that up, you involve them by getting a legal marriage. If you don't want the government to enforce things like that, they won't demand that you let them (by getting legally married).
Well I don't agree with your definition. There are plenty of people who get married without any involvement with any religion. So why not have all the different religions conduct 'religious bindings' or something like that, if they are so opposed to having other forms of marriage called the same as the unions of their members?
And they were probably just a public commitment before religion insinuated itself into the situation (even some animals get 'married). The only thing government regulates is the legal construct of marriage - both the requirements and benefits of it. If people don't need/want the benefits, there is no need to bring government into that part of their lives - just don't get legally married. But I don't see why religion should be involved in that legal contract.
Actually, it's quite easy to avoid state involvement. People can easily live together, have children, demand the other person stay faithful,... without state involvement. The state only becomes involved when the couple decides to involve the state by making their marriage legal.
What business do religions have with marriage? Marriage is simply a legal agreement between two people that carries certain benefits and obligations. Why do religions keep insisting that they are somehow empowered to decide who can get married and how? And if some religions are allowed to conduct marriages, then why not let every religion do it? It's not like any of them are more 'real' then the others.
So what do you do when you kill a monster and it's time to determine the drop? Do you ask the server what dropped, or do you let the client pick and have the server trust the result once the client connects to the auction house? Sure the client could be limited in what COULD drop, but in Diablo that does not mean much - chance is much more important then the enemy you kill.
And that's why MMOs are always online as well. In Diablo what mattered were item drops. How can you prevent the player from getting better drops then he 'should', if you let the client determine the items they get? You can make your auction house as secure as you want, if the items that are sold in it can be duped or created at will, it's not going to make one bit of difference.
They probably don't guarantee anything, but in this case their equipment was used to spy on people, causing millions in damage. So I guess the victims could sue them for at least part of their losses.
Slashdot Mirror
Except that most software does not spread itself and automatically replace the software you normally use. It's more like virus writers suing you copyright infringement when your computer gets infected by their 'products'.
Aren't there import fees for imported goods?
Isn't (2) already a law?
Well there you have it, peace.
Is there that much of a difference between a marriage ceremony and mating rituals of some animals?
Just start assassinating enemy leaders as the basic response to attacks and there will be a lot more peace in the world. Imagine if every time N Korea created an incident, their leader got shot/bombed. Or if the UK killed off the leadership of Argentina when the Falklands were invaded.
Proportional response is a good thing. But why direct it at cannon fodder and not at the people in charge? If you come under attack by state sponsored hackers, then kill off their heads of state. You'll get a much more satisfactory result with fewer casualties.
Ah ok, I though you said the difference between marriage and mating for life was ceremony, but i guess you meant that the fact that it's a ceremony means that it's based on religion.
Does that mean that you don't believe ceremonies can have origins other then religion?
So what more do you want?
You say you don't want the state involved in marriage, but at the same time do want some authority to enforce extra rights you get from being married.
Which is it?
What kind of ceremony? Considering the number of cultures that exist/have ever existed, there must be thousands of ceremonies. So why not include two people living together and being faithful to each other for a few years one of them?
Do two homosexual men/women having the same ceremony count as a marriage? What about a man and a dog?
Yes, and if you want the government to back that up, you involve them by getting a legal marriage. If you don't want the government to enforce things like that, they won't demand that you let them (by getting legally married).
Is marriage anything else then a legally agreed mating for life? What makes you think it has religious origins, and not purely biological ones?
Well I don't agree with your definition. There are plenty of people who get married without any involvement with any religion. So why not have all the different religions conduct 'religious bindings' or something like that, if they are so opposed to having other forms of marriage called the same as the unions of their members?
Who else is going to regulate legal contracts?
They want the chance to have that legal marriage. And why shouldn't they?
And they were probably just a public commitment before religion insinuated itself into the situation (even some animals get 'married). The only thing government regulates is the legal construct of marriage - both the requirements and benefits of it. If people don't need/want the benefits, there is no need to bring government into that part of their lives - just don't get legally married. But I don't see why religion should be involved in that legal contract.
Actually, it's quite easy to avoid state involvement. People can easily live together, have children, demand the other person stay faithful,... without state involvement. The state only becomes involved when the couple decides to involve the state by making their marriage legal.
What business do religions have with marriage? Marriage is simply a legal agreement between two people that carries certain benefits and obligations. Why do religions keep insisting that they are somehow empowered to decide who can get married and how? And if some religions are allowed to conduct marriages, then why not let every religion do it? It's not like any of them are more 'real' then the others.
So what do you do when you kill a monster and it's time to determine the drop? Do you ask the server what dropped, or do you let the client pick and have the server trust the result once the client connects to the auction house? Sure the client could be limited in what COULD drop, but in Diablo that does not mean much - chance is much more important then the enemy you kill.
And that's why MMOs are always online as well. In Diablo what mattered were item drops. How can you prevent the player from getting better drops then he 'should', if you let the client determine the items they get? You can make your auction house as secure as you want, if the items that are sold in it can be duped or created at will, it's not going to make one bit of difference.
Because that would lower their expected salary at the next job they (the board) get.
I guess they could borrow a pile of cash, pay back their student loans and go bankrupt.
They probably don't guarantee anything, but in this case their equipment was used to spy on people, causing millions in damage. So I guess the victims could sue them for at least part of their losses.
So we shouldn't blame anyone for doing bad things, as long as it's legal and they are paid to do them? Great news for the Taliban, slave traders,....
You mixed those up?
Indentured servants. Give them a space to live in exchange for them working your land (and their children,...)