He actually understands what the hell is going on (and what should be done about it). The increase of moral hazard of supporting bad creditors is much less bad than the economic certainty of a depressed economy for the next twenty years if nothing is done.
Ignore the moral hazard, and you set the economy up for an ever-accelerating cycle of bubble and crash, which quickly ends in "crash". When people learn that working hard and living within one's just means greater taxation, whereas spending other people's money like a drunken sailor leads to debt forgiveness with no consequences, lots more people are going to opt for the latter course.
Unless the FD charges an exorbitant fee for unpaid callouts.
Problem is, the fee is uncollectable. There'd need to be a change in the law to make it collectable; someone above suggested a lien on the property, which would make perfect sense.
So do you also think police coverage should be optional as well? That if you don't pay your fee they shouldn't investigate when you've been robbed or murdered?
If I get robbed they won't investigate it anyway. Take a report and maybe return the less-saleable bits of my stuff if they happen to catch the criminals later on; they won't specifically search for them.
If I get murdered, I'm really not going to give a damn whether they investigate.
So, if there's new evidence, the same person can be retried for something? Because, in the US, we have this thing against that. We call it "double jeopardy."
Yeah, but that rule is in the Bill of Rights specifically because under British rule, they'd keep trying someone over and over until they got the right verdict. Many of the rights in the Bill of Rights (and the main body of the Constitution) are there as a response to British wrongs.
The way Young reports it, he had the conversation with Zetter and _at the end_ she asked him to not report it. He responded "sure" but didn't say what tone of voice he used. She then pointed out that he always reported interviews, so it's clear she didn't really expect him to keep it quiet.
I'm not sure why Young is so pissed at Wired. Just because the vandal went and bragged to them after the fact doesn't make Wired "complicit" as he claims.
(Wikileaks fanboys: I will take that comment back the day Wikileaks releases a document that seriously hurts Russia, China, or Iran. Or pretty much anyone else other than the USA and her allies. Or indeed any country that is not a western democracy. Not holding my breath here.)
It's easier and safer to leak documents from western democracies. And there's also the issue of news. The US or a European country does something bad, it's news. Russia, China, and Iran do something bad... well, what did you expect? They're totalitarian countries bent on world domination.
ObCarAnalogy: A Yugo breaking down on the way home from the dealership, versus your Honda doing the same.
Anyway, has Wikileaks really seriously hurt ANY country? They overestimate their own impact.
It's Section 605 of the Communications Act, and 17 USC 705. It begins "Except as authorized by chapter 119, title 18, United States Code,".
Chapter 119 contains all sorts of interesting exceptions, including 18 USC 2511 (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person-- (ii) to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted-- (IV) by any marine or aeronautical communications system;
If you did vote, you didn't vote for someone who would represent your interests or your interests are so far from mainstream that it didn't matter to the majority of people.
If you didn't vote, you abdicated your civic responsibility and choose instead to bow to the will of others
Either way you have no reason to complain.
So by definition, the ballot box can't fail. If you lose there you should just sit down and shut up.
I wonder how long it will be before all the four-character goo.gl links are exhausted, most of them by programs run by people trying to get apparently-meaningful goatse links.
That said, I'm not sure I'd be too happy with rednecks towing 105mm howitzers behind pickups with a rack of Stingers in the back.
They are for hunting.. I swear.
I'm sure if you gave a redneck 105mm howitzers and Stinger missiles, he'd try to hunt with them. Of course, he'd never SAY so, at least not where a game warden might hear.
Yes, exactly. They have enough power to throw some sand into the process to sink large projects. Why? Because there is almost no political power behind those large projects.
Oh, please. They're started by the same connected wealthy corporations who buy laws wholesale.
America, as a country, has forgotten how to do large-scale infrastructure projects. We no longer have the willpower to see it through, because we've become so focused on tangible profits next year that we've lost sight of the benefit of less-tangible benefits five years from now.
We haven't forgotten. We've just found that it's not worth the effort, as it is too easy to block. Too much permission has to be obtained, too many requirements fulfilled, and each one is a lever for opponents to delay or styme the project.
You can *more* take advantage of modern technology (like great insulation, efficient heating and renewable sources of energy) and consume fewer resources.
Insulating an older home reaches diminishing returns rather quickly. How much energy does it take to make those replacement windows? Because once you're done the easy stuff, that's going to be the next significant step.
They have the power to mandate that sort of top-down attitude in their own country, and in spite of what you can say about China's human rights record, this is by and large working.
Working how? Not in terms of energy use; their energy use is far below ours, but it started far below ours. It's going way up now.
This is exactly what Eric Schmitt is saying and the nature of his comment : "China is a well-run large business"
China is large, it is run from the top down, and it often seems it's being run for profit. But I think "well-run" is an overstatement. China has over 3 times the number of people as the US, and abundant natural resources, and yet it still has a GDP 1/3rd that of the US.
So while "legal" DRM measures can't do much beyond saying "you're being naughty, please stop" the illegal copies of illegal software could give themselves licence to wreak havoc on the machine that's attempting to run them.
True. But after a few incidents, people would just start running their pirated copies in a virtual or disposable machine. The paranoid ones would do that from the start.
Okay, but how does a lengthy copyright term warrant bomb threats and DDOS attacks on a law firm? The firm didn't create the law, and it doesn't have the power to change it. It's just enforcing it on behalf of a client, who also neither created the law nor has the power to change it.
Ah, the Nuremberg defense. Which doesn't even apply, as the law firm went out specifically looking for the clients. If you go out specifically looking to enforce an unjust law, you're voluntarily taking on some of the blame for that injustice.
Assuming you voted, YOU VOTED FOR THE PEOPLE WHO VOTED FOR THE DMCA. But, if you are like so many people, you didn't even bother to vote so you have no right to complain.
Wait, so if I voted I can't complain because I voted for the people who voted for the DMCA. But if I didn't vote, I also can't complain? What if I voted but none of the candidates I voted for won?
If you think this has reached ammo box stage then you are more than just a fool, you are a dangerous, over-reacting ideologue. Rather than vote with one's wallet and using the ballot box, you would jump to committing murder.
Soap box: Doesn't work. Nobody listens, and the other side doesn't just control the media, they ARE the media. Ballot box: Doesn't work. No viable candidate opposes these laws. The DMCA passed unanimously in the Senate and by acclamation in the House. Jury box: No good. If you oppose these laws you will be excluded from any relevant jury.
So by the "box method", we're indeed up to "ammo box".
Here again, the geek presents himself as a misunderstood and persecuted minority --- but in a very strange juxtaposition with the drug dealer and serial killer.
So if 999 people participate in a DDoS attack, and one (whose sympathies are assumed to lie in the same place) sends a bomb threat, it's OK to treat all 1000 as if they were involved with the bomb threat?
Great if you want a police state (want to shut down a protest group? Plant an agent provocateur). Not so good otherwise.
Anyone making bomb threats needs to be found, arrested and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
Damn right. If you're going to bomb someone, just do it. If you're not, don't say that you are. All this ridiculous threat stuff just makes you look like an ass.
Protecting incumbents seems to be the most common unintended consequence of "campaign reform" laws and proposals. It would make me suspicious about the "unintended" part, except that such reforms seem popular even among people who have no ulterior motives, just enough good intentions to pave a road.
It's still not unintended by those who vote for it.
Of course "campaign finance reform" protects incumbents, no matter how it is done. Incumbents have power, power which can be used to convince people to vote for them. For their opponents to counter this, they need an edge. The most available one is money. Use campaign finance laws to take that away, and you increase the incumbent's advantage.
Despite what some whiners online may say, America really is a free country both in that you can say what you want, and that the people have the power to change the government.
Mostly on the first, not really on the second.
What that means is that if you want to organize around candidates to change the current system, the government can't stop you, and that if you vote those candidates in to power, that is that.
The ways incumbents protect themselves are myriad.. and effective.
The only obstacle is people who are whiny and say nothing can be changed.
How are they (or we) stopping you?
People who claim things can be changed through political means are usually just supporters of the status quo who want their opponents to wear themselves down trying to do so.
Do you.. do you really think that the reason why we're not building more hydroelectric dams is because of the Greens?
You realize that they have almost exactly zero political power, right?
Nonsense. They have enough power to throw sand into the process to sink about any large project. Even if they don't get a court to shut down the project, they manage to get delay after delay after delay, adding so much risk and cost that the investors back out.
There are no need for those dams or the power if we Americans would just learn to stop being such power pigs. We are just 4% of the World's population but we use 25% of the World's oil. The percentage is even higher for total energy consumption. We are gluttons.
Shut off your heat and air conditioning, turn off your computer, and unplug your refrigerator, then. I for one choose to take advantage of modern technology, which means using energy. You want to live like you're in the third world? Be my guest.
Slashdot Mirror
Ignore the moral hazard, and you set the economy up for an ever-accelerating cycle of bubble and crash, which quickly ends in "crash". When people learn that working hard and living within one's just means greater taxation, whereas spending other people's money like a drunken sailor leads to debt forgiveness with no consequences, lots more people are going to opt for the latter course.
You haven't priced out window installation, then.
It's a bit odd objecting to a pose because it's "sexually suggestive", but not objecting to perfume intended to be sexually suggestive.
Problem is, the fee is uncollectable. There'd need to be a change in the law to make it collectable; someone above suggested a lien on the property, which would make perfect sense.
If I get robbed they won't investigate it anyway. Take a report and maybe return the less-saleable bits of my stuff if they happen to catch the criminals later on; they won't specifically search for them.
If I get murdered, I'm really not going to give a damn whether they investigate.
Yeah, but that rule is in the Bill of Rights specifically because under British rule, they'd keep trying someone over and over until they got the right verdict. Many of the rights in the Bill of Rights (and the main body of the Constitution) are there as a response to British wrongs.
The way Young reports it, he had the conversation with Zetter and _at the end_ she asked him to not report it. He responded "sure" but didn't say what tone of voice he used. She then pointed out that he always reported interviews, so it's clear she didn't really expect him to keep it quiet. I'm not sure why Young is so pissed at Wired. Just because the vandal went and bragged to them after the fact doesn't make Wired "complicit" as he claims.
It's easier and safer to leak documents from western democracies. And there's also the issue of news. The US or a European country does something bad, it's news. Russia, China, and Iran do something bad... well, what did you expect? They're totalitarian countries bent on world domination.
ObCarAnalogy: A Yugo breaking down on the way home from the dealership, versus your Honda doing the same.
Anyway, has Wikileaks really seriously hurt ANY country? They overestimate their own impact.
It's Section 605 of the Communications Act, and 17 USC 705. It begins "Except as authorized by chapter 119, title 18, United States Code,".
Chapter 119 contains all sorts of interesting exceptions, including
18 USC 2511 (2)(g) It shall not be unlawful under this chapter or chapter 121 of this title for any person--
(ii) to intercept any radio communication which is transmitted--
(IV) by any marine or aeronautical communications system;
So by definition, the ballot box can't fail. If you lose there you should just sit down and shut up.
Why would the FCC care? This isn't amateur radio.
I wonder how long it will be before all the four-character goo.gl links are exhausted, most of them by programs run by people trying to get apparently-meaningful goatse links.
I'm sure if you gave a redneck 105mm howitzers and Stinger missiles, he'd try to hunt with them. Of course, he'd never SAY so, at least not where a game warden might hear.
Oh, please. They're started by the same connected wealthy corporations who buy laws wholesale.
We haven't forgotten. We've just found that it's not worth the effort, as it is too easy to block. Too much permission has to be obtained, too many requirements fulfilled, and each one is a lever for opponents to delay or styme the project.
Insulating an older home reaches diminishing returns rather quickly. How much energy does it take to make those replacement windows? Because once you're done the easy stuff, that's going to be the next significant step.
Working how? Not in terms of energy use; their energy use is far below ours, but it started far below ours. It's going way up now.
China is large, it is run from the top down, and it often seems it's being run for profit. But I think "well-run" is an overstatement. China has over 3 times the number of people as the US, and abundant natural resources, and yet it still has a GDP 1/3rd that of the US.
True. But after a few incidents, people would just start running their pirated copies in a virtual or disposable machine. The paranoid ones would do that from the start.
Ah, the Nuremberg defense. Which doesn't even apply, as the law firm went out specifically looking for the clients. If you go out specifically looking to enforce an unjust law, you're voluntarily taking on some of the blame for that injustice.
Wait, so if I voted I can't complain because I voted for the people who voted for the DMCA. But if I didn't vote, I also can't complain? What if I voted but none of the candidates I voted for won?
Soap box: Doesn't work. Nobody listens, and the other side doesn't just control the media, they ARE the media.
Ballot box: Doesn't work. No viable candidate opposes these laws. The DMCA passed unanimously in the Senate and by acclamation in the House.
Jury box: No good. If you oppose these laws you will be excluded from any relevant jury.
So by the "box method", we're indeed up to "ammo box".
So if 999 people participate in a DDoS attack, and one (whose sympathies are assumed to lie in the same place) sends a bomb threat, it's OK to treat all 1000 as if they were involved with the bomb threat?
Great if you want a police state (want to shut down a protest group? Plant an agent provocateur). Not so good otherwise.
Damn right. If you're going to bomb someone, just do it. If you're not, don't say that you are. All this ridiculous threat stuff just makes you look like an ass.
It's still not unintended by those who vote for it. Of course "campaign finance reform" protects incumbents, no matter how it is done. Incumbents have power, power which can be used to convince people to vote for them. For their opponents to counter this, they need an edge. The most available one is money. Use campaign finance laws to take that away, and you increase the incumbent's advantage.
Mostly on the first, not really on the second.
The ways incumbents protect themselves are myriad.. and effective.
How are they (or we) stopping you?
People who claim things can be changed through political means are usually just supporters of the status quo who want their opponents to wear themselves down trying to do so.
Nonsense. They have enough power to throw sand into the process to sink about any large project. Even if they don't get a court to shut down the project, they manage to get delay after delay after delay, adding so much risk and cost that the investors back out.
Shut off your heat and air conditioning, turn off your computer, and unplug your refrigerator, then. I for one choose to take advantage of modern technology, which means using energy. You want to live like you're in the third world? Be my guest.
Eh? Evolution has no specification and only one requirement: Survive to reproduce.