You need a solution that solves your problem without creating new problems.
Giving all the programmers root access meets the first test, but fails the second one.
---
I used to be a programmer. I moved to system administration because "not creating new problems" takes time for a programmer. The ones who don't care what new problems they create are "more productive".
Self-reproducing unforeseen consequences are a Very Dangerous Thing.
This is silly. Self-reproduction is normal. Consequences of anything are almost always unforseen. Is almost every living thing "Very Dangerous" then?
Glowing fish are no more or less dangerous than anything else in the world. Self-indulgent, emotional distaste for their 'impurity' doesn't change that.
What you describe is already in place for alcohol and tobacco.
There's no reason to extend the problem caused by these laws to completely new industries. Just because you're burdening innocent cashiers in one industry doesn't mean it's OK to cause trouble for store workers in every industry.
No one cares what kind of burden such a law puts on stores and their workers.
I know. That's the problem. People are eager to harm other people for their own personal gain. That's what this law and most other laws are about.
Most (all?) stores have this policy anyway. Why shouldn't it be a matter of law?
Because, as a law, it'll harm people.
Do we really need cops running kids into video game stores to try to trick the cashier into violating the laws? Do we really need 16-year old cashiers getting fined for making a mistake or failing to subtract correctly to determine an age from a birthdate?
Do we really need another example to show young people why they shouldn't have any respect for the law?
This law would be a big burden to stores and their workers. It's unnecessary. It'll have no positive effects.
Every state Attorney General who wants to be elected governor (90+% of them) routinely sues or takes other action against businesses in their state. It's how they get on the news.
Ok. But the attacks on the US were unprovoked. So all the 'not fighting terrorism' led to attacks against the US. Now you're saying that fighting terrorism leads to attacks. What's the solution then?
When the US was attacked, some response was in order. I've yet to hear anything from any of you to suggest the US response went overboard.
No one's mentioned any names. Where are Ashcroft's innocent victims?
Beyond questions of constitutionality, there's a good reason to restrict the question to citizens.
I'm a citizen. If Ashcroft is no danger to citizens, but his actions help protect us from genuine terrorists, then it would be reasonable to conclude that his actions are a net benefit to someone like me.
There seems to be a lot of non-specific malice directed towards Ashcroft, among others. It would be useful to know if there's a practical foundation for any of it, or it's simple opposition by people on other politcal and religious sides.
The whole energy conservation movement is based on people being artificially poorer.
A person would be better off using the energy. He can afford to pay for the energy. He's supposed to forgo the energy use, making him worse off -- artificially poor. He's supposed to do that so future generations have energy to use.
But the energy conservation movement has no other answers for the future generations. So the conservation movement wants people to experience this artificial deprivation forever. Their philosophy is destructive.
Similar things could be said about the anti-pollution crowd, but at least they had a real problem to solve. All the real pollution problems are largely solved now, so the activists are focused on fearmongering about non-issues and hyping unproven shadow-concerns to keep the cash contributions coming in and to wield political power. Meanwhile, they're hurting people and, again, making people artificially poor.
Slashdot Mirror
It's just selfishness. But it's universal - not just an American thing. The "un-subsidized farmers in the developing countries" are selfish too.
You need a solution that solves your problem without creating new problems.
Giving all the programmers root access meets the first test, but fails the second one.
---
I used to be a programmer. I moved to system administration because "not creating new problems" takes time for a programmer. The ones who don't care what new problems they create are "more productive".
This is silly. Self-reproduction is normal. Consequences of anything are almost always unforseen. Is almost every living thing "Very Dangerous" then?
Glowing fish are no more or less dangerous than anything else in the world. Self-indulgent, emotional distaste for their 'impurity' doesn't change that.
What do you think prisons are for?
Yes.
The real motivation is to help people protect themselves and their children.
If the parents are held responsible, the parents should have the choice.
Or maybe you just don't want your time to be at the mercy of any crackpot who can come up with a wacky conspiracy theory.
There's no reason to extend the problem caused by these laws to completely new industries. Just because you're burdening innocent cashiers in one industry doesn't mean it's OK to cause trouble for store workers in every industry.
No one cares what kind of burden such a law puts on stores and their workers.
I know. That's the problem. People are eager to harm other people for their own personal gain. That's what this law and most other laws are about.
One law doesn't justify another. They're seperate issues.
I think the laws for alcohol and tobacco should be relaxed too, but it has no bearing on this video game situation.
Most (all?) stores have this policy anyway. Why shouldn't it be a matter of law?
Because, as a law, it'll harm people.
Do we really need cops running kids into video game stores to try to trick the cashier into violating the laws? Do we really need 16-year old cashiers getting fined for making a mistake or failing to subtract correctly to determine an age from a birthdate?
Do we really need another example to show young people why they shouldn't have any respect for the law?
This law would be a big burden to stores and their workers. It's unnecessary. It'll have no positive effects.
Fewer laws, not more.
Every state Attorney General who wants to be elected governor (90+% of them) routinely sues or takes other action against businesses in their state. It's how they get on the news.
Ok. But the attacks on the US were unprovoked. So all the 'not fighting terrorism' led to attacks against the US. Now you're saying that fighting terrorism leads to attacks. What's the solution then?
When the US was attacked, some response was in order. I've yet to hear anything from any of you to suggest the US response went overboard.
No one's mentioned any names. Where are Ashcroft's innocent victims?
Beyond questions of constitutionality, there's a good reason to restrict the question to citizens.
I'm a citizen. If Ashcroft is no danger to citizens, but his actions help protect us from genuine terrorists, then it would be reasonable to conclude that his actions are a net benefit to someone like me.
There seems to be a lot of non-specific malice directed towards Ashcroft, among others. It would be useful to know if there's a practical foundation for any of it, or it's simple opposition by people on other politcal and religious sides.
What are the names of the citizens who were accused by Ashcroft of terrorism and later turned out to be innocent?
Not trolling, not rhetorical. I actually really want to know if there are any.
And that's why no one on Wall Street ever loses money in a stock transaction.
Why would anyone pay a shareware fee for a program to manage his Netflix queue? Is it so hard to just start a browser?
So releasing new competitive hardware doesn't address "they aren't competitive in terms of hardware"?
Why do we need a new media format to ship music? What's the point? You haven't needed to "ship" music for years now. It's a download.
Where have these guys been?
1. Does it get local channels?
2. Dos it work with Starband?
I hear Donovan McNabb is overrated.
No, an athlete is worth what he makes for precisely one reason:
Because, the person paying him is willing to pay that much. He's worth it to the guy writing the check, and the payer's opinion is the deciding one.
Can any of those other people get 60,000 people to pay $50 each to watch them work for 3 hours? No?
Does that explain part of the differece in pay?
You don't get paid what you "deserve". You get paid what you're worth to other people who can (and want to) pay you.
Why does EVERY story have to end with a "Is this the beginning of the end for ...?" or "Can ... survive?" or some other such nonsense?
Seriously, what's the point?
Skip the C&D letters. File suit. SCO has $50 million dollars now. I think Linux developers could put that to good use.
The whole energy conservation movement is based on people being artificially poorer.
A person would be better off using the energy. He can afford to pay for the energy. He's supposed to forgo the energy use, making him worse off -- artificially poor. He's supposed to do that so future generations have energy to use.
But the energy conservation movement has no other answers for the future generations. So the conservation movement wants people to experience this artificial deprivation forever. Their philosophy is destructive.
Similar things could be said about the anti-pollution crowd, but at least they had a real problem to solve. All the real pollution problems are largely solved now, so the activists are focused on fearmongering about non-issues and hyping unproven shadow-concerns to keep the cash contributions coming in and to wield political power. Meanwhile, they're hurting people and, again, making people artificially poor.
None of it is the least bit optimistic.