The phrase "Every movement needs an RMS to be successful" can be translated to P -> Q where P = Movement lacks RMS Q = Movement is unsuccessful
Jim Jones's movement was unsuccessful, despite having an RMS (Jim Jones). But this is only significant if NOT P -> NOT Q, that is, if having an RMS implies the movement is successful. That's not true; that's the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
If you translate it instead as P': Movement is successful Q': Movement has RMS P' -> Q' then the fallacy is that of affirming the consequent, but it's logically equivalent.
It's not that gambling isn't a "victimless crime" it's that online gambling is just so inherently corrupt.
It wouldn't be so corrupt if operators could legally set up shop in places where their customers would have meaningful recourse against corrupt operators. Like, for instance, in the same country as the customers.
Gambling isn't even remotely victimless- why do you think there are recovery groups for gambling addiction?
Non sequitur. The existence of a recovery group for addiction to X does not indicate that doing X results in a victim. For instance, there's groups for shopping addiction, yet shopping is victimless.
You have to pay when your neighbor robs the local convenience store to pay the rent/mortgage/grocer (or their gambling debts, or just to gamble more), loses the house/apartment anyway, and their spouse and child are now homeless and on welfare.
Same as I have to pay if he robs the local convenience store because he bought too much house for his income, or spent all his money on a business that failed, or any number of things. It's already illegal to rob the local convenience store; making the reasons someone might rob a local convenience store illegal is not compatible with a free dociety.
Take a look at the police spending in any community pre-and-post casino. It always skyrockets after the casinos move in, because casinos attract the desperate, mentally ill, and criminal.
Casinos attract a lot of people full stop. But this is about _internet_ gambling; the desperate, mentally ill, and criminal can stay right where they are.
Let me guess, you are someone who thinks that we need to limit free speech in order to "level" the playing field or some such?
That's essentially what the Supreme Court said was OK in failing to overturn McCain-Feingold the first time around. I believe the Citizens United decision did reverse some of that as well, however.
"We don't all need to be RMS, but just about every movement needs an RMS to be successful."
Sure, where would those 900 members of the People's Temple be without Jim Jones. And where would Slasdotters be without the phrase "Drinking the Kool-Aid"?
The fallacy of denying the antecedent, on Slashdot? Horrors. As for the second question we'd be somewhat lacking in ways to sneer at Mac users, but otherwise be unchanged.
so build into all US produced ( or at least with US label ) network devices a small Trojan Boot Loader hidden with dirty programming.
It's plausible, but it's a works-once kind of thing. As soon as you make any major use of it, it's going to be found out, and everyone else is going to go looking for it. So you have to save it for when it's really valuable, but doing that means you risk it being found anyway and never using it.
It['s
And you end up with a fifth colon paid by the very IT user.
Screw up with your customers data, and the worst that happens is you get a PR black eye, or you lose money. Don't follow regulations and unless you've got a Congressman in your pocket, you can go to jail.
Well, it's been successful so far. And I'm not sure that having two polities build enough weapons to destroy civilization several times over and trigger a mass extinction in the space of thirty minutes as part of a dispute over property distribution counts as reasonable by any stretch of the imagination.
Reasonable? No one thought it was reasonable; that "Mutual Assured Destruction" spells out "MAD" wasn't an accident. It was, however, better than any practical alternative.
I'd think something like RSA is more worthy of a patent than 'a controller that lights up'.
The "controller that lights up" patents are design patents, which have different standards; they cover what the controller looks like, not how useful it is.
It's also too bad that the people who use roads don't do so directly. By living in our country, where you get deliveries of pizza, packages of books and people coming out to service your heater so you don't free to death, you qualify to pay the road tax, whether you directly use a car or not.
That makes no sense. For some other indirect benefits you could make that case, but for road tax there's no need. The pizza delivery people pay road tax, the package delivery people pay road tax, the HVAC service people pay road tax, and they simply pass that on to you as part of the cost of the delivery or service.
Hey, buddy. I sees you gots a nice little parcel o' land there. It would be horrible if something were to, say, happen to it. We, of course, will be happy to provide protection for, ahh, a small fee...
The actual government taxing authorities are a bit more direct about it, but it's pretty much the same idea.
Surely you can't tell me that this was what they meant by Free Speech?
Ah, the censor's best friend; the person who is for free speech in the abstract, but whenever it is put to the test, finds a reason for it not to apply.
Freedom of Speech doesn't mean Freedom of Action, and doesn't mean that a sick action like disseminating pictures of dead bodies for use as a part of a harassment campaign or as a demented prank is protected speech.
Publishing is an action, and it is indeed covered under freedom of speech and of the press. You can't rely on the speech/action dichotomy here.
it just means your rights have to be abridged somewhere around where the next man's rights begin./blockquote. You know, "abridging the freedom of speech" is exactly how the First Amendment puts it. Along with a "shall make no law" of course.
They apply laws to everyone that you think don't really apply to you.
They apply laws selectively, they make up rules of their own and attempt to make them stick (and often succeed) under ill-conceived blanket laws (e.g. "disturbing the peace" for verbally questioning a cop's authowitay), and they give other cops (and to a lesser extent EMTs and cop's families) a free pass on almost everything. When they get into court their testimony has nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with telling a story which will achieve a conviction.
There are relatively few people who, despite the fact that they see on a regular basis the worst that people do to each other, get out of bed each day and go out to help everyone, not just the people you agree with, but also the people you despise, simply because they are people.
If it has the effect of slander, then it is slander.
It has to be the "publication of matter conveying a defamatory imputation". The hyperlink might "convey a defamatory imputation" if (and only if) someone clicks on it to reach the libelous material, but unless publication of the hyperlink itself is what conveys the defamatory imputation, it shouldn't be covered. Since the lower court already decided that way and there's a real-world analog in footnotes (where publishing a footnote which refers to a defamatory work isn't itself defamatory), it's at least likely the Supreme Court won't screw it up.
Not that this will save you if the text of the hyperlink itself is "PLAINTIFF IS A KIDDY FIDDLER", of course.
Wireless alarms at all windows and doors. They are amazingly inexpensive and super easy to install. The only way to get in without tripping an alarm is break through a wall.
Or to cut a window with a glass cutter. Or to jam the wireless sensors (they'll fault, but not alarm).
Am i the only "european, single male in their 30es" who frequently travels on one-way (business class) tickets?
One way with no checked luggage is good for a free "extra ssspecial" search every time, one way alone is probably a flag. Terrorists are likely smart enough to buy return tickets.
Let's be honest, James Lovelock doesn't speak for the entire movement, whatever else you want to say about that little statement.
I'm sure many of the rest are horrified that he said it. Gives too much ammo to us nutty conspiracy theorists, after all.
I suspect that you're alluding the the larger notion that climate change is merely a vehicle for the increase of "world government". I find broad international regulation to be worrisome as well, but to suggest that the entire movement is inspired by such motivations is as disrespectful to the proponents of AGW as suggesting that all skeptics are oil-company cronies.
Not "world government" as such, just an massive increase in government power for existing national governments. The climate change movement of course is heterogeneous, but those using it as a vehicle for increased government power are well-represented.
Why can't we just focus more on particulate emissions, groundwater contamination, and dozens of other issues which have clearly visible impacts on the biological world?
Because it's possible to do something about those issues without suspending democracy.
If they did nothing, you call them back and say "Either deal with the drug dealer or the neighborhood will do your job for you in the bloodiest manner possible and LAY ALL THE BLAME ON YOU."
Watch how fast they send units YOUR house - especially if you boost the phone call with some loud rowdy crowd soundbytes.
The underground is chill, damp, slow and lonely. You are marginalized in a space you share with the perverts and wackos. When you come up for air you are tainted by the smell of the sewers.
So it's like going to the United Artists Riverview Theatre? Wow, piracy is even more like the legit experience than I thought:-)
Slashdot Mirror
The phrase "Every movement needs an RMS to be successful" can be translated to
P -> Q
where
P = Movement lacks RMS
Q = Movement is unsuccessful
Jim Jones's movement was unsuccessful, despite having an RMS (Jim Jones). But this is only significant if
NOT P -> NOT Q, that is, if having an RMS implies the movement is successful. That's not true; that's the fallacy of denying the antecedent.
If you translate it instead as
P': Movement is successful
Q': Movement has RMS
P' -> Q'
then the fallacy is that of affirming the consequent, but it's logically equivalent.
It wouldn't be so corrupt if operators could legally set up shop in places where their customers would have meaningful recourse against corrupt operators. Like, for instance, in the same country as the customers.
Non sequitur. The existence of a recovery group for addiction to X does not indicate that doing X results in a victim. For instance, there's groups for shopping addiction, yet shopping is victimless.
Same as I have to pay if he robs the local convenience store because he bought too much house for his income, or spent all his money on a business that failed, or any number of things. It's already illegal to rob the local convenience store; making the reasons someone might rob a local convenience store illegal is not compatible with a free dociety.
Casinos attract a lot of people full stop. But this is about _internet_ gambling; the desperate, mentally ill, and criminal can stay right where they are.
Not in the US. Google "feist v. rural".
That's essentially what the Supreme Court said was OK in failing to overturn McCain-Feingold the first time around. I believe the Citizens United decision did reverse some of that as well, however.
The fallacy of denying the antecedent, on Slashdot? Horrors. As for the second question we'd be somewhat lacking in ways to sneer at Mac users, but otherwise be unchanged.
It's plausible, but it's a works-once kind of thing. As soon as you make any major use of it, it's going to be found out, and everyone else is going to go looking for it. So you have to save it for when it's really valuable, but doing that means you risk it being found anyway and never using it.
It['s
What happened to colons two through four?
Screw up with your customers data, and the worst that happens is you get a PR black eye, or you lose money. Don't follow regulations and unless you've got a Congressman in your pocket, you can go to jail.
Reasonable? No one thought it was reasonable; that "Mutual Assured Destruction" spells out "MAD" wasn't an accident. It was, however, better than any practical alternative.
The "controller that lights up" patents are design patents, which have different standards; they cover what the controller looks like, not how useful it is.
That makes no sense. For some other indirect benefits you could make that case, but for road tax there's no need. The pizza delivery people pay road tax, the package delivery people pay road tax, the HVAC service people pay road tax, and they simply pass that on to you as part of the cost of the delivery or service.
The actual government taxing authorities are a bit more direct about it, but it's pretty much the same idea.
Ah, the censor's best friend; the person who is for free speech in the abstract, but whenever it is put to the test, finds a reason for it not to apply.
Publishing is an action, and it is indeed covered under freedom of speech and of the press. You can't rely on the speech/action dichotomy here.
Because they're villains.
They apply laws selectively, they make up rules of their own and attempt to make them stick (and often succeed) under ill-conceived blanket laws (e.g. "disturbing the peace" for verbally questioning a cop's authowitay), and they give other cops (and to a lesser extent EMTs and cop's families) a free pass on almost everything. When they get into court their testimony has nothing to do with the truth and everything to do with telling a story which will achieve a conviction.
And none of those people are cops.
It has to be the "publication of matter conveying a defamatory imputation". The hyperlink might "convey a defamatory imputation" if (and only if) someone clicks on it to reach the libelous material, but unless publication of the hyperlink itself is what conveys the defamatory imputation, it shouldn't be covered. Since the lower court already decided that way and there's a real-world analog in footnotes (where publishing a footnote which refers to a defamatory work isn't itself defamatory), it's at least likely the Supreme Court won't screw it up.
Not that this will save you if the text of the hyperlink itself is "PLAINTIFF IS A KIDDY FIDDLER", of course.
IANAL, IANAC, IANACL
Wrong. Look up the doctrine of "constructive possession".
The good news is there's a solution to this.
The bad news is that it's "Trusted Computing"
And why would you? Just email the stuff to the victim, from a suitably anonymous location.
Or to cut a window with a glass cutter. Or to jam the wireless sensors (they'll fault, but not alarm).
One way with no checked luggage is good for a free "extra ssspecial" search every time, one way alone is probably a flag. Terrorists are likely smart enough to buy return tickets.
On that note, did you know that the Onion's April Fools joke is that all their stories are absolutely real today? No foolin!
I'm sure many of the rest are horrified that he said it. Gives too much ammo to us nutty conspiracy theorists, after all.
Not "world government" as such, just an massive increase in government power for existing national governments. The climate change movement of course is heterogeneous, but those using it as a vehicle for increased government power are well-represented.
Because it's possible to do something about those issues without suspending democracy.
Fixed it for you.
So it's like going to the United Artists Riverview Theatre? Wow, piracy is even more like the legit experience than I thought :-)