1. bitch, whine, and moan. sink further into mediocrity
2. shut up, and make your fortune in the NEXT big new thing
apparently, the america of can do attitudes and innovation is being supplanted by loud sniveling voices of priveledge and entitlement
protectionism never works. if there exists some sort of talent outside the borders of your country that can do what you can do for less, simple economics will gravitate to that. either it will be the multinational you work for doing that, laying you off, or if that multinational is blocked from doing that due to protectionist laws, then some other company will capitalize on the cost difference, your multinational will shrink from the competition, and you will get laid off thataways. see? there is NO protection from simple economics and PROGRESS
you are not entitled to the same good job your entire life. no morality, natural law, or sense of fairness exists in which that attitude is supported
tighten your belt, shut up, move on, and make your mark somehwere else
but the future of ibm is in bangalore. and we're not even talking about retaining top and middle management in new york either. ibm's future hudson river valley presence will be a token afterglow, and we're talking on the scale of 2-3 years, not 20-30. it's a long established trend btw, its not a sudden change. ibm has been pulling up its roots from the hudson valley: kingston, poughkeepsie, fishkill, westchester county, binghampton and endicott, for decades. they'll probably keep the big "art warehouse" on 57th and madison though, that's a nice gem
furthermore, i really don't know why anyone has a problem with this. if you can get a guy to do your job for 1/5th of what you are paid in bangalore, what do you want ibm to do? if they refuse to compete on those terms, then some other company will capitalize on that talent and beat ibm at its own game, and weaken the company, and result in american layoffs thataways. protectionism never works. it just delays the inevitable
if some guy in bangalore can do your job at 1/5th your payscale, you are going to suffer for that, on eway or another, no matter what the corporate or legal or political environment. simple economics prevails. go ahead and fight that. while you are at it, fight the tides and the rising and setting of the sun. just accept reality already
nothing in this world, no natural law, no morality, says you are priveledged to keep your job unchalleneged forever. move on, get into another industry, or don't: sit and whine and complain. that's all you are good at? that's the content of your character? you think you are priveledged and entitled, apparently
we have christian creationists intepreting archeology in pseudoscientific ways, now we have meteorite preserved "proof" that mankind came from outer space. in other words, we've just handed pseudoscience to scientology originists. it's all according to xenu's plan...
that all mail to prisoners is subject to inspection?
isn't it an easy legal jump to say that cellphone traffic is subject to inspection as well? if such a law isn't already in place, forgive my ignorance in this area
of course you can block all cellphone/ mail traffic, but usually these kinds of communications are fodder for good intelligence. criminals in prison will try to conceal their communications with codes and signals, but with enough quality analysis, that's even more good intelligence: what are criminal organization's secret signals and code words?
it's always better to monitor than it is to block. give criminals a false sense of security, let secrets slip form their lips, and pounce at the right time
but we have these in new york city in the east river, and one effect of tidal turbines is they increase silting because they slow the tides, possibly requiring the city to dredge at some point
not that the pentland firth is as shallow or has as many ships as the east river, but what it does have that the east river doesn't (because we killed it) is an ecosystem. slower water speeds changes the balance of natural flora and fauna that depend upon the tides to work at a speed they have worked for eons (filtration, transport, reproductive timing, etc.)
point being: there is no such thing as truly green energy. any energy source has a negative impact on the environment in one way or another
civilization is bettered in terms of happiness, health, and financial prosperity as long as the power of social conservatives and corporate oligarchy are held in check. certainly, there is now ay to ever completely defeat these forces, and they do actually do good some good in this world. but they must be eternally pruned, for in part sof the world where their power runs unchecked, corruption and classism, intolerance and tribalism take hold
thank you for the link, the story is very interesting
but why did you adopt the rhetoric of a late night tv show presenter trying to sell us uninteresting crap?
the planet is interesting in and of itself. a dry technical description all by itself conveys the excitement of the find quite well, that's all that is needed to get us intrigued
you're not trying to sell us a shamwow, so drop the "whoa dude, ueberviolent!" act, its just mental noise we have to get past to appreciate the story
"What was done with the seed saved from the India Hemp last summer? It ought, all of it, to have been sewn again; that not only a stock of seed sufficient for my own purposes might have been raised, but to have disseminated the seed to others; as it is more valuable than the common Hemp." - George Washington in a letter to his plantation manager Indian hemp, or Cannabis indica did not have more or better fiber, but some indica strains had been bred over a long period for THC. The European C. Sativas of Washington's period had been bred exclusively for fiber. Washington also had the female plants separated from the males, which is helpful mostly for getting drug-grade flowers. So yes, there is an excellent chance that Washington used cannabis as a drug.
you seriously consider this substantative proof george washington used cannabis as a drug?
really?
look, here's the truth: washington smoked doobage.... or: washington never smoked the stuff. either way: COMPLETELY IMMATERIAL TO THE TASK AT HAND. which is, get marijuana legal now
unfortunately, there seems to be this weird quasireligious sort, like yourself, who believes this goal is achieved by proving that the american past was some sort of drug utopia, and all modern anti-drug efforts are strictly the product of some capitalist corporate conspiracy straight out of a bad hollywood movie
fucking insane
#1: the american past is chocka-block with theological fascists, puritans
#2: the modern opposition to drug use is based on fears of drug addiction, primarily. which is a 100% valid concern with any drug, but completely wrong when it comes to marijuana. you convince people who are concerned about marijuana by educating them that marijuana is DIFFERENT
but you can't educate decent folk about how marijuana is DIFFERENT when you are dealing with loud ignorant voices arguing for marijuana legalization that ALL drugs should be legal too. decent folk know thi sis bullshit, because they know something like methamphetamine should NEVER be considered in the same breadth as marijuana, no matte rhow little they know about marijuana, they at least know that drugs are DIFFERENT
so how does marijuana remain illegal forever? with nitwits who wish to confound marijuana with drugs mike methamphetmaine, cocaine, heroin: drugs which are orders of magnitude more addictive, and, if ever made legal, should in no way have ANYTHING to do with marijuana legalization
meanwhile, if you focus on the PHARAMCOLOGICAL FACTS of marijuana, marijuana will eventually be legalized out of common fucking sense, since it is barely addictive. alcohol is many times more harmful to the human body than marijuana, for one, and many times more addictive
if marijuana is not legalized, it is because of the very loud, very dumb voices who wish to conflate marijuana legalization with part of a larger "all drugs should be free dude" head in the sand bullshit mentality, or part of some bizarre fanboy historical ficiton revisionist propaganda
that's really the fucking truth
want to make marijuana legal?
1. stop conflating it with other drugs
2. stop rewriting history
if you can do neither thing, all of your rhetorical efforts serve to keep marijuana illegal by convincing anyone sane listening to you that marijuana legalization proponents are wack jobs
REALLY
focus on pharamcological facts
FORGET OTHER DRUGS
FORGET RETARDED HISTORICAL FANTASY SEQUENCES
if you can't do that?
marijuana legalization is doomed
by showing that marijuana leglization proponents are fruitcakes, rather than sane, common sense oriented folks. COMMON SENSE dictatates marijuana should be legal. so stick to common sense, and forget your ideological grudges and larger issues. because you definitely have issues
marijuana is not hemp. hemp is not marijuana. confusing them and rewriting history is not going to help get marijuana legalized today. so why are you so hellbent on rewriting history?
the point, as far i understand it, as far as i want it, as far as i think you want it, is that marijuana, today, should be legal, right?
then why do you think historical revisionism is going to help us do that?
it is propaganda and lies to to say that hemp and maijuana share the same history in the united states. they have ocmpletely different uses. confounding the two plants and creating a historical lie about founding fathers toking weed does not advance marijuana's image today. in fact, it looks kind of weird and desperate, as no one serious about their history believes it, because its bullshit
there was no libertarian marijuana utopia in the american past, ever. there were, in fact, pretty hard core puritans in the american past. the same puritanical movements that founded this country also gave birth to the temperance movement that culminated in prohibition in the 1920s. so do you still really believe anything that can be found in american history is any help to the marijuana legqalization movement today? historical truth: there's nothing in american history that suggests friendliness to marijuana. really. please understand this, and move past the bullshit revisionism attempt of yours. at best, you're a bad unconvincing propagandizer. thats not what the marijuana lebalization movement needs
marijuana is not hemp. hemp is not marijuana
please stop trying to confound the history of hemp in the united states and trying to somehow in desperation pull out some bullshit rationalization for the legalization of marijuana today from the american past
marijuana should be legal. the history of hemp does not help that cause. get it right
industrial hemp is not devoid of THC, but it's extremely dilute, and was not smoked by anyone. and even if it was smoked, there would be no effects, so dilute is THC in industrial hemp. which again points to the stupidity of american law: industrial hemp is a valuable agricultural product with many uses, including as a biofuel, which is such a hot topic in the usa right now. but no one can grow it in the usa. fucking retarded
but back on topic: sorry, but the founding fathers were not kicking back and toking on weed, they were trading in industrial fibers. the idea of smoking cannabis was alien to them, especially since the plant strain they grew had no pharmaceutical properties
it's like you are saying european americans were familiar with ostriches, just because they had chickens. both are flightless birds, but they are very different. likewise, cannabis for smoking and cannabis for rope and ship sails are just completelty different, like ostriches and chickens. familiarity with chickens means you don't know what ostriches are like. cannabis as a drug was an alien concept to the founding fathers and colonists
i am 100% for the legalization of marijuana. but we don't have to completely misinterpret or lie about history in order to justify legalization. enough solid facts about history support legalization. the idea that the founding fathers were growing marijuana is not true, and not necessary to prove marjiuana should be legal
granddaddy was a drunk in germany and ireland, and so alcohol is familiar
while marijuana was something that was first encountered as something brown-skinned people used, and therefore, exotic and scary and somehow more dangerous
the first american anti-marijuana laws were in the western states in the early 1900s, and they were explicitly pointed at mexican and mexican american behavior:
In the early 1900s, the western states developed significant tensions regarding the influx of Mexican-Americans. The revolution in Mexico in 1910 spilled over the border, with General Pershing's army clashing with bandit Pancho Villa. Later in that decade, bad feelings developed between the small farmer and the large farms that used cheaper Mexican labor. Then, the depression came and increased tensions, as jobs and welfare resources became scarce.
One of the "differences" seized upon during this time was the fact that many Mexicans smoked marijuana and had brought the plant with them, and it was through this that California apparently passed the first state marijuana law, outlawing "preparations of hemp, or loco weed."
However, one of the first state laws outlawing marijuana may have been influenced, not just by Mexicans using the drug, but, oddly enough, because of Mormons using it. Mormons who traveled to Mexico in 1910 came back to Salt Lake City with marijuana. The church's reaction to this may have contributed to the state's marijuana law. (Note: the source for this speculation is from articles by Charles Whitebread, Professor of Law at USC Law School in a paper for the Virginia Law Review, and a speech to the California Judges Association (sourced below). Mormon blogger Ardis Parshall disputes this.)
Other states quickly followed suit with marijuana prohibition laws, including Wyoming (1915), Texas (1919), Iowa (1923), Nevada (1923), Oregon (1923), Washington (1923), Arkansas (1923), and Nebraska (1927). These laws tended to be specifically targeted against the Mexican-American population.
but simply their perspective is narrower and maybe even biased."
i will say without a doubt that they are flat out wrong
the issue here is the scantily clad woman getting raped, and the clueless computer user getting hacked: are they to blame for their plight? no, they are blameless
sure, if they dressed like prudes and they surfed from a tor proxy, they wouldn't be in the plights they are in. but that offers up no lessons on the issue of repsonsibility. you can cause something, but not be responsible for something. likewise you can be responsible for something, even though you didn't cause it
for example, if i call a guy an idiot on the internet, and the guy stabbed me, i caused the guy to stab me, but the guy who stabbed me is the responsible party, not me. he committed the transgressive crime. blaming me in any capacity is morally incoherent
to believe otherwise is to not believe in personal responsibility. responsibility for a situation always falls on they who commits the gravest transgression, according to any cohesive moral code. and simply wearing skimpy clothes, or being clueless about computers, is but a minor foible compared with rape or hacking
to not understand this about morality is to not understand much about morality at all
discover a security exploit and alert everyone: should get hero's reward
discover a security exploit and uses it, to harmless effect: should get thanks for discovery, a frown, and no reward
discover a security exploit and use it to, well, exploit: throw the book at him
unfortunately, it seems that all three classes of white, gray, and black hats get the same treatment
i'm not bringing the three classes up to argue leniency for the reprobate who made the botnet, i'm bringing up the fact that this guy is an example of someone who really should get punished severely, in contrast to gray and white hats who serve society and are unfortunately treated as the same class of criminal, when they are clearly not
this guy is the contrasting example of what a gray and white hat could have done with their knowledge, but chose not to. people need to be more aware of the valuable service gray and white hats provide
i still object to the term "shadow" anything, mainly because of the immediate gut negative reaction, that the post you were responding to alludes to. i listen to the bbc alot, and i constantly hear the term "shadow" used in terms of opposition politics, and i always scratch my head over the term
in the usa, there is no pro-abortion movement, there is a "pro-choice" movement
in the usa, there is no anti-abortion movement, there is a "pro-life" movement
there aren't even used cars anymore. they are all "certified pre-owned"
the whole point is, people have negative gut reactions to certain words, and so, such words are avoided for public relations reasons. in fact, governments and poliicians are usually most sensitive to this phenomenon, and are very antagonistic to angry or creepy sounding phrases and words and negative connotations, and the first to propose alternative phraseology with a very vague touchy feeling positivism about it
so it feels very weird to me to hear anyone in politics or government referred to as "shadow" anything without protesting and using an alternative term. i would, in fact, bet on seeing a slow scaling down and fading away of the term "shadow" anything in respect to government terminology. i mean heck, why not call him "sith lord"?
creepy and vague terminology is not a winner in political contexts. call him the "alternative minister" or the "new way minister", but not the "shadow minister"
it won't get you to 100 years, but assuming you pack away 4, and 2 die in the first 30 years, it will get you past 50 years at least
and, with hard work, and assuming nonoverlap in what part failed, you could cannibale parts to get at least one still working for a very long time
besides, even if they completely stop making capacitors, past 150 years, and all the caps fail, a capacitor isn't exactly a difficult component to troubleshoot, understand, or even make
at 150 years, there would be enough interest in building a new capacitor, and enough interest form antique historians to invest in the time to understand and trouble shoot the pc to keep the thing running
and at 200 years, it would probably even be worth a pretty penny
about the 9/11 perpetrators running around the tribal areas of pakistan, and pakistan's inability to control the area or find the perps
or i suppose looking bad to other countries is a crime only the usa can be guilty of
the desire to see al qaeda assholes in pakistan's hinterlands punished is universal: liberal americans, conservative americans, radicals of all flavors
so remind me again about what the justified hunt for al qaeda has to with electing "liars" please?
Slashdot Mirror
as free trade during a WAR?
what a thunderbolt of insight
the usa's rise to prominence wasn't due to innovation, hard work, good laws, corruption opposition, the promise of liberty, immigration... etc., etc.
no, it was due to protectionism
got it
is slashdot now a bastion of protectionism?
here are your choices:
1. bitch, whine, and moan. sink further into mediocrity
2. shut up, and make your fortune in the NEXT big new thing
apparently, the america of can do attitudes and innovation is being supplanted by loud sniveling voices of priveledge and entitlement
protectionism never works. if there exists some sort of talent outside the borders of your country that can do what you can do for less, simple economics will gravitate to that. either it will be the multinational you work for doing that, laying you off, or if that multinational is blocked from doing that due to protectionist laws, then some other company will capitalize on the cost difference, your multinational will shrink from the competition, and you will get laid off thataways. see? there is NO protection from simple economics and PROGRESS
you are not entitled to the same good job your entire life. no morality, natural law, or sense of fairness exists in which that attitude is supported
tighten your belt, shut up, move on, and make your mark somehwere else
really
but the future of ibm is in bangalore. and we're not even talking about retaining top and middle management in new york either. ibm's future hudson river valley presence will be a token afterglow, and we're talking on the scale of 2-3 years, not 20-30. it's a long established trend btw, its not a sudden change. ibm has been pulling up its roots from the hudson valley: kingston, poughkeepsie, fishkill, westchester county, binghampton and endicott, for decades. they'll probably keep the big "art warehouse" on 57th and madison though, that's a nice gem
furthermore, i really don't know why anyone has a problem with this. if you can get a guy to do your job for 1/5th of what you are paid in bangalore, what do you want ibm to do? if they refuse to compete on those terms, then some other company will capitalize on that talent and beat ibm at its own game, and weaken the company, and result in american layoffs thataways. protectionism never works. it just delays the inevitable
if some guy in bangalore can do your job at 1/5th your payscale, you are going to suffer for that, on eway or another, no matter what the corporate or legal or political environment. simple economics prevails. go ahead and fight that. while you are at it, fight the tides and the rising and setting of the sun. just accept reality already
nothing in this world, no natural law, no morality, says you are priveledged to keep your job unchalleneged forever. move on, get into another industry, or don't: sit and whine and complain. that's all you are good at? that's the content of your character? you think you are priveledged and entitled, apparently
we have christian creationists intepreting archeology in pseudoscientific ways, now we have meteorite preserved "proof" that mankind came from outer space. in other words, we've just handed pseudoscience to scientology originists. it's all according to xenu's plan...
that all mail to prisoners is subject to inspection?
isn't it an easy legal jump to say that cellphone traffic is subject to inspection as well? if such a law isn't already in place, forgive my ignorance in this area
of course you can block all cellphone/ mail traffic, but usually these kinds of communications are fodder for good intelligence. criminals in prison will try to conceal their communications with codes and signals, but with enough quality analysis, that's even more good intelligence: what are criminal organization's secret signals and code words?
it's always better to monitor than it is to block. give criminals a false sense of security, let secrets slip form their lips, and pounce at the right time
In London, polonium 210 gets Soviet Russian.
(said without a trace of humor... but i tried)
you're getting a polonium 210!
but we have these in new york city in the east river, and one effect of tidal turbines is they increase silting because they slow the tides, possibly requiring the city to dredge at some point
not that the pentland firth is as shallow or has as many ships as the east river, but what it does have that the east river doesn't (because we killed it) is an ecosystem. slower water speeds changes the balance of natural flora and fauna that depend upon the tides to work at a speed they have worked for eons (filtration, transport, reproductive timing, etc.)
point being: there is no such thing as truly green energy. any energy source has a negative impact on the environment in one way or another
there is no such thing as a free lunch
1. socially conservative politics
2. intellectual property laws
civilization is bettered in terms of happiness, health, and financial prosperity as long as the power of social conservatives and corporate oligarchy are held in check. certainly, there is now ay to ever completely defeat these forces, and they do actually do good some good in this world. but they must be eternally pruned, for in part sof the world where their power runs unchecked, corruption and classism, intolerance and tribalism take hold
it's not a worm or a virus
its something more than a trojan
logic bomb?
thank you for the link, the story is very interesting
but why did you adopt the rhetoric of a late night tv show presenter trying to sell us uninteresting crap?
the planet is interesting in and of itself. a dry technical description all by itself conveys the excitement of the find quite well, that's all that is needed to get us intrigued
you're not trying to sell us a shamwow, so drop the "whoa dude, ueberviolent!" act, its just mental noise we have to get past to appreciate the story
you seriously consider this substantative proof george washington used cannabis as a drug?
really?
look, here's the truth: washington smoked doobage.... or: washington never smoked the stuff. either way: COMPLETELY IMMATERIAL TO THE TASK AT HAND. which is, get marijuana legal now
unfortunately, there seems to be this weird quasireligious sort, like yourself, who believes this goal is achieved by proving that the american past was some sort of drug utopia, and all modern anti-drug efforts are strictly the product of some capitalist corporate conspiracy straight out of a bad hollywood movie
fucking insane
#1: the american past is chocka-block with theological fascists, puritans
#2: the modern opposition to drug use is based on fears of drug addiction, primarily. which is a 100% valid concern with any drug, but completely wrong when it comes to marijuana. you convince people who are concerned about marijuana by educating them that marijuana is DIFFERENT
but you can't educate decent folk about how marijuana is DIFFERENT when you are dealing with loud ignorant voices arguing for marijuana legalization that ALL drugs should be legal too. decent folk know thi sis bullshit, because they know something like methamphetamine should NEVER be considered in the same breadth as marijuana, no matte rhow little they know about marijuana, they at least know that drugs are DIFFERENT
so how does marijuana remain illegal forever? with nitwits who wish to confound marijuana with drugs mike methamphetmaine, cocaine, heroin: drugs which are orders of magnitude more addictive, and, if ever made legal, should in no way have ANYTHING to do with marijuana legalization
meanwhile, if you focus on the PHARAMCOLOGICAL FACTS of marijuana, marijuana will eventually be legalized out of common fucking sense, since it is barely addictive. alcohol is many times more harmful to the human body than marijuana, for one, and many times more addictive
if marijuana is not legalized, it is because of the very loud, very dumb voices who wish to conflate marijuana legalization with part of a larger "all drugs should be free dude" head in the sand bullshit mentality, or part of some bizarre fanboy historical ficiton revisionist propaganda
that's really the fucking truth
want to make marijuana legal?
1. stop conflating it with other drugs
2. stop rewriting history
if you can do neither thing, all of your rhetorical efforts serve to keep marijuana illegal by convincing anyone sane listening to you that marijuana legalization proponents are wack jobs
REALLY
focus on pharamcological facts
FORGET OTHER DRUGS
FORGET RETARDED HISTORICAL FANTASY SEQUENCES
if you can't do that?
marijuana legalization is doomed
by showing that marijuana leglization proponents are fruitcakes, rather than sane, common sense oriented folks. COMMON SENSE dictatates marijuana should be legal. so stick to common sense, and forget your ideological grudges and larger issues. because you definitely have issues
marijuana is not hemp. hemp is not marijuana. confusing them and rewriting history is not going to help get marijuana legalized today. so why are you so hellbent on rewriting history?
the point, as far i understand it, as far as i want it, as far as i think you want it, is that marijuana, today, should be legal, right?
then why do you think historical revisionism is going to help us do that?
it is propaganda and lies to to say that hemp and maijuana share the same history in the united states. they have ocmpletely different uses. confounding the two plants and creating a historical lie about founding fathers toking weed does not advance marijuana's image today. in fact, it looks kind of weird and desperate, as no one serious about their history believes it, because its bullshit
there was no libertarian marijuana utopia in the american past, ever. there were, in fact, pretty hard core puritans in the american past. the same puritanical movements that founded this country also gave birth to the temperance movement that culminated in prohibition in the 1920s. so do you still really believe anything that can be found in american history is any help to the marijuana legqalization movement today? historical truth: there's nothing in american history that suggests friendliness to marijuana. really. please understand this, and move past the bullshit revisionism attempt of yours. at best, you're a bad unconvincing propagandizer. thats not what the marijuana lebalization movement needs
marijuana is not hemp. hemp is not marijuana
please stop trying to confound the history of hemp in the united states and trying to somehow in desperation pull out some bullshit rationalization for the legalization of marijuana today from the american past
marijuana should be legal. the history of hemp does not help that cause. get it right
industrial hemp is not devoid of THC, but it's extremely dilute, and was not smoked by anyone. and even if it was smoked, there would be no effects, so dilute is THC in industrial hemp. which again points to the stupidity of american law: industrial hemp is a valuable agricultural product with many uses, including as a biofuel, which is such a hot topic in the usa right now. but no one can grow it in the usa. fucking retarded
but back on topic: sorry, but the founding fathers were not kicking back and toking on weed, they were trading in industrial fibers. the idea of smoking cannabis was alien to them, especially since the plant strain they grew had no pharmaceutical properties
it's like you are saying european americans were familiar with ostriches, just because they had chickens. both are flightless birds, but they are very different. likewise, cannabis for smoking and cannabis for rope and ship sails are just completelty different, like ostriches and chickens. familiarity with chickens means you don't know what ostriches are like. cannabis as a drug was an alien concept to the founding fathers and colonists
i am 100% for the legalization of marijuana. but we don't have to completely misinterpret or lie about history in order to justify legalization. enough solid facts about history support legalization. the idea that the founding fathers were growing marijuana is not true, and not necessary to prove marjiuana should be legal
granddaddy was a drunk in germany and ireland, and so alcohol is familiar
while marijuana was something that was first encountered as something brown-skinned people used, and therefore, exotic and scary and somehow more dangerous
the first american anti-marijuana laws were in the western states in the early 1900s, and they were explicitly pointed at mexican and mexican american behavior:
http://blogs.salon.com/0002762/stories/2003/12/22/whyIsMarijuanaIllegal.html
wait, what?
you've never heard of a blade server?
but simply their perspective is narrower and maybe even biased."
i will say without a doubt that they are flat out wrong
the issue here is the scantily clad woman getting raped, and the clueless computer user getting hacked: are they to blame for their plight? no, they are blameless
sure, if they dressed like prudes and they surfed from a tor proxy, they wouldn't be in the plights they are in. but that offers up no lessons on the issue of repsonsibility. you can cause something, but not be responsible for something. likewise you can be responsible for something, even though you didn't cause it
for example, if i call a guy an idiot on the internet, and the guy stabbed me, i caused the guy to stab me, but the guy who stabbed me is the responsible party, not me. he committed the transgressive crime. blaming me in any capacity is morally incoherent
to believe otherwise is to not believe in personal responsibility. responsibility for a situation always falls on they who commits the gravest transgression, according to any cohesive moral code. and simply wearing skimpy clothes, or being clueless about computers, is but a minor foible compared with rape or hacking
to not understand this about morality is to not understand much about morality at all
discover a security exploit and alert everyone: should get hero's reward
discover a security exploit and uses it, to harmless effect: should get thanks for discovery, a frown, and no reward
discover a security exploit and use it to, well, exploit: throw the book at him
unfortunately, it seems that all three classes of white, gray, and black hats get the same treatment
i'm not bringing the three classes up to argue leniency for the reprobate who made the botnet, i'm bringing up the fact that this guy is an example of someone who really should get punished severely, in contrast to gray and white hats who serve society and are unfortunately treated as the same class of criminal, when they are clearly not
this guy is the contrasting example of what a gray and white hat could have done with their knowledge, but chose not to. people need to be more aware of the valuable service gray and white hats provide
being as their mascot, and their mascot's philosophy, just left the white house
i still object to the term "shadow" anything, mainly because of the immediate gut negative reaction, that the post you were responding to alludes to. i listen to the bbc alot, and i constantly hear the term "shadow" used in terms of opposition politics, and i always scratch my head over the term
in the usa, there is no pro-abortion movement, there is a "pro-choice" movement
in the usa, there is no anti-abortion movement, there is a "pro-life" movement
there aren't even used cars anymore. they are all "certified pre-owned"
the whole point is, people have negative gut reactions to certain words, and so, such words are avoided for public relations reasons. in fact, governments and poliicians are usually most sensitive to this phenomenon, and are very antagonistic to angry or creepy sounding phrases and words and negative connotations, and the first to propose alternative phraseology with a very vague touchy feeling positivism about it
so it feels very weird to me to hear anyone in politics or government referred to as "shadow" anything without protesting and using an alternative term. i would, in fact, bet on seeing a slow scaling down and fading away of the term "shadow" anything in respect to government terminology. i mean heck, why not call him "sith lord"?
creepy and vague terminology is not a winner in political contexts. call him the "alternative minister" or the "new way minister", but not the "shadow minister"
pornographic fetishware rejoiced
a few extra motherboards, most necessarily
it won't get you to 100 years, but assuming you pack away 4, and 2 die in the first 30 years, it will get you past 50 years at least
and, with hard work, and assuming nonoverlap in what part failed, you could cannibale parts to get at least one still working for a very long time
besides, even if they completely stop making capacitors, past 150 years, and all the caps fail, a capacitor isn't exactly a difficult component to troubleshoot, understand, or even make
at 150 years, there would be enough interest in building a new capacitor, and enough interest form antique historians to invest in the time to understand and trouble shoot the pc to keep the thing running
and at 200 years, it would probably even be worth a pretty penny
about the 9/11 perpetrators running around the tribal areas of pakistan, and pakistan's inability to control the area or find the perps
or i suppose looking bad to other countries is a crime only the usa can be guilty of
the desire to see al qaeda assholes in pakistan's hinterlands punished is universal: liberal americans, conservative americans, radicals of all flavors
so remind me again about what the justified hunt for al qaeda has to with electing "liars" please?