copying photoshop somehow hurts adobe even if you don't use it.
Yes it does. It takes electricity to copy it, and thus by copying it you are increasing the demand for electricity. As anyone who's taken economics knows the increased demand leads to a higher price. The higher price for electricity in turn increases Adobe's electric bill. Thus by copying photoshop you make Adobe spend more money on electricity.
Second, the libertarian approach toward justice is somewhat different than that I approach. I view justice as a dissuasive mechanism, something that can be used to stabilize situations. Libertarians view it as a restitutive mechanism, a method of restoring the state before the crime was committed. I believe that this approach leaves crime profitable unless law enforcement operates perfectly and 100% of damaging crimes are caught.
That's not what it sounded like to me. They were just saying if you are caught stealing something, not only should you go to jail, but you should also give it back.
Third, I very, very strongly disagree with their proposed changes to jury trials. They propose a combination of juries being volunteer and having the ability to override existing law. This effectively reduces the value of a written code of law, means that laws may basically be retroactively changed after a crime was committed, and means that extremists may use jury trials as a political platform, which I do not think is an appropriate place for rational and open discourse. I can understand how frusterated they are with being a minority party and wanting minority parties to have more political power, but I do not think that this is a good mechanism. I am particularly surprised that vote reform, one of the most valuable changes that would allow minority parties to gain political influence, is not a fundamental part of their platform -- I guess that if they ever get into power, they are unlikely to want to give up power to minority parties. Sigh.
It sounds to me more like they are saying that juries should use the right of jury nullification that they already have more than they do now. Jury nullification basicly means that the jury thinks that the law shouldn't apply in this particular case, so they vote innocent despite the evidence.
Seventh, their proposed method for dealing with pollution simply ignores the game-theoretic models that have convinced people that pollution is a public-good problem that requires intervention. Who cares if the children 100 years down the road get screwed over? The person causing the damage will be gone!
You must have missed the part about strict liability. If they pollute on your property you will be able to sue them; If they can manage to limit the pollution to their own property somehow, then its their problem.
Tenth, their policy on annexation is like the Guano Act plus a million. It would produce an unmanagable United States if a large number of citizens just started claiming things outside US borders (and seceding inside). Free market models assume fluidity, but governments require some rigidity to function.
Their policy on annexation isn't that bad. It just says that you can claim stuff that nobody else has(which is just about nothing these days). How do you think people originally obtained property?
Eleventh, I *hate* their policy about space usage, which is liable to leave earth orbit full of debris and other crap (it's a public good problem, which free markets and hence the Libertarian approach, do not deal with well).
Whats wrong with leaving crap orbiting the earth? It's not big enough to block the view of the sky, and it's not going to fall and hit someone on the head. I don't see how it would harm anyone.
Re:Supported by IBM who supports Sen Hatch ...
on
IT, Be Free!
·
· Score: 1
Or finding out that about every other household in my neighborhood is giving money to Democrats while Republicans are still winning my precinct (much higher Republican voter turnout).
That sounds really suspicious, and I dont think higher Rebublican voter turnout could explain it, considering that those who contribute to campaigns are very likely to vote.
The corporations pay less under the table than we pay in taxes. The difference is that the corporations pay the congressmen and not the government. The congressmen don't care as much how much money the government has, as they couldn't get away with voting to have the government give them each a ton of money, but they can get away with selling their votes on other issues.
And, well, it's especially true that this is a valid question to ask since neutrinos do funny things, like seem to change mass and charge in ways that we don't really understand.
You mean in ways that you don't understand. It makes perfect sense if you go through the math. Quarks change flavor too.
my point is that the harm caused by swearing,just like knowledge of the english language, is due to the persons upbringing, rather than being an inherent property of the word itself.
I'm not sure I follow here, so I'll lean on my slippery slope a second. How exactly is this different than the harm from seeing goatse? Isn't that similarly self/societally induced harm?
The big difference is that the harm from seeing goatse is instinctual rather than just cultural. If you swear in english at someone who does not know english they suffered no harm. If you show goatse to someone from any culture they will be grossed out.
Since these entries aren't as of a high profile as, say, Saddam Hussein, what kinds of safeguards can you think of to help ensure less popular topics become skewed?
both of you are wrong; it is physically impossible to attach the toast to the cat securely enough that it couldn't possibly fall off, so the toast will fall off midfall.
You dont need to know the formula for the kinetic and potential energy to tell that the kinetic energy needed is twice the potential energy; It follows from the virial theorem.
Ridiculously strong crypto on the applications (2048 bit RSA, double the keylength many banks use) means that only Microsoft programs can be run - MICROSOFT ONLY
There is a good reason they use longer keys than banks do; They protect their data whereas the bank only needs to use it to protect your data
Things like where was the warning sticker, why didn't they make me have a license like with a gun or car if I could be responsible for this much trouble... etc...
You know the country is screwed up if wireless access points can be used for crimes as severe as those with guns or cars. What are they going to do with the wireless access point, spam someone or violate copyrights? That stuff is like as bad as murder.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes it does. It takes electricity to copy it, and thus by copying it you are increasing the demand for electricity. As anyone who's taken economics knows the increased demand leads to a higher price. The higher price for electricity in turn increases Adobe's electric bill. Thus by copying photoshop you make Adobe spend more money on electricity.
Because it helps a politician's campaign when they say they helped pass laws that saved some number of lives.
Or you could just not even look at the ciphertext and guess the plaintext on your first shot. That isn't any less likely than guessing the key
Because this is slashdot
That's not what it sounded like to me. They were just saying if you are caught stealing something, not only should you go to jail, but you should also give it back.
Third, I very, very strongly disagree with their proposed changes to jury trials. They propose a combination of juries being volunteer and having the ability to override existing law. This effectively reduces the value of a written code of law, means that laws may basically be retroactively changed after a crime was committed, and means that extremists may use jury trials as a political platform, which I do not think is an appropriate place for rational and open discourse. I can understand how frusterated they are with being a minority party and wanting minority parties to have more political power, but I do not think that this is a good mechanism. I am particularly surprised that vote reform, one of the most valuable changes that would allow minority parties to gain political influence, is not a fundamental part of their platform -- I guess that if they ever get into power, they are unlikely to want to give up power to minority parties. Sigh.
It sounds to me more like they are saying that juries should use the right of jury nullification that they already have more than they do now. Jury nullification basicly means that the jury thinks that the law shouldn't apply in this particular case, so they vote innocent despite the evidence.
Seventh, their proposed method for dealing with pollution simply ignores the game-theoretic models that have convinced people that pollution is a public-good problem that requires intervention. Who cares if the children 100 years down the road get screwed over? The person causing the damage will be gone!
You must have missed the part about strict liability. If they pollute on your property you will be able to sue them; If they can manage to limit the pollution to their own property somehow, then its their problem.
Tenth, their policy on annexation is like the Guano Act plus a million. It would produce an unmanagable United States if a large number of citizens just started claiming things outside US borders (and seceding inside). Free market models assume fluidity, but governments require some rigidity to function.
Their policy on annexation isn't that bad. It just says that you can claim stuff that nobody else has(which is just about nothing these days). How do you think people originally obtained property?
Eleventh, I *hate* their policy about space usage, which is liable to leave earth orbit full of debris and other crap (it's a public good problem, which free markets and hence the Libertarian approach, do not deal with well).
Whats wrong with leaving crap orbiting the earth? It's not big enough to block the view of the sky, and it's not going to fall and hit someone on the head. I don't see how it would harm anyone.
That sounds really suspicious, and I dont think higher Rebublican voter turnout could explain it, considering that those who contribute to campaigns are very likely to vote.
The corporations pay less under the table than we pay in taxes. The difference is that the corporations pay the congressmen and not the government. The congressmen don't care as much how much money the government has, as they couldn't get away with voting to have the government give them each a ton of money, but they can get away with selling their votes on other issues.
You mean in ways that you don't understand. It makes perfect sense if you go through the math. Quarks change flavor too.
We could detect a higgs boson easily enough; the problem is producing one.
my point is that the harm caused by swearing,just like knowledge of the english language, is due to the persons upbringing, rather than being an inherent property of the word itself.
and they instead put the money into killing people
The big difference is that the harm from seeing goatse is instinctual rather than just cultural. If you swear in english at someone who does not know english they suffered no harm. If you show goatse to someone from any culture they will be grossed out.
Hmm, maybe a Recent changes list
there are a few differences(mainly due to differences in which corporations predominately fund them)
If you do it will lead to a logical contradiction(unless the cat and/or the toast bends so that they both land the correct way).
No in your example she's paying something that someone would want, here the RIAA is paying in stuff that nobody wanted.
both of you are wrong; it is physically impossible to attach the toast to the cat securely enough that it couldn't possibly fall off, so the toast will fall off midfall.
They have no pictures and aren't in arabic so the answer is no
But most of the hacking on windows boxen is not the kind they want.
the parachute will heat up then instead and you will lose it; its not worth the extra weight
actually now that i thought about it i realized that we were choosing different zero points for potential energy.
You dont need to know the formula for the kinetic and potential energy to tell that the kinetic energy needed is twice the potential energy; It follows from the virial theorem.
There is a good reason they use longer keys than banks do; They protect their data whereas the bank only needs to use it to protect your data
The parent only said Germany and France couldn't handle free speech; He never said the US could.
You know the country is screwed up if wireless access points can be used for crimes as severe as those with guns or cars. What are they going to do with the wireless access point, spam someone or violate copyrights? That stuff is like as bad as murder.