>>Why make the taxpayers pay for cleaning up the internet of spam?
>The same reason we use taxpayer dollars to clean up litter thrown into the streets by assholes. Someone has to clean up the shit. Bitching about "fairness" doesn't magically make trash disappear.
It doesnt make the bill collection fair, either.
>Do you also believe that taxpayer funding of prisons is unfair?
Yes, it is. Why should I PAY for the comparatively luxorious accomodation of the people that violate ME and MY PROPERTY ? It's pouring salt into the wound!
>Taxpayer funding of police is unfair?
Seeing how piss-poor a job the police is usually doing, yes.
>Taxpayer funding of the court systems is unfair?
When my tax monies are spent on an inefficient and corrupt system that punishes the small fish (such as harmless drug dealers or citizens found to be in posession of Marijuana) but lets the bigtime criminals (corrupt politicians) go, yes!
>After all, why should we pay to have our own laws enforced?
It not "our" laws. I never asked for insane punishments for drug posession. I never asked for crucification of perpetrators of tax evasion. I didn't ask for 55 MPH speed limits on deserted interstate highways. etc.
>>Make the spammers pay out the bounty.
>This is deluded. A $100,000 judgement against a spammer is all well and good, but if that person doesn't possess $100,000, you're up shit's creek.
On the contrary. If you've been following the trend for the past two years, you'll find that spamming is often a very profitable enterprise.
> Are you aware of the absolute nightmare it is to actually collect on a court judgement, even for small amounts? Just because the judge says it doesn't make it so.
True. Doesnt however change that it is not the victims that should pay for the punishment of criminals.
>>There's absolutely no reason to make taxpayers (you know, citizens) suffer and go further in debt
>Uh.. How the hell does it incur debt? The money doesn't vanish into thin air. It is given to the bounty hunter, who will presumably spend that money and pump it right back into the economy again.
So, by your definition , will a spammer.
> Every time money moves, the government gets a cut. After a short while, it's all back in the system again. There are other reasons why the bounty idea sucks, but it isn't because it's "not fair."
Anything that's funded with means forcefully collected cannot by any reasonable degree be said to be "fair".
Dear heavens. Why does this nonsense always pop up? FOX is "!rightwing" because it presents news at an angle you don't like?
besides, what about New York Times with the "left"? I don't hear you whining about that ? Because you like that bias, perhaps ?
"Besides, FDR was acting with world support against a common foe, while Bush eschewed world support against a 3rd world country that harbored no ties to Al Qaida or had any chance of launching a missile outside of their own back yard. But it's the same thing."
Nonsense. There was a tremendous opposition to joining in on the WWII in the USA before Pearl harbour, which was ironically partially provoked by PDF himself beforehand. The american people did not want to repeat the disaster of WWI. Regardin "international support", many nations praised Hitler's initative, especially in social areas, even Mohandas Ghandi and the then Catholic Pope! And yes, dammit, even W. Churchill himself (before germany started strong-arming Poland). Saying that FDR was a benevolent dictator while Bush is an evil one (which isnt true, dictatorwise anyway) is revisionism and should be unveiled for what it is.
Right, 1 c / kWh is impressive. But when you factor in the production price of the mill itself, how does it look ? Does this rather optimistic take on wind power include a realistic assessment of how much it would cost to convert the current coal & nuclear power structure to wind?
"I have voeted Libertarian the last 3 elections but this year the stakes are too high. You know you can't win. Have you considered "Deaning" your supporters and asking them to vote for Bush or Kerry depending on who you think should be President (besides yourself)?"
Stakes ? What stakes ? Democracy isn't a lottery. You don't get a prize if you happen to vote for the guy that wins.
If you refer to the possibility of Bush getting elected, cast your vote for Badnarik. You can be damn sure that it won't go for Bush.
"If Libertarians believe in efficient government that allows the rights of people to be expressed -- through Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- why is it that they don't support a right to health care in the form of a single payer system that is demonstrably cheaper and more effective than the current or a deregulated system?"
1) You do not have a right to good health.
2) Experience shows that anything the state touches, it corrupts.
If this is the worst dirt you can come up with, then Badnarik is the avant garde of political candidates for the Oval Office.
Bush was a drunk, a cocaine-sniffer, morally dubious character. Kerry has a record of political untrustworthiness and his Vietnam record leaves much to be desired for a man who's about to take the chair as the supreme commander and executive power in the world's most powerful nation.
Charities has been given no chance because those with the money that would otherwise have the means to support charity has been continually robbed by high marginal taxes on income for at least 90 years.
Did you know that the highest tax bracket during and after the WWII was 90%? Did you know that it was not lowered to 28% until Reagan came to power in the 80's?
Did you know that Clinton raised the top tax bracket to 40% in the 90's , thus eroding the basis for high incomes to donate to charity ?
"completely private fire departments (fires SPREAD),"
Do you really think it would be in the interest of either society or the private FD (who will obviously be employed on a contractual basis) to let fires spread ? Do you think a company that doesn't do its job will get paid ?
"First, do you believe in this sort of "purity", and if not, how can the Libertarian Party distance themselves from these people in order show yourselves as more practical? Right now, I think Libertarians are seen as ivory tower-ites who worship at altars of theory, while ignoring real world practicality."
You're only attacking the lib't party but not offering an alternative. What is the alternative - what you see today in the USA (or the western world in general) with crime out of control, citizens getting their constitutional rights trampled (speech, gun ownership, property rights, safety from unjust seizure of property by state etc), state "guarantees" turning out to be nothing more than lies by career buerocrats, regardless of whether they are Democrats or Republicans?
If that's your alternative, then I say No Thanks. The Libertarians offer a new take on solving the problems caused by the state. Take it or leave it, but don't insult our intelligences by suggesting that the Libertarians are theoretical when they're offering what amounts to the only alternative to the all-pervasive state structure which has grown into place in less than a century.
"You know we're all doomed when the world's safety depends on diplomacy between psychotic rampaging Islamic fanatics and psychotic rampaging Christianity fanatics.
(not a slur on religion, get over it)"
I don't care. I'm not religious.
Bush isn't my cup of tea either, but to label him as a psychotic xtian fanatic (which is your point, right?) is reeeeallly streeeetching it. Bush may be a bible-belt convertite, born again, whatever, but he's doing what he believes right in his duty as caretaker of the USA. He was on the watch when the coutry he was sworn in to protect from foreign enemies, was attacked in broad daylight. So, ask yourself, what do you want him to do not to earn your "christian fanatic" label ? Please do everyone a favor an consider that.
Plus he actually has the "christian right" on a tight leash. His old man never managed that.
How much diplomacy do you believe you can have with a bunch of medival islamic fanatics? Yes, I'm referring to the Iranian Theocracy. Do you really think you can reason with these fanatics with anything else than a large gun ?
Your Bush bash seems to neglect that there are a number of other countries that have significant petrochemical reserves and have NOT been touched by explicit US policies or US action.
Unless, of course you wish to claim that world market trade/capitalism/globalization/whatever is actually controlled by the USA and likewise conspiracy theories...
U238 isn't "highly radioactive". With a halflife of 4,5 bln years, the decay activity is proportionally small. U is naturally poisonous due to the fact that it is a heavy metal, but that has nothing to do with radioactivity.
if you're running a Winbox behind a router with NAT and you are not pointing to the PC from the router + not doing too many stupid things, for the most part, you should be fine.
But when you allow access to the PC from outside, say via port 80 or somesuch... ouch.
How many % of all end-user machines are running Microsoft Windows?"
Significantly less than the % af rooted Win boxes.
">Zombie Macs and Zombie Linux boxes are about as common as snowcones in hell, it would seem.
In the world of common users, Linux boxes are about as common as snowcones in hell, too. Macs are almost as common as snowcones in Florida...not quite."
Nonsense.
Last Google Zeitgeist (before it was taken offline) was 4% Macs (sorry not 3% as ai stated earlier) and 1% Linux. As such, I'd say they are a bit more prevalent than anything cold in hell.
Your argument is reasonable, but alas invalid. Last Google % for Macs was, inscientific as some may label it, 3% (Linux was 1% IIRC?). Yet, I'd challenge you to find me just a handful of rooted Macs or Linux boxen. And in case you should manage to, it would still be a much lower proportion to the proportion of Macs and Linux machines comared to WinTel boxen.
Quit whining. It's nothing but advertisement for MM's website. Didn't deserve a high rating anyway, but thats abuse of the rating system of another kind.
Slashdot Mirror
>>Why make the taxpayers pay for cleaning up the internet of spam?
>The same reason we use taxpayer dollars to clean up litter thrown into the streets by assholes. Someone has to clean up the shit. Bitching about "fairness" doesn't magically make trash disappear.
It doesnt make the bill collection fair, either.
>Do you also believe that taxpayer funding of prisons is unfair?
Yes, it is. Why should I PAY for the comparatively luxorious accomodation of the people that violate ME and MY PROPERTY ? It's pouring salt into the wound!
>Taxpayer funding of police is unfair?
Seeing how piss-poor a job the police is usually doing, yes.
>Taxpayer funding of the court systems is unfair?
When my tax monies are spent on an inefficient and corrupt system that punishes the small fish (such as harmless drug dealers or citizens found to be in posession of Marijuana) but lets the bigtime criminals (corrupt politicians) go, yes!
>After all, why should we pay to have our own laws enforced?
It not "our" laws. I never asked for insane punishments for drug posession. I never asked for crucification of perpetrators of tax evasion. I didn't ask for 55 MPH speed limits on deserted interstate highways. etc.
>>Make the spammers pay out the bounty.
>This is deluded. A $100,000 judgement against a spammer is all well and good, but if that person doesn't possess $100,000, you're up shit's creek.
On the contrary. If you've been following the trend for the past two years, you'll find that spamming is often a very profitable enterprise.
> Are you aware of the absolute nightmare it is to actually collect on a court judgement, even for small amounts? Just because the judge says it doesn't make it so.
True. Doesnt however change that it is not the victims that should pay for the punishment of criminals.
>>There's absolutely no reason to make taxpayers (you know, citizens) suffer and go further in debt
>Uh.. How the hell does it incur debt? The money doesn't vanish into thin air. It is given to the bounty hunter, who will presumably spend that money and pump it right back into the economy again.
So, by your definition , will a spammer.
> Every time money moves, the government gets a cut. After a short while, it's all back in the system again. There are other reasons why the bounty idea sucks, but it isn't because it's "not fair."
Anything that's funded with means forcefully collected cannot by any reasonable degree be said to be "fair".
"Excuse me while I crack open another cold one!! WooHoo!"
You're a geriatric necrophile? =)
"Hmm...FOX News not aligned with the right...."
Dear heavens. Why does this nonsense always pop up? FOX is "!rightwing" because it presents news at an angle you don't like?
besides, what about New York Times with the "left"? I don't hear you whining about that ? Because you like that bias, perhaps ?
"Besides, FDR was acting with world support against a common foe, while Bush eschewed world support against a 3rd world country that harbored no ties to Al Qaida or had any chance of launching a missile outside of their own back yard. But it's the same thing."
Nonsense. There was a tremendous opposition to joining in on the WWII in the USA before Pearl harbour, which was ironically partially provoked by PDF himself beforehand. The american people did not want to repeat the disaster of WWI. Regardin "international support", many nations praised Hitler's initative, especially in social areas, even Mohandas Ghandi and the then Catholic Pope! And yes, dammit, even W. Churchill himself (before germany started strong-arming Poland). Saying that FDR was a benevolent dictator while Bush is an evil one (which isnt true, dictatorwise anyway) is revisionism and should be unveiled for what it is.
"I really hope you guys elect Dubya again. We in Europe need all the help we can get competing in science, so Bush is our man."
This flamebait is modded "insightful"? Complete with nickname calling and unfounded claims?
Creationism is welcome for all I care - in religion classes. NOT in science classes.
Right, 1 c / kWh is impressive. But when you factor in the production price of the mill itself, how does it look ? Does this rather optimistic take on wind power include a realistic assessment of how much it would cost to convert the current coal & nuclear power structure to wind?
"I have voeted Libertarian the last 3 elections but this year the stakes are too high. You know you can't win. Have you considered "Deaning" your supporters and asking them to vote for Bush or Kerry depending on who you think should be President (besides yourself)?"
Stakes ? What stakes ? Democracy isn't a lottery. You don't get a prize if you happen to vote for the guy that wins.
If you refer to the possibility of Bush getting elected, cast your vote for Badnarik. You can be damn sure that it won't go for Bush.
"If Libertarians believe in efficient government that allows the rights of people to be expressed -- through Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness -- why is it that they don't support a right to health care in the form of a single payer system that is demonstrably cheaper and more effective than the current or a deregulated system?"
1) You do not have a right to good health.
2) Experience shows that anything the state touches, it corrupts.
If this is the worst dirt you can come up with, then Badnarik is the avant garde of political candidates for the Oval Office.
Bush was a drunk, a cocaine-sniffer, morally dubious character. Kerry has a record of political untrustworthiness and his Vietnam record leaves much to be desired for a man who's about to take the chair as the supreme commander and executive power in the world's most powerful nation.
" Charities only do so much after all."
Charities has been given no chance because those with the money that would otherwise have the means to support charity has been continually robbed by high marginal taxes on income for at least 90 years.
Did you know that the highest tax bracket during and after the WWII was 90%? Did you know that it was not lowered to 28% until Reagan came to power in the 80's?
Did you know that Clinton raised the top tax bracket to 40% in the 90's , thus eroding the basis for high incomes to donate to charity ?
"This guy is an idiot. The Sixteenth Amendment gives the IRS authority:
(16th A)"
So, you're saying that he's an idiot because he wants to fight the state that continually robs you and me of our rights? Is that it?
How can this nonsense be modded insightful ?
"completely private fire departments (fires SPREAD),"
Do you really think it would be in the interest of either society or the private FD (who will obviously be employed on a contractual basis) to let fires spread ? Do you think a company that doesn't do its job will get paid ?
"First, do you believe in this sort of "purity", and if not, how can the Libertarian Party distance themselves from these people in order show yourselves as more practical? Right now, I think Libertarians are seen as ivory tower-ites who worship at altars of theory, while ignoring real world practicality."
You're only attacking the lib't party but not offering an alternative. What is the alternative - what you see today in the USA (or the western world in general) with crime out of control, citizens getting their constitutional rights trampled (speech, gun ownership, property rights, safety from unjust seizure of property by state etc), state "guarantees" turning out to be nothing more than lies by career buerocrats, regardless of whether they are Democrats or Republicans?
If that's your alternative, then I say No Thanks. The Libertarians offer a new take on solving the problems caused by the state. Take it or leave it, but don't insult our intelligences by suggesting that the Libertarians are theoretical when they're offering what amounts to the only alternative to the all-pervasive state structure which has grown into place in less than a century.
Agreed. Not that the ailments you mention is unique to the Republican camp.
"You know we're all doomed when the world's safety depends on diplomacy between psychotic rampaging Islamic fanatics and psychotic rampaging Christianity fanatics.
(not a slur on religion, get over it)"
I don't care. I'm not religious.
Bush isn't my cup of tea either, but to label him as a psychotic xtian fanatic (which is your point, right?) is reeeeallly streeeetching it. Bush may be a bible-belt convertite, born again, whatever, but he's doing what he believes right in his duty as caretaker of the USA. He was on the watch when the coutry he was sworn in to protect from foreign enemies, was attacked in broad daylight. So, ask yourself, what do you want him to do not to earn your "christian fanatic" label ? Please do everyone a favor an consider that.
Plus he actually has the "christian right" on a tight leash. His old man never managed that.
How much diplomacy do you believe you can have with a bunch of medival islamic fanatics? Yes, I'm referring to the Iranian Theocracy. Do you really think you can reason with these fanatics with anything else than a large gun ?
"What was it then? Car crash? "
Yes - a car crash where the two cars involved where both accellerated up to 99.98% light speed and sent on a collission course.
Next month they'll try with 60's Caddilacs. The Hyundai's they used this week yielded unfavourable results.
Your Bush bash seems to neglect that there are a number of other countries that have significant petrochemical reserves and have NOT been touched by explicit US policies or US action.
Unless, of course you wish to claim that world market trade/capitalism/globalization/whatever is actually controlled by the USA and likewise conspiracy theories...
In short, spare us the GWB bashing.
So, suddenly, fighting an actual Army is the same as fighting some holed-up guerillas in mountain caves ?
+5 Insightful??
Oh wait, comment also bashes Bush! +5 Insightful!
Bah. This political bias is too much.
Pardon much, but my question, however rhetorical, was quite serious.
Windows is obviously more vunerable for rooting and exploiting than any Unix OS.
I don't see how it can be seen as "bashing" . Can you have an opinion on the facts without being labelled a "basher"? Apparently you don't think so.
U238 isn't "highly radioactive". With a halflife of 4,5 bln years, the decay activity is proportionally small. U is naturally poisonous due to the fact that it is a heavy metal, but that has nothing to do with radioactivity.
Do your research.
if you're running a Winbox behind a router with NAT and you are not pointing to the PC from the router + not doing too many stupid things, for the most part, you should be fine.
But when you allow access to the PC from outside, say via port 80 or somesuch... ouch.
">How many % are running Microsoft Windows ?
How many % of all end-user machines are running Microsoft Windows?"
Significantly less than the % af rooted Win boxes.
">Zombie Macs and Zombie Linux boxes are about as common as snowcones in hell, it would seem.
In the world of common users, Linux boxes are about as common as snowcones in hell, too. Macs are almost as common as snowcones in Florida...not quite."
Nonsense.
Last Google Zeitgeist (before it was taken offline) was 4% Macs (sorry not 3% as ai stated earlier) and 1% Linux. As such, I'd say they are a bit more prevalent than anything cold in hell.
Your argument is reasonable, but alas invalid. Last Google % for Macs was, inscientific as some may label it, 3% (Linux was 1% IIRC?). Yet, I'd challenge you to find me just a handful of rooted Macs or Linux boxen. And in case you should manage to, it would still be a much lower proportion to the proportion of Macs and Linux machines comared to WinTel boxen.
How many % are running Microsoft Windows ?
Zombie Macs and Zombie Linux boxes are about as common as snowcones in hell, it would seem.
Quit whining. It's nothing but advertisement for MM's website. Didn't deserve a high rating anyway, but thats abuse of the rating system of another kind.