Do the cigarette companies introduce chemicals into their products that increase the addictivity of their products, in order to keep people smoking? They sure do. Do these same chemicals increase the risk of death or serious illness? That's a big yes. Are they prevented from doing even MORE to increase said addictivity, or to market their products to new customers, out of the goodness of their hearts? My money's on no.
Your reply is disingenuous and specious, and you know it.
The recipient is the person who received the transmission, be it via physical or electronic delivery. THAT was the part I was responding to; giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you might have meant "intended recipient" was mere charity on my part, since you seemed to have trouble with the concept of "recipient". No anger, I assure you.
In case you're still not clear: if an email appears in my inbox, I am the recipient. If a postcard appears in my physical mail box, I am the recipient. In both cases, regardless of the intent of the sender.
WTFety-F? How can an email be delivered to a person other than the recipient? The recipient is exactly who the email was delivered to, that's the very definition. I'll spare you further embarrassment and presume you meant 'intended recipient' - but in that case, how can the *actual* recipient know what was going through the mind of the sender, based solely on the fact that the email APPEARED IN HIS OR HER MAILBOX?
Curious (not trolling).. so if a teacher created a website with info related to their subject, and the li'l chilluns read said website, the teacher would be in violation of the law?
In most other industries and social groups, however, the rare criminal does not have access and authorization to touch random members of the public on a frequent basis.
You talk about it like there was some initial steady state - 'all men created equal' from which this greedy fucker emerged by natural means, but the reality is greedy fuckers were greedy fuckers long before big-C Capitalism existed, and thus had an unnatural head-start when said Capitalism began - they didn't just spring fully-formed into the world, they drew on centuries of My Great Great Granddaddy was a nobleman. Thus, capitalism rewards the greedy fucker who is able to enter into the system with an advantage. The collective balance of 1000 serfs is moot under such circumstances.
And you just committed the error in public. A 10m section of fence requires 11 posts, unless you ignore that pesky last metre. If this is too hard to grasp: consider a 2m long fence. You'll have a post at the beginning, one in the middle, and one at the end. Total: 3 posts, 2 spaces.
A replacement? Do you plan on removing your copy? If so, why, when it works so well for you? Or do you think TEH EVIL GOOGLEBOT will somehow reach out to your hard-drive and erase the desktop software?
But they can be explained by time. How long between when you lived in SV, and when in WA? It's entirely feasible that there were iPhone users in WA at the time you were in SV, and that there are more android users now in SV.
Despite what you might think, perception != reality. The reality is, Google does publish some of their code as open source, but that does not make them open source themselves.
You cannot arrest someone for something that hasn't happened yet.
Of course you can, and in many instances, you should. In the UK at least there used to be the concept of "going equipped" - meaning if you were carrying a crowbar and a large bag with $$ signs on it (alright, ££ signs) and there had been a spate of burglaries in the area, a cop had the right to stop and ask you if you were planning on committing a burglary. If you answered yes*, the cop had a (not unreasonable) duty to prevent said crime. Indeed, the police in the UK at one point had "crime prevention officer" listed as one of their official duties.
Now the law obviously was abused - carrying a cricket bat? if the cop didn't like your face, you were not off for a friendly at the local park but were clearly planning on committing an act of violence. Got a screwdriver on you? Must be preparing to break into a car or two on your way home from your job as an electrician. But typically such abuses were rare; the law, such as it was, fulfilled its duty of preventing crime. I hope you're not arguing that that is a bad thing, simply because you might be inconvenienced on your way to a fancy dress (costume, for you yanks) party dressed as a bank robber?
* - It's unlikely the conversation went exactly along those lines, of course;)
Defaming someone in such a way already has methods of redress in several nations - civil lawsuits being but one popular method.
How does 4chanonymous's involvement manifest itself? If there is physical harm (or the threat of it) do you think the state should NOT be involved? What about harrassment (ordering 100s of pizzas delivered) ? Again, do you think such actions should have civil redress only?
In both cases, there is harm to the injured party (the GP's wife, here), whether physical or emotional. Are you saying the state has no business protecting against such harm? Do you consider civilian laws protecting against libel and slander to be an egregious intrusion on one's right to free speech? Why not criminal laws?
Slashdot Mirror
Because if Cameron is involved it won't be a very good movie.
and slashdot ate my tag.
That's redirection, not a pipe. A pipe was used in the original cat command.
What if the domain is hotmale.com?
Who is this "most people" of which you speak?
Do the cigarette companies introduce chemicals into their products that increase the addictivity of their products, in order to keep people smoking? They sure do. Do these same chemicals increase the risk of death or serious illness? That's a big yes. Are they prevented from doing even MORE to increase said addictivity, or to market their products to new customers, out of the goodness of their hearts? My money's on no.
Your reply is disingenuous and specious, and you know it.
The recipient is the person who received the transmission, be it via physical or electronic delivery. THAT was the part I was responding to; giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you might have meant "intended recipient" was mere charity on my part, since you seemed to have trouble with the concept of "recipient". No anger, I assure you.
In case you're still not clear: if an email appears in my inbox, I am the recipient. If a postcard appears in my physical mail box, I am the recipient. In both cases, regardless of the intent of the sender.
If you really think that the only reason companies don't intentionally kill people is because of laws you are beyond hope.
One word: cigarettes.
WTFety-F? How can an email be delivered to a person other than the recipient? The recipient is exactly who the email was delivered to, that's the very definition. I'll spare you further embarrassment and presume you meant 'intended recipient' - but in that case, how can the *actual* recipient know what was going through the mind of the sender, based solely on the fact that the email APPEARED IN HIS OR HER MAILBOX?
but simply painting them as "dumb" is dismissive and disingenuous
You *really* must be new here.
Curious (not trolling).. so if a teacher created a website with info related to their subject, and the li'l chilluns read said website, the teacher would be in violation of the law?
You can't rely on silence any more in the UK as a defence against implication.
What about the intersections of 6 & 1? or 4 & 7? Or for those in Alamaba, 0 & 4?
I can iteratively solve a list trigonometry problems in 1/0th the time it takes them
So it takes you an infinite amount of time to solve the same problem?
It wasn't exactly luck; his mommy was on the same board as then-IBM director John Opel.
In most other industries and social groups, however, the rare criminal does not have access and authorization to touch random members of the public on a frequent basis.
You talk about it like there was some initial steady state - 'all men created equal' from which this greedy fucker emerged by natural means, but the reality is greedy fuckers were greedy fuckers long before big-C Capitalism existed, and thus had an unnatural head-start when said Capitalism began - they didn't just spring fully-formed into the world, they drew on centuries of My Great Great Granddaddy was a nobleman. Thus, capitalism rewards the greedy fucker who is able to enter into the system with an advantage. The collective balance of 1000 serfs is moot under such circumstances.
And you just committed the error in public. A 10m section of fence requires 11 posts, unless you ignore that pesky last metre. If this is too hard to grasp: consider a 2m long fence. You'll have a post at the beginning, one in the middle, and one at the end. Total: 3 posts, 2 spaces.
A replacement? Do you plan on removing your copy? If so, why, when it works so well for you? Or do you think TEH EVIL GOOGLEBOT will somehow reach out to your hard-drive and erase the desktop software?
But they can be explained by time. How long between when you lived in SV, and when in WA? It's entirely feasible that there were iPhone users in WA at the time you were in SV, and that there are more android users now in SV.
The real question is why our companies are running around naked.
Take another look at what I wrote there, sunshine.
Way to show your ignorance about reading comprehension.
To many Merkins, UK == Britain == England. It's an uphill struggle to edumacate them, but one I attempt daily. My cow-orkers are learning.. slowly.
Despite what you might think, perception != reality. The reality is, Google does publish some of their code as open source, but that does not make them open source themselves.
You cannot arrest someone for something that hasn't happened yet.
Of course you can, and in many instances, you should. In the UK at least there used to be the concept of "going equipped" - meaning if you were carrying a crowbar and a large bag with $$ signs on it (alright, ££ signs) and there had been a spate of burglaries in the area, a cop had the right to stop and ask you if you were planning on committing a burglary. If you answered yes*, the cop had a (not unreasonable) duty to prevent said crime. Indeed, the police in the UK at one point had "crime prevention officer" listed as one of their official duties.
;)
Now the law obviously was abused - carrying a cricket bat? if the cop didn't like your face, you were not off for a friendly at the local park but were clearly planning on committing an act of violence. Got a screwdriver on you? Must be preparing to break into a car or two on your way home from your job as an electrician. But typically such abuses were rare; the law, such as it was, fulfilled its duty of preventing crime. I hope you're not arguing that that is a bad thing, simply because you might be inconvenienced on your way to a fancy dress (costume, for you yanks) party dressed as a bank robber?
* - It's unlikely the conversation went exactly along those lines, of course
Defaming someone in such a way already has methods of redress in several nations - civil lawsuits being but one popular method.
How does 4chanonymous's involvement manifest itself? If there is physical harm (or the threat of it) do you think the state should NOT be involved? What about harrassment (ordering 100s of pizzas delivered) ? Again, do you think such actions should have civil redress only?
In both cases, there is harm to the injured party (the GP's wife, here), whether physical or emotional. Are you saying the state has no business protecting against such harm? Do you consider civilian laws protecting against libel and slander to be an egregious intrusion on one's right to free speech? Why not criminal laws?