Were any of those people tried and convicted in a court of law, having the facts decided by a jury of their peers, with a judge well versed in the law to decide the merits of the case? No? Then they were all innocent deaths.
Apparently, they've already added "FirePond" to that list as a search for that term yields no ads. What's more, the first link is to firepond.com, presumably the plaintiff's company. So I'm not really sure what the problem is.
You forgot a third quality without which God is not God: He should also be infinitely good, he does not like us to suffer.
That goes against (a) and (c) in your argument, leaving only (b) he does not exist, at least not with those three qualities.
Well put. Although I didn't want to assume that god is infinitely good, because if he is that introduces even more problems. After all, an infinitely good entity with omniscience and omnipotence would not allow people to torture other people in his name. Leave aside other tragedies and evil acts for the moment, since someone could argue that stopping those people prevents their free will. But no god did anything to stop the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Islamic conquest of North Africa, the Darfur genocide, the Armenian genocide, 9/11, Jonestown, or countless other cases of humans being inhuman towards one another in the name of their god.
Think of it this way: if my son were to punch a fellow student at school and say he did so because the other student didn't respect me the "right way", I would be livid. I'd ground my son and have him apologize to the other student. I'd be upset not just because my son hit someone, but because he did so "in my name".
If I, a mere mortal, can understand enough that that sort of behavior is not acceptable, then why wouldn't an omniscient being? Claiming that an infinitely good god would not step in to stop atrocities from being committed in his name is absurd. Since there have been atrocities committed in the past in the name of god/s, then he/she/it/they must not be good at all, let alone infinitely so.
"Respects your decision"? Seriously? Is that why so many religions teach that if you worship the wrong god you'll burn in hell?
There is no choice. Your scenario is simply a variant of c) likes to play mind games. After all, I have no way of knowing which god is the real god out of the multitude of religions available, few of which agree on anything of substance. Sure, they might all have something like "be nice to each other" (for different values of "each other", of course). But they don't agree on the nature of god. Some say there's just one being (Judaism and Islam), others that there are thousands of beings (pagan religions), and still others that it's one being composed of multiple beings (Christianity and Hinduism).
Picking the wrong one could result in fire and brimstone for all eternity; even hedging your bets and worshiping all of them is no good as that still counts as worshiping other gods.
If God exists, and if he's omniscient and omnipotent, he could design an event guaranteed to convince every non-believer in the world of his existence. The fact that he doesn't means either:
a) he doesn't care, so why bother worshiping him? b) he doesn't exist, so why bother worshiping him? c) he likes to play mind games, so why bother worshiping him?
If companies don't want people to see the innards of an ATM, then put up a curtain around them while you're refilling them. No, I'm serious. Walk into the place with a folded-up room divider and your boxes 'O cash, set up the divider around the ATM, and have one guy go inside and fill the machine while the other guy waits outside and watches everyone. Then you take down the divider and go back to the armored car. Simple.
You'd need to have three guys to maintain two-person integrity. One outside the curtain, two inside it (with the money). But otherwise, this is a genius idea if ATM innards are so top secret.
I don't see them having jurisdiction or basis to bring a case that the contents of something as innocuous as an email address (the username mind you,not the domain part after @ sign) are.
Really? So you don't see a problem with someone sending out emails from "bankofamerica@gmail.com" asking people to log into their online banking? You don't see how that's not just fraud, but deliberately infringing on the rights of the company in question to protect their good name?
Let's bring it closer to home: what if I got the email address "cayenne8@gmail.com" and started sending out emails claiming to be you? Depending on the content of those emails, you probably wouldn't like it very much. How is this any different?
The CIO here isn't just protecting his employer's good name, he's also (indirectly) protecting innocent third parties who might get suckered into a phishing scam.
Under your immensely broad determination, just about anything could be considered commerce.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a farmer who eats his own wheat is engaging in interstate commerce (Wickard v. Filburn). So yeah, anti-virus software could easily fall into that chasm of a loop hole, too.
You don't have to agree with something on principle to recognize the truth of it.
That's apples and oranges (no pun intended). It's one thing to bring your knowledge with you, but bringing work product along should be strictly verboten. Your current employer paid you to create those items, it would be unethical to give them to someone else.
It's only slander if it's untrue. But insults can be grounded in truth. For instance, if you call someone an idiot who can't do their job properly, you've just insulted them, even if they are idiots who can't do their job properly.
Is there any stipulation in the law about links to sites from individual comments vs. content put up by the site maintainers? Because otherwise, you're right, this will result in the entire Internet being blocked in a day. All it's gonna take is someone putting a link to a banned IP in Slashdot, Digg, Reddit, or Fark comment, and then Google will update its cache of those comments a few seconds later. Bam! Everyone's offline at once.
If this happens, I think it would be excellent. It might finally teach politicians that the law of unintended consequences has not be repealed.
The draft therefore allows that it's possible for criminal prosecutors to access "in real time" directly at the provider the IP addresses of the "users" of the virtual warning sign. Criminal liability already exists a when it cannot be proven that it was a mistake or an automatic redirection."
That is, if you happen to access a blocked page (for whatever reason) you have to prove that you were in error.
Yet another reason not to ever visit 4chan. *shudder*
Email is a little more secure than that. In order to read a given email, you either need to know the account username and password of the recipient (possibly of the sender, if the Sent mail folder is stored remotely, ala IMAP, MAPI, or Webmail), or system level access to the mail spool. Even with the latter, most modern mail systems will still protect the mail against casual snoopers (though obviously there's nothing to stop an admin from automatically forwarding all mail to somewhere else). But since the mail provider has a fiduciary relationship with the recipient, in which they promise not to disclose the contents of any email, I'm pretty sure privilege wouldn't be harmed by communicating this way.
(IANAL, but I've taken a few legal classes, and communicate with one of my lawyers almost exclusively via email. I assume that if there were a problem with this, he would've mentioned something years ago.)
The only thing I can tell you about bar association standards is that at one time the ABA was telling people that email was acceptable for communicating privileged information.
Presumably, the rationale behind that stance was that no other common forms of privileged information is encrypted, either. And it doesn't even have to be secrete. It's just not admissible in court.
You've never heard of Dragon software, have you? Though I suppose you could cut out their tongues, too. I mean, they're spammers, is there anything you could do to them that isn't 100% justified?
In tripling the efficiency of the not-so-good ones, did they bring them within cost parity of the better ones? If the better ones were four times as good and cost four times as much, and now these are three times as good at double the cost, then that's a significant breakthrough.
Slashdot Mirror
Were any of those people tried and convicted in a court of law, having the facts decided by a jury of their peers, with a judge well versed in the law to decide the merits of the case? No? Then they were all innocent deaths.
Apparently, they've already added "FirePond" to that list as a search for that term yields no ads. What's more, the first link is to firepond.com, presumably the plaintiff's company. So I'm not really sure what the problem is.
Religion relies on faith.
So do conmen, what's your point? That religions the world over are run by a bunch of charlatans out to fleece simple people? I couldn't agree more.
You forgot a third quality without which God is not God: He should also be infinitely good, he does not like us to suffer.
That goes against (a) and (c) in your argument, leaving only (b) he does not exist, at least not with those three qualities.
Well put. Although I didn't want to assume that god is infinitely good, because if he is that introduces even more problems. After all, an infinitely good entity with omniscience and omnipotence would not allow people to torture other people in his name. Leave aside other tragedies and evil acts for the moment, since someone could argue that stopping those people prevents their free will. But no god did anything to stop the Inquisition, the Crusades, the Islamic conquest of North Africa, the Darfur genocide, the Armenian genocide, 9/11, Jonestown, or countless other cases of humans being inhuman towards one another in the name of their god.
Think of it this way: if my son were to punch a fellow student at school and say he did so because the other student didn't respect me the "right way", I would be livid. I'd ground my son and have him apologize to the other student. I'd be upset not just because my son hit someone, but because he did so "in my name".
If I, a mere mortal, can understand enough that that sort of behavior is not acceptable, then why wouldn't an omniscient being? Claiming that an infinitely good god would not step in to stop atrocities from being committed in his name is absurd. Since there have been atrocities committed in the past in the name of god/s, then he/she/it/they must not be good at all, let alone infinitely so.
"Respects your decision"? Seriously? Is that why so many religions teach that if you worship the wrong god you'll burn in hell?
There is no choice. Your scenario is simply a variant of c) likes to play mind games. After all, I have no way of knowing which god is the real god out of the multitude of religions available, few of which agree on anything of substance. Sure, they might all have something like "be nice to each other" (for different values of "each other", of course). But they don't agree on the nature of god. Some say there's just one being (Judaism and Islam), others that there are thousands of beings (pagan religions), and still others that it's one being composed of multiple beings (Christianity and Hinduism).
Picking the wrong one could result in fire and brimstone for all eternity; even hedging your bets and worshiping all of them is no good as that still counts as worshiping other gods.
So yeah, that's all summed up in option c).
And several have been elected to Congress.
If God exists, and if he's omniscient and omnipotent, he could design an event guaranteed to convince every non-believer in the world of his existence. The fact that he doesn't means either:
a) he doesn't care, so why bother worshiping him?
b) he doesn't exist, so why bother worshiping him?
c) he likes to play mind games, so why bother worshiping him?
If companies don't want people to see the innards of an ATM, then put up a curtain around them while you're refilling them. No, I'm serious. Walk into the place with a folded-up room divider and your boxes 'O cash, set up the divider around the ATM, and have one guy go inside and fill the machine while the other guy waits outside and watches everyone. Then you take down the divider and go back to the armored car. Simple.
You'd need to have three guys to maintain two-person integrity. One outside the curtain, two inside it (with the money). But otherwise, this is a genius idea if ATM innards are so top secret.
Darwin approves of this merger.
I don't see them having jurisdiction or basis to bring a case that the contents of something as innocuous as an email address (the username mind you ,not the domain part after @ sign) are.
Really? So you don't see a problem with someone sending out emails from "bankofamerica@gmail.com" asking people to log into their online banking? You don't see how that's not just fraud, but deliberately infringing on the rights of the company in question to protect their good name?
Let's bring it closer to home: what if I got the email address "cayenne8@gmail.com" and started sending out emails claiming to be you? Depending on the content of those emails, you probably wouldn't like it very much. How is this any different?
The CIO here isn't just protecting his employer's good name, he's also (indirectly) protecting innocent third parties who might get suckered into a phishing scam.
Under your immensely broad determination, just about anything could be considered commerce.
The Supreme Court has ruled that a farmer who eats his own wheat is engaging in interstate commerce (Wickard v. Filburn). So yeah, anti-virus software could easily fall into that chasm of a loop hole, too.
You don't have to agree with something on principle to recognize the truth of it.
That's apples and oranges (no pun intended). It's one thing to bring your knowledge with you, but bringing work product along should be strictly verboten. Your current employer paid you to create those items, it would be unethical to give them to someone else.
It's only slander if it's untrue. But insults can be grounded in truth. For instance, if you call someone an idiot who can't do their job properly, you've just insulted them, even if they are idiots who can't do their job properly.
Is there any stipulation in the law about links to sites from individual comments vs. content put up by the site maintainers? Because otherwise, you're right, this will result in the entire Internet being blocked in a day. All it's gonna take is someone putting a link to a banned IP in Slashdot, Digg, Reddit, or Fark comment, and then Google will update its cache of those comments a few seconds later. Bam! Everyone's offline at once.
If this happens, I think it would be excellent. It might finally teach politicians that the law of unintended consequences has not be repealed.
So instead of not being able to insult just civil servants, you can't insult anybody? I don't know if that makes it better or worse.
Lord. You can imagine where it goes from there.
The draft therefore allows that it's possible for criminal prosecutors to access "in real time" directly at the provider the IP addresses of the "users" of the virtual warning sign. Criminal liability already exists a when it cannot be proven that it was a mistake or an automatic redirection."
That is, if you happen to access a blocked page (for whatever reason) you have to prove that you were in error.
Yet another reason not to ever visit 4chan. *shudder*
Email is a little more secure than that. In order to read a given email, you either need to know the account username and password of the recipient (possibly of the sender, if the Sent mail folder is stored remotely, ala IMAP, MAPI, or Webmail), or system level access to the mail spool. Even with the latter, most modern mail systems will still protect the mail against casual snoopers (though obviously there's nothing to stop an admin from automatically forwarding all mail to somewhere else). But since the mail provider has a fiduciary relationship with the recipient, in which they promise not to disclose the contents of any email, I'm pretty sure privilege wouldn't be harmed by communicating this way.
(IANAL, but I've taken a few legal classes, and communicate with one of my lawyers almost exclusively via email. I assume that if there were a problem with this, he would've mentioned something years ago.)
The only thing I can tell you about bar association standards is that at one time the ABA was telling people that email was acceptable for communicating privileged information.
Presumably, the rationale behind that stance was that no other common forms of privileged information is encrypted, either. And it doesn't even have to be secrete. It's just not admissible in court.
You've never heard of Dragon software, have you? Though I suppose you could cut out their tongues, too. I mean, they're spammers, is there anything you could do to them that isn't 100% justified?
You are not a lawyer. You can't even file legal actions.
The due process clause laughs at your feeble understanding of the legal system.
Temporary work around for the handful of Germans who sprechen keine Inglisch.
In tripling the efficiency of the not-so-good ones, did they bring them within cost parity of the better ones? If the better ones were four times as good and cost four times as much, and now these are three times as good at double the cost, then that's a significant breakthrough.
if mankind paid more attention to it we'd be so much more advanced than we are currently.
citation needed
Building a syntax for CPL seems like it would be an interesting Parrot project.