Re:So are we really using too many resources?
on
Eco-Terrorism
·
· Score: 1
That being said, here's my dilemma: If I have control over a limited resource, then I charge as much as I can for it. If my resource isn't all that limited, then I have to lower my costs in competition with others, but never below the cost of my resource
The limited resource is not the gas you pour into your tank, the limited resource is the amount of CO2 that may be released into the atmosphere before it starts to cause negative effects (given that you believe the connection between CO2 and greenhouse gas).
I could not care less if you pour gas you own into a car you own and drive wherever you want.
It's the fact that you release CO2 into the atmosphere which you do not control, which no single person or country controls, and that you do not carry the cost for the negative effects this behaviour causes other people that pisses me off.
No, the correct analogy starts with someone fooling you into giving the keys to your house,
(the article states that the FBI got passwords and accounts from sniffing the computer the hackers used in the US).
Then this law enforcement official you gave the keys to walks into your house (which is in Russia), without your permission, gets the stereo,
brings is to the US, looks at the serial number (after getting a warrant to do so) and hauls you in because he discovers that you stole it.
So what you are saying is that it is perfectly legal for people in the US to hack computers in other countries?
I am by no means an expert on US law, but i find this a tad hard to believe.
Slashdot Mirror
I could not care less if you pour gas you own into a car you own and drive wherever you want.
It's the fact that you release CO2 into the atmosphere which you do not control, which no single person or country controls, and that you do not carry the cost for the negative effects this behaviour causes other people that pisses me off.
That would be 1789 for The French Revolution. Does not change the argument, but still....
No, the correct analogy starts with someone fooling you into giving the keys to your house, (the article states that the FBI got passwords and accounts from sniffing the computer the hackers used in the US).
Then this law enforcement official you gave the keys to walks into your house (which is in Russia), without your permission, gets the stereo, brings is to the US, looks at the serial number (after getting a warrant to do so) and hauls you in because he discovers that you stole it.
So what you are saying is that it is perfectly legal for people in the US to hack computers in other countries?
I am by no means an expert on US law, but i find this a tad hard to believe.