Even if the 121 years would be unlikely they would still be possible with it is an absurd on its own, and it is reasonable to infer from his choice that a much greater sentence than 10 years was likely enough for him to accept the agreement and take 10 years.
I do agree that 10 years is already too much for the offence, but it is even worse. He pleaded guilty to get only 10 years. He could face 121 years. THAT is absurd.
Seriously. The guy did deserve to go to jail, but 121 years?!!! And he pleaded guilty to get "just" 10 years? It is no surprise U.S. prisons are full and U.S. has the highest number of prisoners per capita in the World...
The fact that he considers stupidity not to worry about money does not mean it is his only and most important priority in life. He said nothing about his priorities, just that he thinks it is smart to incorporate in order to gain the growing benefits corporations have compared to us normal people, which is sad, but true.
Regarding Perelman, even though he refused opportunities to gain a lot of money to keep with his principles, you may rest assured that he at the very least still worries about earning the money to buy his next meal.
You are obviously not a programmer neither an engineer (at least not one that have worked with anything significant). As I said it is impossible. Live with it.
Nah! You are just being more erratic, inconsistent and incoherent with each message, but as I said previously, if you look for professional help you can at least improve a bit.
Medicine and technology developed more in the short period of Capitalism than in all the time before it. They also developed far more in Capitalist countries than in countries with other economic systems. Nothing moves more human beings than greed. I suggest the video bellow. It is quite illustrative:
You, my friend, seems to be the one with a wounded ego here. To keep arguing in a discussion which, in your opinion, lacks any argument. I suggest you look for professional help. With some therapy you can at least leave behind some of your self-hatred.
Because blocking the bits is simply not possible and not worth the collateral effects. The laws in place are already sufficient to deal with the problem if they are correctly applied. We don't need to break the internet to help you to fool yourself and make you feel a bit safer.
Spare me of your prejudices. Most of your "broken logic" that is pervasive in the literature, is more likely than not people telling things that, albeit true, are not what you want to hear. But by all means, keep pretending to yourself that you know better and see where it takes you.
No it is not. There are plenty of medical treatments that cost enough today through a person's life to compare with the full education of a hundred people. And no society does not have the resources to give high quality medical care, high quality education, food, safety, structure and everything else needed without compromising. With the exception of the few places that have very high resources and very low populations that is simply not true. Even Sweden, which is the textbook example of this exception had to cut their traditional model of social security and turn it into the model used by private securities because it was collapsing.
You are confusing Economy, a science, with Capitalism, an economic system. Even so Capitalism is far from be wasteful and even though it is far from perfect still the best economic system devised by mankind. It more than doubled the lifespan of humans, and greatly improved the quality of life of the average people. Unfortunately it has been distorted more and more into crony capitalism, in the last decades, due to the extreme economic power corporations gathered, but that is another discussion, and has nothing to do with the silly idea that "burning hydrocarbons" instead of using them exclusively for synthesis is a bad thing.
No they cannot. Nobody can know what a person who died could do, but when the cost to keep everyone alive no matter how much effort and resources need to be spent for that escalates to something that can't be sustained this becomes an irrelevant point.
Sure in the future we may be able to ban all diseases, then again we may not, but now there is so much we can do as a society and we need to weight the efforts needed, the resources compromised by these efforts and what will be left unattended as consequence.
If you have to neglect the education of 100 people to treat a very expensive disability of a single one for life what will you choose? These are the kind of hard choices that are necessary when the resources are not infinite.
So what? For each Stephen Hawking, who, despite his considerable disabilities, is able to give more to society than he takes, there are thousands of other who aren't. Nobody is saying that we would like to see them unattended, but at some point it may be necessary for society to severely limit the resources that are directed towards it.
Nope. Economy is a tool we invented to understand and control how limited resources are used. The resources, being limited, will exhaust themselves even if you refuse to learn Economy or believe in it.
The concentration of money and power in the older generations, the high instability and low availability of jobs that require lower training times, and the diminishing salaries even for high training jobs, created increasingly more and more NEETs in the newer generations in Japan and a reduced interest in careers and consequently a reduced interest in forming families and having children.
There are certainly a lot of motives for Japan's current situation, but the automation of almost all short training jobs is certainly one of them.
Slashdot Mirror
Even if the 121 years would be unlikely they would still be possible with it is an absurd on its own, and it is reasonable to infer from his choice that a much greater sentence than 10 years was likely enough for him to accept the agreement and take 10 years.
I do agree that 10 years is already too much for the offence, but it is even worse. He pleaded guilty to get only 10 years. He could face 121 years. THAT is absurd.
Seriously. The guy did deserve to go to jail, but 121 years?!!! And he pleaded guilty to get "just" 10 years? It is no surprise U.S. prisons are full and U.S. has the highest number of prisoners per capita in the World...
The fact that he considers stupidity not to worry about money does not mean it is his only and most important priority in life. He said nothing about his priorities, just that he thinks it is smart to incorporate in order to gain the growing benefits corporations have compared to us normal people, which is sad, but true.
Regarding Perelman, even though he refused opportunities to gain a lot of money to keep with his principles, you may rest assured that he at the very least still worries about earning the money to buy his next meal.
You need some classes in Logic 101, my friend. He implied that to be smart you need to think about money, not that you need to think only about money.
There is no "too"here, corporations are the only people.
Or when processing a "maliciously crafted font".
You are obviously not a programmer neither an engineer (at least not one that have worked with anything significant). As I said it is impossible. Live with it.
Nothing can be "fully tested". Things like this happens to any developer and are unavoidable as the code complexity increases.
What is the responsibility of the developer is to fix a security hole such as this as quickly as possible once detected.
Nah! You are just being more erratic, inconsistent and incoherent with each message, but as I said previously, if you look for professional help you can at least improve a bit.
Not necessarily, but more often than not, where there is strong correlation there is causation.
Medicine and technology developed more in the short period of Capitalism than in all the time before it. They also developed far more in Capitalist countries than in countries with other economic systems. Nothing moves more human beings than greed. I suggest the video bellow. It is quite illustrative:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo
You, my friend, seems to be the one with a wounded ego here. To keep arguing in a discussion which, in your opinion, lacks any argument. I suggest you look for professional help. With some therapy you can at least leave behind some of your self-hatred.
You have present only paranoia and self-denial, which can be considered arguments, albeit feebly.
I am all but that, but you on the other hand seems to be at the end of your almost non existent arguments.
Because blocking the bits is simply not possible and not worth the collateral effects. The laws in place are already sufficient to deal with the problem if they are correctly applied. We don't need to break the internet to help you to fool yourself and make you feel a bit safer.
Spare me of your prejudices. Most of your "broken logic" that is pervasive in the literature, is more likely than not people telling things that, albeit true, are not what you want to hear. But by all means, keep pretending to yourself that you know better and see where it takes you.
No it is not. There are plenty of medical treatments that cost enough today through a person's life to compare with the full education of a hundred people. And no society does not have the resources to give high quality medical care, high quality education, food, safety, structure and everything else needed without compromising. With the exception of the few places that have very high resources and very low populations that is simply not true. Even Sweden, which is the textbook example of this exception had to cut their traditional model of social security and turn it into the model used by private securities because it was collapsing.
You are confusing Economy, a science, with Capitalism, an economic system. Even so Capitalism is far from be wasteful and even though it is far from perfect still the best economic system devised by mankind. It more than doubled the lifespan of humans, and greatly improved the quality of life of the average people. Unfortunately it has been distorted more and more into crony capitalism, in the last decades, due to the extreme economic power corporations gathered, but that is another discussion, and has nothing to do with the silly idea that "burning hydrocarbons" instead of using them exclusively for synthesis is a bad thing.
Abuses are not as rampant as you may think. If everything you see is nonsense, you should question if maybe the nonsensical is you.
No they cannot. Nobody can know what a person who died could do, but when the cost to keep everyone alive no matter how much effort and resources need to be spent for that escalates to something that can't be sustained this becomes an irrelevant point.
Sure in the future we may be able to ban all diseases, then again we may not, but now there is so much we can do as a society and we need to weight the efforts needed, the resources compromised by these efforts and what will be left unattended as consequence.
If you have to neglect the education of 100 people to treat a very expensive disability of a single one for life what will you choose? These are the kind of hard choices that are necessary when the resources are not infinite.
Do not blame the ignorant or malicious misuse of a subject to the subject itself.
So what? For each Stephen Hawking, who, despite his considerable disabilities, is able to give more to society than he takes, there are thousands of other who aren't. Nobody is saying that we would like to see them unattended, but at some point it may be necessary for society to severely limit the resources that are directed towards it.
Nope. Economy is a tool we invented to understand and control how limited resources are used. The resources, being limited, will exhaust themselves even if you refuse to learn Economy or believe in it.
The concentration of money and power in the older generations, the high instability and low availability of jobs that require lower training times, and the diminishing salaries even for high training jobs, created increasingly more and more NEETs in the newer generations in Japan and a reduced interest in careers and consequently a reduced interest in forming families and having children.
There are certainly a lot of motives for Japan's current situation, but the automation of almost all short training jobs is certainly one of them.