Right, killing someone is wrong regardless of your age or blood alcohol level. Drinking is not.
using a fake ID as you described might be considered fraudulent
I'm talking about right and wrong, not legal distinctions. My entire point is that the law can take things that are right and call them "wrong." That doesn't make it so, though. It just means a bunch of popularity contest winners have the power to force their opinions and wishes on the rest of us.
Forged ID is victimless - fraud is not. If I create a fake ID saying I am old enough to drink alcohol and use it that way, that's a victimless crime. If I create a fake ID and use it to spend money out of your bank account, you are the victim.
If they are appointed by the government, they are insiders, plain and simple. There is no way that government can magically achieve non-bias against itself. There are elections and appointments (and other options like hereditary titles in some nations), but they are all in some way influenced by the government. An independent man, appointed to a panel by the government, is by definition no longer "independent."
Makes me wonder if there'll ever be a Star Trek-esque Utopia...
Forget that - I watched a DS9 a couple nights ago that pushed the idea that somebody was morally wrong for having used somebody else's idea without permission. My idea of utopia is we would be free of such wrong ideas.
Really? Java is still the #1 language and will remain so for a long time to come. The toddlers will use the supposed hip languages all they want meanwhile most other devs are just using Java and solving real problems.
I used to say something like that about Perl, and now I'm a Java developer.
Boycott isn't a market-based solution in this case, because there is no free market in airline travel. Yes you can charter a private airline - but nobody can create a competing service on the scale of the existing airlines that is not subject to TSA regulation.
My question is why we would have Manning in prison anyway. If Manning were free, he/she could decide on his/her own decisions about treatment, and not at the expense of the rest of us!
Many of these desperate dying people have been committed to having themselves cryonically preserved since the 1960's and have spent all their lives preparing for this moment. Two I can name in particular are Robert Ettinger and Fred Chamberlain. I might also mention Mike Darwin, who is still breathing and has been active in cryonics for his entire adult life (and before). Many of these people risked jailtime and other punishments to protect others who had already been preserved. So it's not all a scam for uninformed people.
It took something like eight years to get the yoghurt article renamed to yogurt. Tons of people wanted to do it, but some guy owned the article, so it couldn't be done.
Are we seriously so opposed to broccoli and other vegetables much loathed as children that we're going to eat bugs instead?
No, I'm going to have a hamburger or a steak. I have no idea why "UN says people should eat bugs to have less impact on the environment" would lead to anybody actually eating bugs.
It's even weirder from my perspective. Back in the Bush years, I was an idiot Bush-worshipper. Now I'm firmly on your side on all of the above issues, but of course there isn't any traction to do anything about them.
I spent all day Thursday troubleshooting one of our all-Mac customers with six other people in the room, all shouting different ideas. Only at the end of the day did we discover the news. I was really shocked Slashdot hadn't reported it.
I went home and had nightmares about installing and reinstalling Java on Mac.
I don't want my money wasted on this. People will figure this out for themselves. Or they won't. I won't care either way. I would think all the intelligent scientists at NASA would realize that curing superstition in four short days is an extremely unlikely proposition.
But if government doesn't create laws like this, then the alternative is that big business sets defacto policies for us, because they hold all the cards
The problem is the government monopolized all the cards (spectrum) in the first place, then gave out the cards to its cronies (the businesses).
I've had similar experiences with Spamhaus btw, they decided to nix my upstream provider and when I complained I was told that I should use another ISP because mine wasn't well liked.
"Wasn't well liked" == "complaints had been received that they allowed their customers to send spam."
I agree with spamhaus. This puts pressure on ISPs to police their customers, or else their decent customers will leave. And everyone can choose whether they want to use providers that allow all contact through, or providers that filter out contact from ISPs that don't police their customers.
there's no incentive for companies running mail services to ensure that legitimate mail gets delivered
Well, there's some incentive in that if their customers truly want the mail and aren't receiving it, they'll have to pick a different provider. I purchased a product once to be emailed to me and had to acquire an alternative email address because the seller wouldn't do business with gmail, yahoo, or hotmail addresses. I didn't waste time arguing with him; I just got an email account that would get his mail through.
it cost me money and effort to migrate my service.
That's the price of offering a service. If enough people want it, they will more than make up for the cost of you going with an ISP they consider reputable. If not, the world has no obligation to keep your costs low enough to keep you in business. A much cheaper thing to do would've been to quit offering your service.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, killing someone is wrong regardless of your age or blood alcohol level. Drinking is not.
using a fake ID as you described might be considered fraudulent
I'm talking about right and wrong, not legal distinctions. My entire point is that the law can take things that are right and call them "wrong." That doesn't make it so, though. It just means a bunch of popularity contest winners have the power to force their opinions and wishes on the rest of us.
Forged ID is victimless - fraud is not. If I create a fake ID saying I am old enough to drink alcohol and use it that way, that's a victimless crime. If I create a fake ID and use it to spend money out of your bank account, you are the victim.
Right, those things are wrong. As distinct from selling drugs, which is not.
Yes, but murdering is actually wrong, while selling contraband is not.
If they are appointed by the government, they are insiders, plain and simple. There is no way that government can magically achieve non-bias against itself. There are elections and appointments (and other options like hereditary titles in some nations), but they are all in some way influenced by the government. An independent man, appointed to a panel by the government, is by definition no longer "independent."
Makes me wonder if there'll ever be a Star Trek-esque Utopia...
Forget that - I watched a DS9 a couple nights ago that pushed the idea that somebody was morally wrong for having used somebody else's idea without permission. My idea of utopia is we would be free of such wrong ideas.
Really? Java is still the #1 language and will remain so for a long time to come. The toddlers will use the supposed hip languages all they want meanwhile most other devs are just using Java and solving real problems.
I used to say something like that about Perl, and now I'm a Java developer.
Sometimes you can't refute an argument because it's so bad that it's not even wrong
Boycott isn't a market-based solution in this case, because there is no free market in airline travel. Yes you can charter a private airline - but nobody can create a competing service on the scale of the existing airlines that is not subject to TSA regulation.
The real problem is that there is a State Department in the first place. Whether you call them communist or not, they are tyrants.
My question is why we would have Manning in prison anyway. If Manning were free, he/she could decide on his/her own decisions about treatment, and not at the expense of the rest of us!
Many of these desperate dying people have been committed to having themselves cryonically preserved since the 1960's and have spent all their lives preparing for this moment. Two I can name in particular are Robert Ettinger and Fred Chamberlain. I might also mention Mike Darwin, who is still breathing and has been active in cryonics for his entire adult life (and before). Many of these people risked jailtime and other punishments to protect others who had already been preserved. So it's not all a scam for uninformed people.
It took something like eight years to get the yoghurt article renamed to yogurt. Tons of people wanted to do it, but some guy owned the article, so it couldn't be done.
Love it, sir!
Are we seriously so opposed to broccoli and other vegetables much loathed as children that we're going to eat bugs instead?
No, I'm going to have a hamburger or a steak. I have no idea why "UN says people should eat bugs to have less impact on the environment" would lead to anybody actually eating bugs.
It's even weirder from my perspective. Back in the Bush years, I was an idiot Bush-worshipper. Now I'm firmly on your side on all of the above issues, but of course there isn't any traction to do anything about them.
I spent all day Thursday troubleshooting one of our all-Mac customers with six other people in the room, all shouting different ideas. Only at the end of the day did we discover the news. I was really shocked Slashdot hadn't reported it.
I went home and had nightmares about installing and reinstalling Java on Mac.
You just caused me to suddenly realize what somebody was trying to tell me about a school project twelve years ago!
If you have one, you can be fought without me needing to target innocent civilians.
Who should have the power to indiscriminately target civilians, noncombatants, children, everybody within a rival gang's given radius?
Noone. It should be destroyed in the fires of Mt. Doom.
I don't want my money wasted on this. People will figure this out for themselves. Or they won't. I won't care either way. I would think all the intelligent scientists at NASA would realize that curing superstition in four short days is an extremely unlikely proposition.
So your solution to the school bully demanding you give him your lunch money everyday is to just hand over the money?
That analogy doesn't fit at all.
But if government doesn't create laws like this, then the alternative is that big business sets defacto policies for us, because they hold all the cards
The problem is the government monopolized all the cards (spectrum) in the first place, then gave out the cards to its cronies (the businesses).
I've had similar experiences with Spamhaus btw, they decided to nix my upstream provider and when I complained I was told that I should use another ISP because mine wasn't well liked.
"Wasn't well liked" == "complaints had been received that they allowed their customers to send spam."
I agree with spamhaus. This puts pressure on ISPs to police their customers, or else their decent customers will leave. And everyone can choose whether they want to use providers that allow all contact through, or providers that filter out contact from ISPs that don't police their customers.
there's no incentive for companies running mail services to ensure that legitimate mail gets delivered
Well, there's some incentive in that if their customers truly want the mail and aren't receiving it, they'll have to pick a different provider. I purchased a product once to be emailed to me and had to acquire an alternative email address because the seller wouldn't do business with gmail, yahoo, or hotmail addresses. I didn't waste time arguing with him; I just got an email account that would get his mail through.
it cost me money and effort to migrate my service.
That's the price of offering a service. If enough people want it, they will more than make up for the cost of you going with an ISP they consider reputable. If not, the world has no obligation to keep your costs low enough to keep you in business. A much cheaper thing to do would've been to quit offering your service.