That's why your comparison doesn't make any sense. Drugs are a demand driven problem; attacking supply centers simply leads to more supply popping up. Spam is a supply driven problem; attacking supply centers leads to less spam.
If you really think that ISPs will continue to operate with gray customers, I guess you might think this is wack-a-mole, but ISPs have plenty of legitimate business and will have no problem ceasing doing business with spammers. This ISP didn't do that and learned a hard lesson. They were not a good-actor here.
Strategic assessment X says that a technical advantage of Q is necessary for national security. The information disclosed lowers the current technical advantage below that threshold, triggering spending, which is essentially harm.
Since you say 'you', I'll take your comment personally. I was a lot more curious about the 'all the water' part of the comment that I replied to than I was about the 'urine' part.
Having swum in a public pool, I have almost certainly drunk urine. The interesting questions are how often I don't drink urine, and how much of the water (any?) that I drink has never been urine.
The oceans are about 10^21 kg of water. Global biomass is something like 10^14 kg. That's quite a few zeros to account for with time and mixing (which doesn't in any way imply that a significant amount of water has not been urine, but the interesting thing is what that amount actually is).
For what value of probably? There are the Oceans, which are rather poorly described as 'big', competing with time, which is poorly described as 'long'. Throw in a few trillion chemical reactions and things get interesting.
My point is that people talk about 'principles' to take the high ground, which is bullshit when you don't mean it, and people don't mean it an awful lot of the time. You criticize what I am saying for making it so that almost any principle that someone would hold too will end up being weak; as this is my point, I'm happy to accept your criticism (and am highly skeptical of people when they speak about acting on principle, as in my limited experience, it is rarely the case).
In the end, I'm pretty sure the world would be a nicer place to live if people spent less time holding other people to their preferences.
Only if you take the view that the sacrifices will eventually be necessary.
History doesn't seem to have much patience for extremism. It pops up over and over, but it doesn't persist. So acting to prevent an extreme from arising might be worth it, but basing that action on the assumption that the extreme will persist probably isn't (That is, none of the nightmare scenarios that ideologues use for persuasion would actually be permanent states; they would simply be uncomfortable periods).
Slashdot Mirror
That's why your comparison doesn't make any sense. Drugs are a demand driven problem; attacking supply centers simply leads to more supply popping up. Spam is a supply driven problem; attacking supply centers leads to less spam.
If you really think that ISPs will continue to operate with gray customers, I guess you might think this is wack-a-mole, but ISPs have plenty of legitimate business and will have no problem ceasing doing business with spammers. This ISP didn't do that and learned a hard lesson. They were not a good-actor here.
People want drugs.
No one wants spam.
Your comparison of the two doesn't make any sense.
It's your fault for naming the cat HAMMER.
I deal in context.
It's their friends/peers. They push the gender roles onto each other, they don't need the help of parents.
Insightful? Parenting advice that includes giving a 1 year old a hammer?
Oh please. If the mafia came after you for file sharing, you would be begging for lawyers and political hijinks.
Strategic assessment X says that a technical advantage of Q is necessary for national security. The information disclosed lowers the current technical advantage below that threshold, triggering spending, which is essentially harm.
It's easy enough to construe the loss of a technological advantage as a serious injury.
Hex editor? Really? Why use a hammer when you can use a buzz saw:
http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/
To positively exclude someone, yes. To better focus your investigative resources, no.
Style.
Is 'more potable' similar to 'less dead'?
Nothing over 10,000 is anywhere near low. By the process of elimination, they must all be high.
Since you say 'you', I'll take your comment personally. I was a lot more curious about the 'all the water' part of the comment that I replied to than I was about the 'urine' part.
Having swum in a public pool, I have almost certainly drunk urine. The interesting questions are how often I don't drink urine, and how much of the water (any?) that I drink has never been urine.
The oceans are about 10^21 kg of water. Global biomass is something like 10^14 kg. That's quite a few zeros to account for with time and mixing (which doesn't in any way imply that a significant amount of water has not been urine, but the interesting thing is what that amount actually is).
People are too far from their food. If people are upset over urine, what would they think of all of the solid waste that ends up as fertilizer?
For what value of probably? There are the Oceans, which are rather poorly described as 'big', competing with time, which is poorly described as 'long'. Throw in a few trillion chemical reactions and things get interesting.
People say that the world is coming to a T. I think it is coming to an O. Or maybe an F.
My point is that people talk about 'principles' to take the high ground, which is bullshit when you don't mean it, and people don't mean it an awful lot of the time. You criticize what I am saying for making it so that almost any principle that someone would hold too will end up being weak; as this is my point, I'm happy to accept your criticism (and am highly skeptical of people when they speak about acting on principle, as in my limited experience, it is rarely the case).
In the end, I'm pretty sure the world would be a nicer place to live if people spent less time holding other people to their preferences.
If you don't remember it, can you really claim it as an identity?
Pseudonym or nickname seems more appropriate than identity in that case.
The key word there is contrived.
The earth will never be destroyed because an individual chooses not to eat meat, or whatever (personally, I enjoy the tasty flesh of many animals).
I look forward to Bruce Willis running over the bad guys with his wheel chair.
"Principles" that you are willing to violate are simply preferences.
Only if you take the view that the sacrifices will eventually be necessary.
History doesn't seem to have much patience for extremism. It pops up over and over, but it doesn't persist. So acting to prevent an extreme from arising might be worth it, but basing that action on the assumption that the extreme will persist probably isn't (That is, none of the nightmare scenarios that ideologues use for persuasion would actually be permanent states; they would simply be uncomfortable periods).
Are you really knowledgeable about the laws in India, or are you armchair lawyering?