Great, but that would still mean a 90% tax rate on marginal income above $2m; right now we are arguing about whether we can move the top marginal rate (creating a bracket for those who make over $1m,) from 35% to 36%. This would raise hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
Instead of taxing the "rich" at 90% above $2m, we could be nice to the millionaires, and go back to the rates from the late 30's; marginal rate of 79% on income over $5m; the national debt is about $15 trillion, we could pay it off in a decade or so.
My Fiance will be taking her senior level engineering classes remotely, because smaller schools don't offer all the classes larger ones do, and with the sate university system, it makes more sense for the one largest school in the state to offer the elective in biomedical engineering or even the required vibrations and controls classes than to attempt to have it taught for the 2 students a year who want to take it locally.
So there is a slightly less vague support of the argument.
You still assume that trespass, or use of equipment not belonging to you, is legal. It isn't.
Disclaimer: YANAL. Without actual permission, you don't, well, have permission. You may want to claim it's implied, but it isn't; In NY, at least, you take a risk that they don't want you there, and you are knowingly accessing the internet through their connection. (Most other states have similar laws.)
"A person is guilty of computer trespass when he or she knowingly uses, causes to be used, or accesses a computer, computer service, or computer network without authorization and:
1. he or she does so with an intent to commit or attempt to commit or further the commission of any felony; or
2. he or she thereby knowingly gains access to computer material. Computer trespass is a class E felony."
I like, however, the way that you phrased things pseudo-legally, so that it sounds as if your statements have some basis in fact.
"Since the broadcast is public and an address is assigned by the device indiscriminately it can be legally assumed that the device operator intended to do that. A device's operator assumes all liability for its configuration except where that would be outside of the design specifications of the device, wherein that liability then becomes that of the device manufacturer."
As you said, "...mostly illegal actions..." Mostly.
Or to go back to the original, "if you really need that kind of privacy..." it's nobody's responsibility to provide it. And the government can compel anyone to reveal almost anything, for almost any reason. The patriot act is kind of broad. And therefore, don't do anything that "you don't want anyone to know."
I say that right and wrong are just labels we use. Clearly the natural state of things is for people to be dead.
In many ways, this follows the quote by Stewart Brand, which I am mangling horribly:
"On the one hand [people] want to be [alive], because [life is] so valuable. [Being alive] just changes your life.(Sic) On the other hand, [people] want[] to be [dead], because the cost of [keeping them alive] is getting [high]er and [high]er all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other."
You claim that law is morality, instead of say, perhaps more accurately, that it should be based on morality. In complex systems, there are unpredictable effects, and the legal system is about as complex as systems get. Effectively, this means that most results of the legal system are reified rules of what morality might say (if it was codified badly.)
The system is broken. We can argue all day about whether this or that is moral, but it's nearly impossible to map those ideas onto what the laws say, so I would say it's not worth trying. Treat them as separate systems.
Is copying games moral? Probably not, but some people feel that I.P. cannot be owned, so assuming this, and assuming that intention of the creator is irrelevant, maybe it is. Is it legal? No.
If you don't want your car stolen, don't leave the keys in the ignition.
It's a fair comment, but leaving the keys there doesn't mean someone has permission to go joy riding, even if they put the car back. You would probably be upset even if they just were copying down the VIN from the car, which is displayed on the car window.
The difference is that the law doesn't presume that everyone has the technological expertise to secure the wireless. Especially because it is handed to them by the company, with the instructions that once everything is plugged in, it will just work - and it does. How would they know that they are letting other people know it is there? They don't understand technology, and they didn't grant their permission, so they feel that people recording what their machines is broadcasting are doing something wrong..
Oh! I think I know this one! It's the part where he says "If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
See, it's not the same words, but it expresses the same sentiment.
People supported and sheltered by the Afghani government. The Taliban funded Al-Qaeda, at least implicitly by allowing them free reign over parts of the countryside, then refused to hand over Bin Laden when we found he was responsible for the attacks. We invaded. Simple.
If I pay for something, support it, and refuse to even admit I was wrong when confronted, I should be held responsible.
Umm... while you clearly have done no research, I'll just chime in too say that donating organs is a bit different than tattooing. The bible explicitly states you can't have tattoos. (Leviticus 19:27-29) Nothing to do with "God's Image."
I can't expect you to know the bible, but RTFA, and perhaps you'd have at least some background on what you are talking about. It says exactly what the debate is.
Actually, defensive medicine and unnecessary testing are related, but distinct issues. If doctors are paid based on reimbursements, they will do more tests. Even if they are paid based on how much their hospital can afford to pay them, hospital profitability is still directly a result of how many tests they do, so doctors have an incentive to do profitable but useless tests. These tests may or may not also be because they are worried about being sued, but there is at least no disincentive to spend more of the insurance companies money.
The insurance company would need to show that a tests was medically unnecessary, and if there is ANY WAY a doctor can justify the test, he'll win the dispute, so costs go up and premiums rise. It's legal as long as the test is performed, and can conceivably catch something.
Insurance adjusters were set up after the event; because of limited capacity on the insurers part, a lack of insurance adjusters in the market, and legal limitations on waiting on claims, they had tables with people writing checks for the full value of the houses in many cases, with visual confirmation of destruction, or in some cases based purely on the location of the house in an area with massive damage. Insurance companies, in many cases, paid out more in total than they expected to ever pay out for an event. Their rates were too low to cover events of this magnitude, because they hadn't seen it happen before and didn't rely on models properly to understand worst cases losses. You may hate them because they make money, but they got killed on Katrina, almost all lost significantly more than anticipated.
Disclaimer: I work in the industry, and have spoken to adjusters and catastrophe modelers who were involved in the post-event insurance cleanup. I wasn't there, but neither were you.
Everything isn't free, and plenty of things are not high quality. Try again.
With commercial software, I know whose reputation is on the line when I buy the software. If my mom buys it at CompUSA, she can bring it back there and complain if it breaks her computer. FOSS software is an unknown quantity - even if it's generally better.
No. E2 is a wonderful atmosphere, but it doesn't allow collaboration, just discussion. The wiki-aspect of Wikipedia is they key feature. E2 is a great participation site, but the end product just isn't so useful. Wikipedia is in many ways harder to contribute to positively, but it evolves into a great end product.
Disclaimer: I love E2. I started on the site most of a decade ago, and I think it's tremendous fun. If it were less addicting, I'd probably be on there more.
And clearly the sample of stories that are told is representative of how thing go wrong in peoples lives.
The separate domains of my life shouldn't overlap. The stories are re-told because they are sensational, not because they are likely, or frequent, or representative of what people should worry about. The fact that you have things that you do not want others to know about isn't about hypocrisy, it is about privacy. Privacy allows for hypocrisy, but the fact that something is private, or even would be embarrassing, does not imply that it is wrong or hypocritical. Internal memos about client plans would be embarrassing if leaked, but there is no shame in having them. I don't want clients seeing my work life, I don't want anyone able to see what is going on with my love life (even though I am doing nothing I am in any way ashamed of,) and I don't want the wider world who I've emailed once seeing my private life at all.
That's not how insurance works at all. Were that it did. Medical insurance instead costs money every day, sick or healthy. The doctors get paid only when you are sick, and the insurance company usually can drop you from the plan if the doctors start charging too much, since they will investigate and usually find that some part is "pre-existing." Even if not, eventually you probably lose your job and cannot afford COBRA without it.
And there is liability insurance. Corporate boards all have it. It works exactly how you suggest - you pay money every day, and if you are sued, they defend, and pay themselves if they lose.
Are you a teacher? Have you discussed this with a teacher? Because you are misinformed.
Syllabi are mandated by the government, generally. They must cover state mandated subjects. Canned lesson plans are bought by the district, from for-profit corporations that have huge profit margins, and lay out hourly (or minute-by-minute) directives for the teachers.
If the teachers were being paid by the PUBLIC for the time they spend at home, at night, on weekends, and during the summer, the PUBLIC might have some claim on them. Instead, teachers are assumed to not need anything other than a teacher's guide for the textbook and a room full of students in order to teach. In fact, they don't need anything more, if all you expect is babysitting, but as with most things, preparation is key, and since the school provides significantly too little time during working hours, the teachers, in what would otherwise be their spare time, put together lesson plans for the benefit of the students, or what you might refer to as the PUBLIC.
Of course we have evidence; there are texts that people claim came from him, and stories of miracles. They may be unconvincing evidence, but that is a different argument. You may vlaim that this gives you very slight reason to believe, but that just means that pascal's wager says you should believe (multiplicities of beliefs aside.)
(The logic as developed in the judeo-christian tradition tends to reason, to some extent, from first cause about the goodness of God, which would tell us what he wants from us, to some extent at least.)
You're correct unless we want to establish off earth colonies, which needs human spacecraft. That is what most of/. wants anyways.
We lost a lot of the expertise that got us to the moon originally, and are re-discovering it now. We can't afford to keep people out of space if we think it is worth it to go eventually.
Risk aversion is a term well understood in economics, finance, and psychology. A person who is not risk averse is equally willing to bet $1 on a 50% chance of making 2 or losing everything as they are a 1% chance of winning $100. Real people, however, dislike risk more than that. If given the choice, most people would prefer a 100% chance of getting $1 to a 50% chance of getting $2. That is because they are risk averse.
In financial markets, most investors require a significant risk premium - higher returns for a given level of risk than is justified by the math. Again, we call this risk aversion.
With governments, even if the payoff is incredibly high, they prefer not to take risks, as they are conservative and very risk averse. That is the opposite of what you want in an explorer. We want explorers who are happier with a.00001% chance of winning $5,000,000 (expected value $0.50) than a 50% chance of getting $2 (expected value $1.00) - the payoff doesn't compensate them for the extra risk, but they will do it anyways because of how much the payoff means to them.
The point was once made that even though a group of philosophers might not believe in the existence of a reality separate from themselves, when they are done discussing it, they leave through the door, not the wall.
As a fellow math major, I understand your discomfort with the supposed misuse of the word proof, but what that means is that nothing is ever considered proven, at least when relating to the real world. This doesn't match the way we use the word, so we need a better definition - I might agree that gravity isn't proven, but I rely on it when figuring out how to launch a rocket, or medicine when going to the doctor. In the common sense, then, we would agree that these things are considered proven.
Slashdot Mirror
Reinforced concrete and cement buildings fall apart all the time due to hurricane force winds+storm surge.
Wood falls apart more easily, but we don't need to build to withstand european windstorms, only the (relatively infrequent) hurricanes.
Great, but that would still mean a 90% tax rate on marginal income above $2m; right now we are arguing about whether we can move the top marginal rate (creating a bracket for those who make over $1m,) from 35% to 36%. This would raise hundreds of billions of dollars a year.
Instead of taxing the "rich" at 90% above $2m, we could be nice to the millionaires, and go back to the rates from the late 30's; marginal rate of 79% on income over $5m; the national debt is about $15 trillion, we could pay it off in a decade or so.
My Fiance will be taking her senior level engineering classes remotely, because smaller schools don't offer all the classes larger ones do, and with the sate university system, it makes more sense for the one largest school in the state to offer the elective in biomedical engineering or even the required vibrations and controls classes than to attempt to have it taught for the 2 students a year who want to take it locally.
So there is a slightly less vague support of the argument.
You still assume that trespass, or use of equipment not belonging to you, is legal. It isn't.
Disclaimer: YANAL. Without actual permission, you don't, well, have permission. You may want to claim it's implied, but it isn't; In NY, at least, you take a risk that they don't want you there, and you are knowingly accessing the internet through their connection. (Most other states have similar laws.)
"A person is guilty of computer trespass when he or she knowingly uses, causes to be used, or accesses a computer, computer service, or computer network without authorization and:
1. he or she does so with an intent to commit or attempt to commit or further the commission of any felony; or
2. he or she thereby knowingly gains access to computer material. Computer trespass is a class E felony."
I like, however, the way that you phrased things pseudo-legally, so that it sounds as if your statements have some basis in fact.
"Since the broadcast is public and an address is assigned by the device indiscriminately it can be legally assumed that the device operator intended to do that. A device's operator assumes all liability for its configuration except where that would be outside of the design specifications of the device, wherein that liability then becomes that of the device manufacturer."
As you said, "...mostly illegal actions..." Mostly.
Or to go back to the original,
"if you really need that kind of privacy..." it's nobody's responsibility to provide it. And the government can compel anyone to reveal almost anything, for almost any reason. The patriot act is kind of broad. And therefore, don't do anything that "you don't want anyone to know."
I say that right and wrong are just labels we use. Clearly the natural state of things is for people to be dead.
In many ways, this follows the quote by Stewart Brand, which I am mangling horribly:
"On the one hand [people] want to be [alive], because [life is] so valuable. [Being alive] just changes your life.(Sic) On the other hand, [people] want[] to be [dead], because the cost of [keeping them alive] is getting [high]er and [high]er all the time. So you have these two fighting against each other."
You claim that law is morality, instead of say, perhaps more accurately, that it should be based on morality. In complex systems, there are unpredictable effects, and the legal system is about as complex as systems get. Effectively, this means that most results of the legal system are reified rules of what morality might say (if it was codified badly.)
The system is broken. We can argue all day about whether this or that is moral, but it's nearly impossible to map those ideas onto what the laws say, so I would say it's not worth trying. Treat them as separate systems.
Is copying games moral? Probably not, but some people feel that I.P. cannot be owned, so assuming this, and assuming that intention of the creator is irrelevant, maybe it is.
Is it legal? No.
If you don't want your car stolen, don't leave the keys in the ignition.
It's a fair comment, but leaving the keys there doesn't mean someone has permission to go joy riding, even if they put the car back. You would probably be upset even if they just were copying down the VIN from the car, which is displayed on the car window.
The difference is that the law doesn't presume that everyone has the technological expertise to secure the wireless. Especially because it is handed to them by the company, with the instructions that once everything is plugged in, it will just work - and it does. How would they know that they are letting other people know it is there? They don't understand technology, and they didn't grant their permission, so they feel that people recording what their machines is broadcasting are doing something wrong..
Oh! I think I know this one! It's the part where he says
"If you have something that you don't want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn't be doing it in the first place."
See, it's not the same words, but it expresses the same sentiment.
Did I get it right?
People supported and sheltered by the Afghani government. The Taliban funded Al-Qaeda, at least implicitly by allowing them free reign over parts of the countryside, then refused to hand over Bin Laden when we found he was responsible for the attacks. We invaded. Simple.
If I pay for something, support it, and refuse to even admit I was wrong when confronted, I should be held responsible.
Old Mcdonald had an Ebook reader, E-I-E-I-Ink
And on that Ebook reader were overpriced books, E-I-E-I-who the hell cares.
Read up a bit on the matter. If they are dead, it's actually not a problem at all. For suggested reading, we'll go with, um... the first article linked to here: http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/03/15/0042240/In-Israel-Potential-Organ-Donors-Could-Jump-the-Queue
Oh wait, I guess I could just say RTFA.
RTFA. Seriously.
Umm... while you clearly have done no research, I'll just chime in too say that donating organs is a bit different than tattooing. The bible explicitly states you can't have tattoos. (Leviticus 19:27-29) Nothing to do with "God's Image."
I can't expect you to know the bible, but RTFA, and perhaps you'd have at least some background on what you are talking about. It says exactly what the debate is.
Actually, defensive medicine and unnecessary testing are related, but distinct issues. If doctors are paid based on reimbursements, they will do more tests. Even if they are paid based on how much their hospital can afford to pay them, hospital profitability is still directly a result of how many tests they do, so doctors have an incentive to do profitable but useless tests. These tests may or may not also be because they are worried about being sued, but there is at least no disincentive to spend more of the insurance companies money.
The insurance company would need to show that a tests was medically unnecessary, and if there is ANY WAY a doctor can justify the test, he'll win the dispute, so costs go up and premiums rise. It's legal as long as the test is performed, and can conceivably catch something.
Insurance adjusters were set up after the event; because of limited capacity on the insurers part, a lack of insurance adjusters in the market, and legal limitations on waiting on claims, they had tables with people writing checks for the full value of the houses in many cases, with visual confirmation of destruction, or in some cases based purely on the location of the house in an area with massive damage. Insurance companies, in many cases, paid out more in total than they expected to ever pay out for an event. Their rates were too low to cover events of this magnitude, because they hadn't seen it happen before and didn't rely on models properly to understand worst cases losses. You may hate them because they make money, but they got killed on Katrina, almost all lost significantly more than anticipated.
Disclaimer: I work in the industry, and have spoken to adjusters and catastrophe modelers who were involved in the post-event insurance cleanup. I wasn't there, but neither were you.
Everything isn't free, and plenty of things are not high quality. Try again.
With commercial software, I know whose reputation is on the line when I buy the software. If my mom buys it at CompUSA, she can bring it back there and complain if it breaks her computer. FOSS software is an unknown quantity - even if it's generally better.
No. E2 is a wonderful atmosphere, but it doesn't allow collaboration, just discussion. The wiki-aspect of Wikipedia is they key feature. E2 is a great participation site, but the end product just isn't so useful. Wikipedia is in many ways harder to contribute to positively, but it evolves into a great end product.
Disclaimer: I love E2. I started on the site most of a decade ago, and I think it's tremendous fun. If it were less addicting, I'd probably be on there more.
And clearly the sample of stories that are told is representative of how thing go wrong in peoples lives.
The separate domains of my life shouldn't overlap. The stories are re-told because they are sensational, not because they are likely, or frequent, or representative of what people should worry about. The fact that you have things that you do not want others to know about isn't about hypocrisy, it is about privacy. Privacy allows for hypocrisy, but the fact that something is private, or even would be embarrassing, does not imply that it is wrong or hypocritical. Internal memos about client plans would be embarrassing if leaked, but there is no shame in having them. I don't want clients seeing my work life, I don't want anyone able to see what is going on with my love life (even though I am doing nothing I am in any way ashamed of,) and I don't want the wider world who I've emailed once seeing my private life at all.
That's not how insurance works at all. Were that it did. Medical insurance instead costs money every day, sick or healthy. The doctors get paid only when you are sick, and the insurance company usually can drop you from the plan if the doctors start charging too much, since they will investigate and usually find that some part is "pre-existing." Even if not, eventually you probably lose your job and cannot afford COBRA without it.
And there is liability insurance. Corporate boards all have it. It works exactly how you suggest - you pay money every day, and if you are sued, they defend, and pay themselves if they lose.
Are you a teacher? Have you discussed this with a teacher? Because you are misinformed.
Syllabi are mandated by the government, generally. They must cover state mandated subjects. Canned lesson plans are bought by the district, from for-profit corporations that have huge profit margins, and lay out hourly (or minute-by-minute) directives for the teachers.
If the teachers were being paid by the PUBLIC for the time they spend at home, at night, on weekends, and during the summer, the PUBLIC might have some claim on them. Instead, teachers are assumed to not need anything other than a teacher's guide for the textbook and a room full of students in order to teach. In fact, they don't need anything more, if all you expect is babysitting, but as with most things, preparation is key, and since the school provides significantly too little time during working hours, the teachers, in what would otherwise be their spare time, put together lesson plans for the benefit of the students, or what you might refer to as the PUBLIC.
Of course we have evidence; there are texts that people claim came from him, and stories of miracles. They may be unconvincing evidence, but that is a different argument. You may vlaim that this gives you very slight reason to believe, but that just means that pascal's wager says you should believe (multiplicities of beliefs aside.)
(The logic as developed in the judeo-christian tradition tends to reason, to some extent, from first cause about the goodness of God, which would tell us what he wants from us, to some extent at least.)
You're correct unless we want to establish off earth colonies, which needs human spacecraft. That is what most of /. wants anyways.
We lost a lot of the expertise that got us to the moon originally, and are re-discovering it now. We can't afford to keep people out of space if we think it is worth it to go eventually.
Risk aversion is a term well understood in economics, finance, and psychology. A person who is not risk averse is equally willing to bet $1 on a 50% chance of making 2 or losing everything as they are a 1% chance of winning $100. Real people, however, dislike risk more than that. If given the choice, most people would prefer a 100% chance of getting $1 to a 50% chance of getting $2. That is because they are risk averse.
In financial markets, most investors require a significant risk premium - higher returns for a given level of risk than is justified by the math. Again, we call this risk aversion.
With governments, even if the payoff is incredibly high, they prefer not to take risks, as they are conservative and very risk averse. That is the opposite of what you want in an explorer. We want explorers who are happier with a .00001% chance of winning $5,000,000 (expected value $0.50) than a 50% chance of getting $2 (expected value $1.00) - the payoff doesn't compensate them for the extra risk, but they will do it anyways because of how much the payoff means to them.
The point was once made that even though a group of philosophers might not believe in the existence of a reality separate from themselves, when they are done discussing it, they leave through the door, not the wall.
As a fellow math major, I understand your discomfort with the supposed misuse of the word proof, but what that means is that nothing is ever considered proven, at least when relating to the real world. This doesn't match the way we use the word, so we need a better definition - I might agree that gravity isn't proven, but I rely on it when figuring out how to launch a rocket, or medicine when going to the doctor. In the common sense, then, we would agree that these things are considered proven.