Pragmatically speaking: how many of these still incarcerated are a real risk ?
Answer: ALL of them. That's why they're at Gitmo. These guys weren't picked up because they were jaywalking.
The costs are not mine to bear. Take it up with the banks, who make the rules. They are the rulemakers, not me.
I don't understand what is irresponsible about my position. The banks who offer credit are the ones who do not hold cardholders responsible. They have good reasons for finding that balance but again -- not my problem.
If the banks held their customers accountable for fraudulaunt charges when a card is nicked......then I probably wouldn't have any credit cards.
See how that works? They make the rules and I respond accordingly. I always retain the right not to play. It's rather simple, really, so your outrage is misplaced.
Yes, 30 cards. And again, in case you missed it, the cost to me personally was ZERO, other than a small bit of time.
Not insane. Just a side effect of having many credit cards and spending lots of money both personally and for business. My credit history goes back 20+ years as well so again, this is not as unusual as you make it out to be. Cards get nicked all the time through no fault of the user. I buy a lot of goods online and logic would tell you that some of those vendors will eventually be hacked and give up the ghost.
If you have a problem with my "zero cost", then take it up with the fucking banks that issue the credit cards. That part isn't my problem Mr Iwantyoutopay. I don't give a flying fuck about YOUR interest rate or YOUR fees. Why on god's green earth would I care about your issues with fees and interest rates?
Yes, its paranoid. It's a credit card so you are already using someone else's money. If it lost, stolen, or otherwise you are only legally on the hook for $50 and I am not sure I have ever seen that enforced.
Now if you had said a debit card.....whole different story.
I've bet I've had over 30 credit cards replaced at various times because they got nicked or used without permission. It has cost me exactly $0 and a tiny bit of time filling out an affadavit that I didn't make the charges. But all in all, its a trvial process to dispute charges if you really didn't make them. Same for my business. We've had business credit cards used without permission as well -- same resolution process and same result.
Correct. This is the scenario that will prevail. Don't fight the first sale doctrine because we can just encrypt our way out of the problem. Since we - and only we - can say who may and may not decrypt, that is akin to complete control over the first sale doctrine.
Even if they encrypted in ROT13, it stills counts as a DMCA violation if someone decrypts the book. It doesn't matter how trivial or hard breaking the encryption is.
That's what I'd do. I'd implement a mild (easy) form of encryption and then selectively apply the DMCA as I please.
Wait, what? Those are very real pension costs. Are you suggesting they just ignore them so they can "show" a profit?
You aren't, by chance a Chicago alderman or a California house member are you? That's what they've been doing for a long time and in case you haven't noticed, that hasn't worked out very well. Of course, it's still ongoing and things could change but their budgets are fucked. And they are fucked specifically because of pensions.
What? That doesn't even make sense. Diversification of opinions have been proven over and over to be a better manager of large operations that one person's or entitie's single focus.
Your supposition doesn't even follow logic: if more interests can be met, then isn't that a more effective company? Sorry, you are on your own here. Nobody who has studied organizational behavior agrees with you.
Is this supposed to be a serious discussion? You are arguing that power, exercised by one family, over a broadcasting news company is worse than an entire company of people running the same?
Sorry pal. Altruism only works in the lab. Having more opinions involved with more stakeholders and a distributed power structure is far superior to a consolidated familial power base.
Fewer interests indeed....as in, they answer to no-one.
Are you suggesting they might be more motivated to show up every day and work hard because they have a student loan debt to repay? Ok, whatever does the trick....
(methinks you are looking at this from the wrong perspective)
As long as you keep parsing words, you are making his point. But that doesn't matter anyway because you misunderstand, at a very basic level, what the Constitution is and what it represents.
You are proposing that the government is allowed to restrict arms because the Constitution didn't say they couldn't. Uhhhm, no. Sorry. It doesn't work like that.
The Constitution defines a limited set of things the government is allowed to do. It goes to explain that anything not included in that limited set is not to be intruded upon by the government. The "default", if you will, is the government has zero power. We grant it specific and enumerated powers that are defined in the Constitution (and case law). It is not the other way around where everything is prohibited and the government allows us to do certain things.
No, not interesting at all. Modern day enviros are don't care about the environment. The environment is simply a means to an end for their main goal: political power.
Do you think Obama makes people and business want to spend and invest their money? Are you kidding? Do you not understand that there is a very large contingent of people out there who feel attacked by Obama and his policies? He is direct and unashamed about his redistributionist plans.
To many, he is the most anti-business president this country has seen in a long time. Note I said "anti". Not pro, not neutral but outright hostile.
Don't take my word for it, go ask the business owners (ie: your "rich" people). I don't think this is a big secret except maybe here on/.
I am not trying to be purposely political. I just think you are grossly overlooking how a lot of people perceive Obama. I don't know if you are doing it on purpose or what but nobody's trying to blame the black guy because he's black or some such goofy insinuation like you make. Many are concerned because his policies are anti-business.
And America's business is business. Always has been and always will be.
Teddy was an avid hunter. Hunters are, without question, the most conservation minded people I know. I realize it's common to think of them as the big bad hunters killing animals but anyone who knows anything about hunting understands it is much much more than that. Teddy understood that well.
Every single senator and congressman leaves Congress wealthier than when they came in (by a lot!). How do you think that happens?
Go read up. Literally, there isn't a single exception. Some are worse than others but nobody should be generating wealth like these guys with their ~$160K salary. Yet, somehow every single one of them leaves Congress with a net worth north of 5-10million. Much more in the worst of the worst cases....
This is the only post that seems to get it. Per the DMCA, breaking encryption - of ANY strength - is against the law. MPAA and RIAA can not crack the files and then use them as evidence. Neither can law enforcement (without a warrant / probable cause). If they do, it won't be allowed as evidence in court (unclean hands).
I am sad/shocked/disappointed that Slashdot can't see the genius this. Like the parent said, it doesn't have to be "good" encryption. It just has to be encryption. ROT13 would work just as well....
I know you are joking but this is one my pet peeves.....
What, exactly, do you mean by "screwing around with nature"? What do you see around you that is not "nature"?
Are you suggesting that we don't intervene and utilize the world around us to better ourselves and our lives?
Basically, I don't know what the fuck you are talking about when you use words like "nature" and "natural". Everything in the entire universe is natural. The word has no context when you say "we shouldn't mess with nature".
In your analysis, did you consider that there just aren't that many crazies living amongst us? Mass killings are very rare, when you look at the statistics. You have a far greater chance of being struck by lightning.
Slashdot Mirror
Pragmatically speaking: how many of these still incarcerated are a real risk ?
Answer: ALL of them. That's why they're at Gitmo. These guys weren't picked up because they were jaywalking.
The costs are not mine to bear. Take it up with the banks, who make the rules. They are the rulemakers, not me.
I don't understand what is irresponsible about my position. The banks who offer credit are the ones who do not hold cardholders responsible. They have good reasons for finding that balance but again -- not my problem.
If the banks held their customers accountable for fraudulaunt charges when a card is nicked......then I probably wouldn't have any credit cards.
See how that works? They make the rules and I respond accordingly. I always retain the right not to play. It's rather simple, really, so your outrage is misplaced.
Yes, 30 cards. And again, in case you missed it, the cost to me personally was ZERO, other than a small bit of time.
Not insane. Just a side effect of having many credit cards and spending lots of money both personally and for business. My credit history goes back 20+ years as well so again, this is not as unusual as you make it out to be. Cards get nicked all the time through no fault of the user. I buy a lot of goods online and logic would tell you that some of those vendors will eventually be hacked and give up the ghost.
If you have a problem with my "zero cost", then take it up with the fucking banks that issue the credit cards. That part isn't my problem Mr Iwantyoutopay. I don't give a flying fuck about YOUR interest rate or YOUR fees. Why on god's green earth would I care about your issues with fees and interest rates?
Yes, its paranoid. It's a credit card so you are already using someone else's money. If it lost, stolen, or otherwise you are only legally on the hook for $50 and I am not sure I have ever seen that enforced.
Now if you had said a debit card.....whole different story.
I've bet I've had over 30 credit cards replaced at various times because they got nicked or used without permission. It has cost me exactly $0 and a tiny bit of time filling out an affadavit that I didn't make the charges. But all in all, its a trvial process to dispute charges if you really didn't make them. Same for my business. We've had business credit cards used without permission as well -- same resolution process and same result.
Correct. This is the scenario that will prevail. Don't fight the first sale doctrine because we can just encrypt our way out of the problem. Since we - and only we - can say who may and may not decrypt, that is akin to complete control over the first sale doctrine.
Even if they encrypted in ROT13, it stills counts as a DMCA violation if someone decrypts the book. It doesn't matter how trivial or hard breaking the encryption is.
That's what I'd do. I'd implement a mild (easy) form of encryption and then selectively apply the DMCA as I please.
In russia soviet.....wait I fucked it up
Wait, what? Those are very real pension costs. Are you suggesting they just ignore them so they can "show" a profit?
You aren't, by chance a Chicago alderman or a California house member are you? That's what they've been doing for a long time and in case you haven't noticed, that hasn't worked out very well. Of course, it's still ongoing and things could change but their budgets are fucked. And they are fucked specifically because of pensions.
What? That doesn't even make sense. Diversification of opinions have been proven over and over to be a better manager of large operations that one person's or entitie's single focus.
Your supposition doesn't even follow logic: if more interests can be met, then isn't that a more effective company? Sorry, you are on your own here. Nobody who has studied organizational behavior agrees with you.
Is this supposed to be a serious discussion? You are arguing that power, exercised by one family, over a broadcasting news company is worse than an entire company of people running the same?
Sorry pal. Altruism only works in the lab. Having more opinions involved with more stakeholders and a distributed power structure is far superior to a consolidated familial power base.
Fewer interests indeed....as in, they answer to no-one.
Are you suggesting they might be more motivated to show up every day and work hard because they have a student loan debt to repay? Ok, whatever does the trick....
(methinks you are looking at this from the wrong perspective)
As long as you keep parsing words, you are making his point. But that doesn't matter anyway because you misunderstand, at a very basic level, what the Constitution is and what it represents.
You are proposing that the government is allowed to restrict arms because the Constitution didn't say they couldn't. Uhhhm, no. Sorry. It doesn't work like that.
The Constitution defines a limited set of things the government is allowed to do. It goes to explain that anything not included in that limited set is not to be intruded upon by the government. The "default", if you will, is the government has zero power. We grant it specific and enumerated powers that are defined in the Constitution (and case law). It is not the other way around where everything is prohibited and the government allows us to do certain things.
No, not interesting at all. Modern day enviros are don't care about the environment. The environment is simply a means to an end for their main goal: political power.
Huge difference.
Correct call. This isn't even a close one....
Do you think Obama makes people and business want to spend and invest their money? Are you kidding? Do you not understand that there is a very large contingent of people out there who feel attacked by Obama and his policies? He is direct and unashamed about his redistributionist plans.
/.
To many, he is the most anti-business president this country has seen in a long time. Note I said "anti". Not pro, not neutral but outright hostile.
Don't take my word for it, go ask the business owners (ie: your "rich" people). I don't think this is a big secret except maybe here on
I am not trying to be purposely political. I just think you are grossly overlooking how a lot of people perceive Obama. I don't know if you are doing it on purpose or what but nobody's trying to blame the black guy because he's black or some such goofy insinuation like you make. Many are concerned because his policies are anti-business.
And America's business is business. Always has been and always will be.
Teddy was an avid hunter. Hunters are, without question, the most conservation minded people I know. I realize it's common to think of them as the big bad hunters killing animals but anyone who knows anything about hunting understands it is much much more than that. Teddy understood that well.
Modern day tree huggers? Not so much....
I have nothing else to say but that seemed relevant
Facebook is an intel organization
They do. Google Arthur Anderson.
Excuse me but who the fuck are you talking about?
Every single senator and congressman leaves Congress wealthier than when they came in (by a lot!). How do you think that happens?
Go read up. Literally, there isn't a single exception. Some are worse than others but nobody should be generating wealth like these guys with their ~$160K salary. Yet, somehow every single one of them leaves Congress with a net worth north of 5-10million. Much more in the worst of the worst cases....
This is the only post that seems to get it. Per the DMCA, breaking encryption - of ANY strength - is against the law. MPAA and RIAA can not crack the files and then use them as evidence. Neither can law enforcement (without a warrant / probable cause). If they do, it won't be allowed as evidence in court (unclean hands).
I am sad/shocked/disappointed that Slashdot can't see the genius this. Like the parent said, it doesn't have to be "good" encryption. It just has to be encryption. ROT13 would work just as well....
If I had mod points, I would mod this up but I don't so I will reply
I know you are joking but this is one my pet peeves.....
What, exactly, do you mean by "screwing around with nature"? What do you see around you that is not "nature"?
Are you suggesting that we don't intervene and utilize the world around us to better ourselves and our lives?
Basically, I don't know what the fuck you are talking about when you use words like "nature" and "natural". Everything in the entire universe is natural. The word has no context when you say "we shouldn't mess with nature".
Totally incorrect. Please stop spouting nonsense and learn to read
Took me all of 5 minutes to find good, relevant information.
Here's my counterargument: Why don't they then?
In your analysis, did you consider that there just aren't that many crazies living amongst us? Mass killings are very rare, when you look at the statistics. You have a far greater chance of being struck by lightning.
Also, how about the smaller magazine requirements? Do those do anything to reduce the number of murders
No. No, they do not.