Also, if pocketing all the cash results in a low take for the scammers, think how little the legit truckers must get in profits under normal circumstances!
A smack addiction, provided the drug is clean and doesn't involve risks associated with crime to get it, won't harm the body. It's not carcinogenic, like anything smoked, it's not bad for the heart, like alcohol, baccy, cocaine and speed, it doesn't lead to psychosis, like weed and speed and cocaine can.
As for dependence, you are of course right; but that's not dangerous in and of itself. As with any opiate, if you get a continuing clean supply you won't have much physical health trouble from the drug itself.
Now it stuffs up your life, since you spend a certain amount of time non-functional, and it cost a bucketload of money, but these are not direct medical/physical harms of the kinds we associate with smoking, drinking or crystal meth (ice).
I don't agree at all. The USA bangs on a lot about individualism, individual rights, individual responsibilities, lots of movies about individual heroes.
Individuals can and often do make all the difference, from leaders like Alexander the great or Churchill, down through men like Rommel or Lawrence of Arabia and so on down the line all the way to Private Ryan.
A single military platoon is small, but can be used to great effect.
Saddam was a single man at the right place and time in a revolution. So where Castro and Che.
I just don't believe that government trumps community. Leaving aside the white wired middle class for a moment, every other group in the USA has their own internal efficient and informal systems of communication and trust. The Mexicans, Italians, Afro-Americans, Chinese and muslim communities all come to mind and with the possible exception of certain Italian groups, none hold great loyalty to the current system, at least a the street level.
The real problem is not communication or ispiration; the real problem will be countering governement attempts to sow dissent and disunity, thus divinding the groups.
I think it's because the scanners don't like the executable packers used by the "scene" on a wide range of executables. It's hard to find a signature in a packed exe, so they use the "fingerprints" of the packer.
You have understood a reason why the social contract does not work as well as it once did.
It used to be that word would pass around that you were a dodgy person, you wouldn't be given letters of introduction and so on.
In this case, it would be that ISPs would pass knowledge that Billy on the corner near the baker's was not only a hog, but didn't even change after being told off. "Gasp! The gall of the man!"
So then Billy would have trouble finding an ISP willing to hook him up with a link.
Now of course the idea of community is a pathetic joke, because of modern lifestyles, travel and communications, so this down-side to abusing your moral responsibility to those around you (do unto others etc) is almost completely gone.
My point is though that the social contract is not crap, nor is it really even philosophy, it's important in an understanding of how to pursue happiness.
"Except that none of these are the responsibility of a properly-functioning government."
That's a statement of opinion.
" There is no right to "basic services". "
There is a moral right to clean water, and food, amongst other things, and these are enumerated by the UN and other bodies.
I'm assuming that you are discussing rights in the context of the USA and the bill of rights, in which case you chould remember that:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
You should note that the poster claimed that the provision of basic services is the responsibility of the Government, they did not claim that the people had a right to this, but that it's a responsibility of Govt. You started with this rights crap.
You don't appear to agree about the responsibility of Govt to provide basic services, AFAICT you think that shared "essential" resources (water, land, roads, police) should be owned by private interests who can charge what the market will bear, I assume.
But it's not up to, nor up to any specific ideology. The people as a whole may decide what the government is reponsible for, and what it is not responsible for.
The people as a whole have the right to sell off or nationalise telco or oil companies as they see fit.
If the People do not retain the power over their own land and laws, then it's not a democracy, it's some other form of rule.
If over half the population want something and it doesn't happen, then your democracy is broken and should be called something else, no?
Amongst other things, the speaker details the scientific testing done trying to find processed food with no corn in it. USians should listen to this talk.
If you're referring to a real greengrocer, then you need to check the availability and price of these stores and goods compared with processed foods. I don't think most people can afford a fresh fruit-and-veg diet in the US, or so I've been told.
As for the liver, apparently every cell in the body can metabolize glucose. However, all fructose must be metabolized in the liver. The livers of rats on high fructose diet look like the livers of alcoholics, plugged with fat and cirrhotic. (from http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/cornsyrup.html)
This is probably what the previous poster was referring to.
A tarrif is not the same as a subsidy. However, they have roughly the same effect. Ignoring tarrifs, it remains true that the corn industry, and the oil industry upon which it depends so heavily, are both subsidised by the US taxpayer.
Between 1995 and 2003, federal corn subsidies totaled $37.3 billion. Ethanol makes this even worse.
The US government has many flaws, but these flaws are not inherent to all governments. The US Governmental system is not working properly and is not attempting to act in the best interests of the people.
This does not mean that Government is and institution that protects the lazy, only that _yours_ is such an institution.
you still arrogantly assume it's any of the business of the USA who has what in the first place.
The USA holds the smallpox virus. What do they intend for that?
If you accept that you regard americans as more worthy and special than the rest of the world that's ok, just say so and stop blathering about the self-evident truths that you hold.
It's the hypocrisy that drives me nuts. When the govt responsible for your area tries to regulate the ownership of deadly weapons with no peaceful purpose you get upset, but somehow people on the other side of the planet have to justify their purchase of mineral ore to you. It's inconsistent, irrational, unjustifiable and arrogant.
If you need one set of rights that you apply to Americans, and a different set of rights to other people that's ok, but you should say so instead of talking nonsense.
If Iraq is free now, are they allowed to start a nuclear energy program like some other countries have, or even have nuclear weapons like so many other nations have? Or are they only free to sell off state assets as undisclosed prices?
Slashdot Mirror
Does this include violent non-combat deaths?
Does this include combat deaths of private military contractors?
In Shakespearian terms, this is:
"Methinks thou dost protest too much".
Surely the cure too having something too big to fail is to limit its size in the first place.
Determine where the line is been fail and too big, then cap entities to that size. See it as basic risk management.
Problem is, when the shit hits the fan, a lot of things become correlated that didn't use to be.
aggregate energy available for work correlates all aspects of the economy. Pull on that and everything moves with it.
"Old men make wars for young men to die in"
nvidia nforce chipset?
How many other scams were they running?
How much time did it take per day to run this?
Also, if pocketing all the cash results in a low take for the scammers, think how little the legit truckers must get in profits under normal circumstances!
"when you look at the kind of power structyre that were are being asked to support, it turns my stomach."
Are we talking about Afghanistan here or the USA?
Sorry I've spent a lot of time looking at this.
A smack addiction, provided the drug is clean and doesn't involve risks associated with crime to get it, won't harm the body. It's not carcinogenic, like anything smoked, it's not bad for the heart, like alcohol, baccy, cocaine and speed, it doesn't lead to psychosis, like weed and speed and cocaine can.
As for dependence, you are of course right; but that's not dangerous in and of itself. As with any opiate, if you get a continuing clean supply you won't have much physical health trouble from the drug itself.
Now it stuffs up your life, since you spend a certain amount of time non-functional, and it cost a bucketload of money, but these are not direct medical/physical harms of the kinds we associate with smoking, drinking or crystal meth (ice).
the citizens of America in the south don't have a problem with the death penalty. .....?
Actually you were always pretty safe, and still are, the only thing that changed was your perception went from accurate to inaccurate.
Statistically, you'd have been better off scanning the roads for other drunk or sleeping drivers. Explosions on the horizon won't hurt you.
I don't agree at all. The USA bangs on a lot about individualism, individual rights, individual responsibilities, lots of movies about individual heroes.
Individuals can and often do make all the difference, from leaders like Alexander the great or Churchill, down through men like Rommel or Lawrence of Arabia and so on down the line all the way to Private Ryan.
A single military platoon is small, but can be used to great effect.
Saddam was a single man at the right place and time in a revolution. So where Castro and Che.
I just don't believe that government trumps community. Leaving aside the white wired middle class for a moment, every other group in the USA has their own internal efficient and informal systems of communication and trust. The Mexicans, Italians, Afro-Americans, Chinese and muslim communities all come to mind and with the possible exception of certain Italian groups, none hold great loyalty to the current system, at least a the street level.
The real problem is not communication or ispiration; the real problem will be countering governement attempts to sow dissent and disunity, thus divinding the groups.
capital punishment doesn't stop other capital crimes, so why would your idea work?
CTS, good to see you here; I agree, but I still don't use facebook, partly because I can't be bothered but mostly because I haven't enough friends.
- FreakWent
I think it's because the scanners don't like the executable packers used by the "scene" on a wide range of executables. It's hard to find a signature in a packed exe, so they use the "fingerprints" of the packer.
IMHO.
You have understood a reason why the social contract does not work as well as it once did.
It used to be that word would pass around that you were a dodgy person, you wouldn't be given letters of introduction and so on.
In this case, it would be that ISPs would pass knowledge that Billy on the corner near the baker's was not only a hog, but didn't even change after being told off. "Gasp! The gall of the man!"
So then Billy would have trouble finding an ISP willing to hook him up with a link.
Now of course the idea of community is a pathetic joke, because of modern lifestyles, travel and communications, so this down-side to abusing your moral responsibility to those around you (do unto others etc) is almost completely gone.
My point is though that the social contract is not crap, nor is it really even philosophy, it's important in an understanding of how to pursue happiness.
You might do well to read "The naked ape" and other books by:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Ardrey
indicative of a temperature rise over a timespan slightly longer than a hundred years, correlating with the industrial age?
Correlation is not causation, but I'm not claiming that it is, I'm just explaining why it's interesting.
"Except that none of these are the responsibility of a properly-functioning government."
That's a statement of opinion.
" There is no right to "basic services". "
There is a moral right to clean water, and food, amongst other things, and these are enumerated by the UN and other bodies.
I'm assuming that you are discussing rights in the context of the USA and the bill of rights, in which case you chould remember that:
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
You should note that the poster claimed that the provision of basic services is the responsibility of the Government, they did not claim that the people had a right to this, but that it's a responsibility of Govt. You started with this rights crap.
You don't appear to agree about the responsibility of Govt to provide basic services, AFAICT you think that shared "essential" resources (water, land, roads, police) should be owned by private interests who can charge what the market will bear, I assume.
But it's not up to, nor up to any specific ideology. The people as a whole may decide what the government is reponsible for, and what it is not responsible for.
The people as a whole have the right to sell off or nationalise telco or oil companies as they see fit.
If the People do not retain the power over their own land and laws, then it's not a democracy, it's some other form of rule.
If over half the population want something and it doesn't happen, then your democracy is broken and should be called something else, no?
"Because there is no right or wrong"
3/10 You need to show working. Must try harder.
"Oh stop it. 90% of food at the grocery store does not have high-fructose corn syrup in it."
Assuming a grocery store is a supermarket and not a greegrocer's, then you are wrong.
I apologise for the payment gate, but there's an hour long lecture on corn in the US food system available here:
http://www.alternativeradio.org/programs/POLM001.shtml
Amongst other things, the speaker details the scientific testing done trying to find processed food with no corn in it. USians should listen to this talk.
If you're referring to a real greengrocer, then you need to check the availability and price of these stores and goods compared with processed foods. I don't think most people can afford a fresh fruit-and-veg diet in the US, or so I've been told.
As for the liver, apparently every cell in the body can metabolize glucose. However, all fructose must be metabolized in the liver. The livers of rats on high fructose diet look like the livers of alcoholics, plugged with fat and cirrhotic. (from http://www.westonaprice.org/motherlinda/cornsyrup.html)
This is probably what the previous poster was referring to.
A tarrif is not the same as a subsidy. However, they have roughly the same effect. Ignoring tarrifs, it remains true that the corn industry, and the oil industry upon which it depends so heavily, are both subsidised by the US taxpayer.
Between 1995 and 2003, federal corn subsidies totaled $37.3 billion. Ethanol makes this even worse.
http://www.slate.com/id/2122961/
There are very big problems with corn in the USA and you should do your own homework; it took me 5 mins to glue some links together.
Oh, and read "fast food nation".
"It works for me".
The US government has many flaws, but these flaws are not inherent to all governments. The US Governmental system is not working properly and is not attempting to act in the best interests of the people.
This does not mean that Government is and institution that protects the lazy, only that _yours_ is such an institution.
so... don't use those websites.
Market forces!
OMG you fail. Find out what your nation mines and exports, and how much of it, and how much it's worth.
you still arrogantly assume it's any of the business of the USA who has what in the first place.
The USA holds the smallpox virus. What do they intend for that?
If you accept that you regard americans as more worthy and special than the rest of the world that's ok, just say so and stop blathering about the self-evident truths that you hold.
It's the hypocrisy that drives me nuts. When the govt responsible for your area tries to regulate the ownership of deadly weapons with no peaceful purpose you get upset, but somehow people on the other side of the planet have to justify their purchase of mineral ore to you. It's inconsistent, irrational, unjustifiable and arrogant.
If you need one set of rights that you apply to Americans, and a different set of rights to other people that's ok, but you should say so instead of talking nonsense.
If Iraq is free now, are they allowed to start a nuclear energy program like some other countries have, or even have nuclear weapons like so many other nations have? Or are they only free to sell off state assets as undisclosed prices?
Iraq: Free as in Pwned