Because pain has a negative influence when an educated decision is sought. Just as those who counsel on a suicide hotline do not accept "my life isn't worth living" as a valid premise.
I've got plenty of mistrust of doctors but I still trust them more than I trust an engineer like myself. If the third opinion-giving doctor tells me it an unacceptable risk, that's good enough for me. What we've actually told these people is that their lives are worth living even with the pain. I'm in favor of some form of medical suicide if that's better than living in untreatable pain, but society is still too conservative to agree, so your form of it is just as void.
I watched the excerpt and it's just a bit of anecdotal evidence, which specifically mentions that a jury convicted the poor guy. Why don't you blame only the prosecutor when it's the jury who actually decided the guy was going to jail? Oh yes- because you only want to discredit government of being stupid, not actual citizens.
Penn has a well-known libertarian agenda. Sometimes he makes sense, other times extremely very selective in the material used for the show. Why? Because it makes good television to keep things simple with no facts cluttering the narrative. He had this one BS episode on Walmart which comes to mind- he chose a couple of real idiots to stand for the anti-business POV as if that was the best argument being made. Then he spends a bunch of airtime yelling at them when they're not around.
What you get is a man who is not above picking a specific case, or putting forth an idiot as proper representation of a different viewpoint to make his points. He's a hack and a coward for doing this when he's more than intelligent enough to make a proper argument. So, no- his anti-government propaganda doesn't count as definitive proof of how the world works.
If you're going to die anyway, why shouldn't you take an untested drug which might kill you or might save your life?
Because you have absolutely no reason to believe it might save you, nor how to distinguish it from a thousand other "medicines" which claim to fix everything wrong with you. And government-employed doctors at HHS can't because of the oath to "do no harm" as they're still charged with protection of its population regardless of what kind of stupid ideas they may have individually. The more appropriate question is: if you're going to die, would you knowingly take something which is *more* likely to shorten your life than extend it? You wouldn't have the luxury of knowing the drugs you use are most likely safe, having no access to documentation. tests, manufacturing processes, safety measures, etc.. Those fake "dietary supplements" are generally physically harmless, which is the reason they're still around duping the induhviduals. There's a huge moral difference between leaving someone the freedom to do what they want and standing idle while lives are at risk. Letting big pharma reduce testing *just enough* to avoid massive wrongful death lawsuits is just an all-around nonsensical idea when you accept the fact that their boards have no care about negative consequences of their operation if the balance sheet is positive.
Reducing regulation would only serve only to reduce testing cycles to a fraction of current far-from-perfect standards, an explosion of names for the same drug sold under a plethora of brands to the point where it would take even a doctor forever to figure out what to prescribe. Sure it *might* be a little cheaper, but at a cost far too great. There's room to debate making the process more efficient or even less cautious, but you zealots can only manage the complexity of thought with room for a single option: abolishing federal agencies.
BTW, I'm glad to see you didn't deny that pharmaceutical regulation has killed vast numbers of people.
They probably didn't because it's a pointless exercise only a simpleton would require. Even when the pass FDA tests and get approved, bad drugs still kill plenty of people. Tipping the scale in the other way makes sense only if you consider death as simply part of doing business. But there I went and forgot who I was talking to: of course that's acceptable to you. It's not Merck's fault people suffered heart attacks- it was their own damn fault for using Vioxx! It shouldn't even have been removed from the market- people should have all the options and damned be psychology for proving that excess choice has little to do with making good decisions.
If enough people want something and the government doesn't interfere, the free market comes up with an elegant solution that works.
No. The whole point is there aren't "enough people" to make it economical for business to deliver certain services out to rural areas and still make a profit (must the tired USPS/UPS point need be repeated?). Sure, the market *eventually* came up with affordable on-site power generation products, but it hadn't bothered at the time the bill was passed. Why is it so hard to understand that private enterprise is fantastic when it has a market to supply and otherwise it's useless and we need government to actually get anything done?
There's a large difference between what government decided to subsidize decades ago, and today's politicians being too cowardly to cancel outdated subsidies like coal and corn. If you insist on living in the past please stick to arguing about the merits of a subsidy, but don't keep boring us with verses from your stupid free market bible.
You want the leaker, who is actually responsible because he's the one who was charged with the duty to maintain secrecy. Same as that corrupt politician in the story you posted. And the answer to that problem is placing only senior congressmen who actually understand the military and intelligence community into defense committees, regardless of political clout.
Wikileaks is not under US jurisdiction and has violated no laws. Argue morality as much as you like, but that's just your personal opinion which nobody cares about (apparently including you, posting AC as you did).
Well argued points, though I'm not so optimistic on the rationality of Republican voters.
Just in the past few years they've demonstrated a profound lack of reason. The kind of acceptance such a pitiful excuse of a candidate as Palin was, how they continue to believe Republicans about expiring Bush's tax cuts for the rich, and parroting nonsense about death panels and n-page legislation. These indicate people who would never believe that anything this "liberal commie socialist" administration did was done in good faith. They'd just use it as one more excuse to claim it was "Barry" destroying "the America they grew up in" by imprisoning "real Americans patriots".
It's a lose-lose situation against that kind of fanatical devotion to a partisan cause.
Sounds like the law is basically there to stop people from posing as federal agents. Having the Seal on the website might make it easier for people to design replicas
That's obviously the original point of that law. Point is it's outdated and it's not much use today. If they really wanted to stop people from knowing what it looks like, why post it on their own site
Having the Seal on the website might make it easier for people to design replicas... but on the other hand, how would I know what an authentic FBI badge looks like if I've never seen it before, so how would I know if I'm dealing with an imposter or not?
That's not a really a valid reason for the Wikipedia Foundation to inform the public, it would be solely the FBI's responsibility. And the average citizen still wouldn't know if they're dealing with a real agent even if they produce a perfect replica. That's why social engineering works so well and why enforcement of this law is important only against those who actually pose as federal agents or actually conspire to, which obviously isn't the case with Wikipedia.
The problem is a lot of salesdrones (especially in the US) are on commission so they're being proactively "helpful"
Sometimes that's surely the case- car salesmen definitely bother me in that way as they try to show me the car their manager is just dying to get off his lot. In other places management forces the sales staff to say "hello" to every person within a certain foot/meter radius. It's what American corporatism mistakenly consider a friendly atmosphere to make customers welcome. Try telling them they're idiots, be nice to the poor college kids who couldn't get a better job (6 months at an office supply store myself, quit when they tried to get me to sell "protection" plans on faxes and printers). Home Depot has always seemed to me as the best at striking a balance between personnel availability and letting you shop in peace.
You can't stand still outside a shop or restaurant for 30 seconds without someone trying to drag you in, often by the arm
That's a pretty imperialistic point of view. Different places, different cultures. He's not trying to freak you out- he thinks it'll help him make a sale. You probably came off just as insulting to that guy by not providing a lame excuse for having to get to work so you can feed your eight hungry children and your brother's blind widow.
You don't contest the tickets with the money grubbing rent-a-cop corporation. You do that in court before a real judge like plenty of people already have. Sure the ticket vendor won't stop issuing false tickets (which it really has no way of detecting short of more expensive car identification technology. Would you rather have a transmitter with a unique ID installed in your car?), but they're not responsible for challenges (so get your local officials to fine them for false positives). A judge who isn't payed per violation does.
It's convenient to not bother thinking the situation through and just complaining about government. Fact is, excess revenue from this system happens for two reasons: 1) People actually break the law. 2) Even when they haven't, they've neither the smarts nor balls to challenge it.
Clearly, both are big bad local government's fault.
Isn't the fact that previous lobbying efforts failed and made Intuit think it required more lobbying actually a win for "cash-strapped" California politicians?
The title says Intuit is fighting the government, not that the government was bought. As bad as Cali politician are, how can this case be used for a "government is bad" argument? I'd be scared if corporations stopped lobbying.
It occurs to me that a simple percentage based income tax would not require anything more complicated than your W-2 form
That's exactly what you can do already, and that's how I prepare mine. If simplicity is all you want, you have the right to simply pay a straight percentage each on your income and capital gains. Of course if you choose to look for every single way to benefit from various government incentives, then yep- it'll take a little more work. Limit yourself to the standard deduction and you'll be done in under ten minutes.
"Occurs"? There's this guy named "Ron Paul" you might like. Tell him about this fascinating idea of yours. Congrats on the original thought. You sure are a bright one. Trying to argue against discretionary government spending by complaining about your tax preparation is a pathetic example of why politicians are justified in ignoring their constituents.
It would work great except for the fact that you don't even need an alibi to contest the ticket- reasonable doubt will more than do the trick. I doubt Maryland courts too stupid to realize that contested tickets from the camera right outside the school are common among school staff & parents and that it's probably one of the kids in the class. Or one of their friends stupid enough to risk framing a teacher. And if a cop sitting outside the school notices you driving with a fake plate you can kiss the license you just got goodbye.
I keep seeing this thing posted on Slashdot as if it's a serious problem. But this isn't news, nor is it anywhere near foolproof enough to make it commonplace in a student body. What's the first thing cops on TV ask victims? "Do you have any enemies who would do this?"- HS kids know this and will figure out it's a bad idea. This doesn't come close to the problem of kids shoplifting, and posting about it isn't the best way to argue that traffic cameras are a violation of privacy rights, which seems far too common.
The GPL isn't about limiting others' rights, you blithering idiot. It's about sacrificing your own into the public domain. Where's your complaint about your "freedom" using proprietary software? As a FOSS user you have no rights but those granted you by the person who OWNS the copyright, difference from proprietary is you're actually given rights.
There are places where your rights cannot be upheld if they would be violating more important ones. You don't get to exercise your property rights to own me when I have a right to be free from slavery.
Government subsidize things it wants to, based on either its philosophy (includes both economic and moral reasons) or influence (both from lobbying & constituency). The current administration is pushing green industry, the previous big business and the rich.
Apparently, you're not doing anything the government likes (or possibly oblivious that you actually do). You've got a few options: 1) Change the government by voting for a third party 2) Change government's influence by not supporting corporations who lobby or lobbying yourself 3) Change how you spend your money to take advantage of subsidies 4) Live off the land and don't pay taxes. But if you do, try not to use services I'm paying for
The "Internet kill switch" is a misguided idea, but it's not about filtering obscene and security-related information. The idea is to implement some kind of "shield" to defend against an attack by outside entities (well let's be honest, an attack sponsored by the Chinese government). The point is basically shutting off router ports which connect the US to (I presume) the rest of the world and put this power in the hands of the president.
It's quite a silly idea considering the Chinese government likely already owns thousands and thousands of US citizens' home computers. So there's isolating the US does not put our infrastructure out of reach. And considering how long it would take civilian and military bodies to get the president to actually "push the button" by the time he did it'd be far too late.
This is one of those ideas which only people who don't understand technology can be behind. You can't just translate the real world to the Internet by prefexing "cyber" to anything, and building a "virtual fence" is just one more terrible analogy.
The military is very aware of the threat (read: "Cyber Command") and any banks not protecting themselves properly deserve to go out of business. The US government should encourage Internet security but this is not the right way. Instead it could try funding of security research, public education (e.g. teach it to kids in school), declare one of those "Internet Security month" things, etc.
That such a colossally idiotic statement, it's hard to imagine where you get your misguided beliefs. Even television doesn't portray that kind of police stupidity.
Maybe you should consider not representing yourself in court?
And it's usually the sort of mistake an ISP makes (setting a simple default password) which people say "sue you" for. Verizon is breaking into routers strictly to cover their arses because the lawyers know that they've left thousands of people's data exposed to malicious attack
That's a load of horseshit, Coward.
It's not "breaking into" a router since you've not bothered to change the password, so they just walked through the door you never closed behind them.
Given how large ISPs' customers are blithering idiots who couldn't care less about their security, the ISP has to step in to stop its network from turning into a giant botnet and having users calling to complain that "the Internet is down" all day long.
If you want to be coddled, pay your ISP to send a tech to your house and configure your router. Otherwise read the damn instructions you got with the box and change the password yourself so *you* haven't exposed your data. Then download the firewall the ISP arranged for you to get for free. If you don't do at least these steps, you've got no right to complain about security.
Sure! Let's go back on topic! Here's my post where you took us off track. Answer on topic this time if you really care.
...if global warming turns out to be an artifact of inadequate sampling of long-term normal climate variation?
Which is a theory proposed by who? And what's the basis for this theory? With what kind of evidence behind it? Has it been published or critiqued, or is it just scribbles on a notepad sitting in some guy's garage? Does it predict planet-wide variation, or limited to a specific geographic region? What's the projected extreme of this variation and is it even more dire than that predicted by the global warning crowd? Because that'd be kind of an important, and certainly far more important than simply disproving our best science to date and getting their own grants [snip, because you get distracted by rhetoric]
You neglect the fact that money hidden for tax evasion isn't necessarily sitting in a zero-interest checking account. That'd be a clever argument if your type didn't love the whole "they invest it and provide for business to grow" argument. Pick whichever of the two wrong yet still contradicting arguments you like.
More importantly- it isn't being spent and helping the economy. So of course rich people hiding money has nothing to do with those false "rich people spend money on yachts and thus stimulate the economy" arguments. Hiding money in offshore accounts only serves to make obvious the point that compared to poor people, a dollar in the hands of wealthy people is far less likely to be used for purchasing. So if consumer spending is important, tax breaks for the rich are a really stupid idea.
So much for trying prove you're "people who understand money". If only you had taken knowledge of something other than theoretical economics.
How about you come back when you have an on topic rebuttal?
Sad that this comes from you, who went off topic in the first place.
Good job to you, Mr. I-claim-to-have-a-PhD-but-I-can't-really-provide-a-real-argument-against-AGW-so-I'll-just-call-the-scientists-who-work-on-it-a-bunch-of-lazy-idiots-instead. You really earned that "PhD".
Congratulations on writing the worst post I've read all week long.
Where do you get the crazy idea that they make more money than other scientists, or that they're all the same regardless of where they work and who funds them? Or the notion that funding is guaranteed and is never lost for reasons less serious than poor performance? Or the cynicism that they're somehow being bribed to fake their work? Oh, right. You're a climate skeptic who assumes the world is out to get him.
And what's with the nonsense about opportunity cost (which wouldn't be a blue collar job- better go back to your 101 textbook) as if it's always strictly a financial decision? Being a scientist isn't guaranteed or even likely to be a cushy, fun, and well-paying job. It takes tremendous dedication, years of education, and their work is under constant criticism both from within the scientific community and from without by having to maintain their grants.
Have you ever met a scientist who doesn't work for a multinational corporation? Now there's a bunch who you might be able to argue have it made with a comfortable job with security and decent pay, but that's only thanks to their proven successes.
Walk a mile in someone's shoes before shoes before being such an arrogant prick. Oh wait, you can't- you couldn't handle being a research assistant, let alone manage the actual job. Asshole.
If we can survive it, it really makes little difference
If your metric of success is "will a large enough group of humans emerge from an ice age to repopulate", it's hard to imagine we'll all die out because individually enough of us are resourceful enough to handle that.
Given that at present humankind as a whole can hardly be considered to be healthy or thriving given a very large percentage suffering from malnutrition and disease. Regardless of climate change's cause, if predictions of a drastic drop in crop yields comes true it would most likely cause death and suffering on a scale we've haven't seen since the plague.
So my question to you is do it matter if billions of people die because we didn't care enough to stop a predicted oncoming disaster? I do both for the moral reason, as well as the personal one where my living in the US is absolutely no guarantee I won't be among them.
No it can't because that's a conspiracy theory. If it were the case, they'd be proven wrong, lose their funding, and have to find a different theory or field to work in. Of course, they haven't so it's just a hypothetical to make you feel better about being in the minority.
...if global warming turns out to be an artifact of inadequate sampling of long-term normal climate variation?
Which is a theory proposed by who? And what's the basis for this theory? With what kind of evidence behind it? Has it been published or critiqued, or is it just scribbles on a notepad sitting in some guy's garage? Does it predict planet-wide variation, or limited to a specific geographic region? What's the projected extreme of this variation and is it even more dire than that predicted by the global warning crowd? Because that'd be kind of an important, and certainly far more important than simply disproving our best science to date and getting their own grants (because we've established that's why people do science- the massive paychecks and opulence in which they live, and hell- we liberals love them so much we don't even make them teach classes like other university-based researchers).
You can't just make up whatever crazy hypothesis you like and compare it to an established theory without anything to make people change their mids. If you have appropriate proof of this please let someone know so my tax dollars go to funding a better alternative. Otherwise, quit spreading nonsense on the Internets. Of course, posting AC, you don't even have the conviction to stand behind your silly idea, so what hope do I have expecting an honest answer?
I can easily disprove the claims of these so called "scientists." They claim that global warming is undeniable, and yet we see people denying it right here in the comments.
Cute, but it's implied that it's undeniable by people who actually understand the science and look at it objectively. They really don't care what morons and jebus freaks "think" about their work..
Slashdot Mirror
Because pain has a negative influence when an educated decision is sought. Just as those who counsel on a suicide hotline do not accept "my life isn't worth living" as a valid premise.
I've got plenty of mistrust of doctors but I still trust them more than I trust an engineer like myself. If the third opinion-giving doctor tells me it an unacceptable risk, that's good enough for me. What we've actually told these people is that their lives are worth living even with the pain. I'm in favor of some form of medical suicide if that's better than living in untreatable pain, but society is still too conservative to agree, so your form of it is just as void.
I watched the excerpt and it's just a bit of anecdotal evidence, which specifically mentions that a jury convicted the poor guy. Why don't you blame only the prosecutor when it's the jury who actually decided the guy was going to jail? Oh yes- because you only want to discredit government of being stupid, not actual citizens.
Penn has a well-known libertarian agenda. Sometimes he makes sense, other times extremely very selective in the material used for the show. Why? Because it makes good television to keep things simple with no facts cluttering the narrative. He had this one BS episode on Walmart which comes to mind- he chose a couple of real idiots to stand for the anti-business POV as if that was the best argument being made. Then he spends a bunch of airtime yelling at them when they're not around.
What you get is a man who is not above picking a specific case, or putting forth an idiot as proper representation of a different viewpoint to make his points. He's a hack and a coward for doing this when he's more than intelligent enough to make a proper argument. So, no- his anti-government propaganda doesn't count as definitive proof of how the world works.
If you're going to die anyway, why shouldn't you take an untested drug which might kill you or might save your life?
Because you have absolutely no reason to believe it might save you, nor how to distinguish it from a thousand other "medicines" which claim to fix everything wrong with you. And government-employed doctors at HHS can't because of the oath to "do no harm" as they're still charged with protection of its population regardless of what kind of stupid ideas they may have individually.
The more appropriate question is: if you're going to die, would you knowingly take something which is *more* likely to shorten your life than extend it? You wouldn't have the luxury of knowing the drugs you use are most likely safe, having no access to documentation. tests, manufacturing processes, safety measures, etc.. Those fake "dietary supplements" are generally physically harmless, which is the reason they're still around duping the induhviduals. There's a huge moral difference between leaving someone the freedom to do what they want and standing idle while lives are at risk. Letting big pharma reduce testing *just enough* to avoid massive wrongful death lawsuits is just an all-around nonsensical idea when you accept the fact that their boards have no care about negative consequences of their operation if the balance sheet is positive.
Reducing regulation would only serve only to reduce testing cycles to a fraction of current far-from-perfect standards, an explosion of names for the same drug sold under a plethora of brands to the point where it would take even a doctor forever to figure out what to prescribe. Sure it *might* be a little cheaper, but at a cost far too great. There's room to debate making the process more efficient or even less cautious, but you zealots can only manage the complexity of thought with room for a single option: abolishing federal agencies.
BTW, I'm glad to see you didn't deny that pharmaceutical regulation has killed vast numbers of people.
They probably didn't because it's a pointless exercise only a simpleton would require. Even when the pass FDA tests and get approved, bad drugs still kill plenty of people. Tipping the scale in the other way makes sense only if you consider death as simply part of doing business. But there I went and forgot who I was talking to: of course that's acceptable to you. It's not Merck's fault people suffered heart attacks- it was their own damn fault for using Vioxx! It shouldn't even have been removed from the market- people should have all the options and damned be psychology for proving that excess choice has little to do with making good decisions.
If enough people want something and the government doesn't interfere, the free market comes up with an elegant solution that works.
No. The whole point is there aren't "enough people" to make it economical for business to deliver certain services out to rural areas and still make a profit (must the tired USPS/UPS point need be repeated?). Sure, the market *eventually* came up with affordable on-site power generation products, but it hadn't bothered at the time the bill was passed. Why is it so hard to understand that private enterprise is fantastic when it has a market to supply and otherwise it's useless and we need government to actually get anything done?
There's a large difference between what government decided to subsidize decades ago, and today's politicians being too cowardly to cancel outdated subsidies like coal and corn. If you insist on living in the past please stick to arguing about the merits of a subsidy, but don't keep boring us with verses from your stupid free market bible.
No, stupid.
You want the leaker, who is actually responsible because he's the one who was charged with the duty to maintain secrecy. Same as that corrupt politician in the story you posted. And the answer to that problem is placing only senior congressmen who actually understand the military and intelligence community into defense committees, regardless of political clout.
Wikileaks is not under US jurisdiction and has violated no laws. Argue morality as much as you like, but that's just your personal opinion which nobody cares about (apparently including you, posting AC as you did).
Well argued points, though I'm not so optimistic on the rationality of Republican voters.
Just in the past few years they've demonstrated a profound lack of reason. The kind of acceptance such a pitiful excuse of a candidate as Palin was, how they continue to believe Republicans about expiring Bush's tax cuts for the rich, and parroting nonsense about death panels and n-page legislation. These indicate people who would never believe that anything this "liberal commie socialist" administration did was done in good faith. They'd just use it as one more excuse to claim it was "Barry" destroying "the America they grew up in" by imprisoning "real Americans patriots".
It's a lose-lose situation against that kind of fanatical devotion to a partisan cause.
Sounds like the law is basically there to stop people from posing as federal agents. Having the Seal on the website might make it easier for people to design replicas
That's obviously the original point of that law. Point is it's outdated and it's not much use today. If they really wanted to stop people from knowing what it looks like, why post it on their own site
Having the Seal on the website might make it easier for people to design replicas ... but on the other hand, how would I know what an authentic FBI badge looks like if I've never seen it before, so how would I know if I'm dealing with an imposter or not?
That's not a really a valid reason for the Wikipedia Foundation to inform the public, it would be solely the FBI's responsibility. And the average citizen still wouldn't know if they're dealing with a real agent even if they produce a perfect replica. That's why social engineering works so well and why enforcement of this law is important only against those who actually pose as federal agents or actually conspire to, which obviously isn't the case with Wikipedia.
The problem is a lot of salesdrones (especially in the US) are on commission so they're being proactively "helpful"
Sometimes that's surely the case- car salesmen definitely bother me in that way as they try to show me the car their manager is just dying to get off his lot. In other places management forces the sales staff to say "hello" to every person within a certain foot/meter radius. It's what American corporatism mistakenly consider a friendly atmosphere to make customers welcome. Try telling them they're idiots, be nice to the poor college kids who couldn't get a better job (6 months at an office supply store myself, quit when they tried to get me to sell "protection" plans on faxes and printers). Home Depot has always seemed to me as the best at striking a balance between personnel availability and letting you shop in peace.
You can't stand still outside a shop or restaurant for 30 seconds without someone trying to drag you in, often by the arm
That's a pretty imperialistic point of view. Different places, different cultures. He's not trying to freak you out- he thinks it'll help him make a sale. You probably came off just as insulting to that guy by not providing a lame excuse for having to get to work so you can feed your eight hungry children and your brother's blind widow.
Nope.
You don't contest the tickets with the money grubbing rent-a-cop corporation. You do that in court before a real judge like plenty of people already have. Sure the ticket vendor won't stop issuing false tickets (which it really has no way of detecting short of more expensive car identification technology. Would you rather have a transmitter with a unique ID installed in your car?), but they're not responsible for challenges (so get your local officials to fine them for false positives). A judge who isn't payed per violation does.
It's convenient to not bother thinking the situation through and just complaining about government. Fact is, excess revenue from this system happens for two reasons:
1) People actually break the law.
2) Even when they haven't, they've neither the smarts nor balls to challenge it.
Clearly, both are big bad local government's fault.
Isn't the fact that previous lobbying efforts failed and made Intuit think it required more lobbying actually a win for "cash-strapped" California politicians?
The title says Intuit is fighting the government, not that the government was bought. As bad as Cali politician are, how can this case be used for a "government is bad" argument? I'd be scared if corporations stopped lobbying.
It occurs to me that a simple percentage based income tax would not require anything more complicated than your W-2 form
That's exactly what you can do already, and that's how I prepare mine. If simplicity is all you want, you have the right to simply pay a straight percentage each on your income and capital gains. Of course if you choose to look for every single way to benefit from various government incentives, then yep- it'll take a little more work. Limit yourself to the standard deduction and you'll be done in under ten minutes.
"Occurs"? There's this guy named "Ron Paul" you might like. Tell him about this fascinating idea of yours. Congrats on the original thought. You sure are a bright one. Trying to argue against discretionary government spending by complaining about your tax preparation is a pathetic example of why politicians are justified in ignoring their constituents.
It would work great except for the fact that you don't even need an alibi to contest the ticket- reasonable doubt will more than do the trick. I doubt Maryland courts too stupid to realize that contested tickets from the camera right outside the school are common among school staff & parents and that it's probably one of the kids in the class. Or one of their friends stupid enough to risk framing a teacher. And if a cop sitting outside the school notices you driving with a fake plate you can kiss the license you just got goodbye.
I keep seeing this thing posted on Slashdot as if it's a serious problem. But this isn't news, nor is it anywhere near foolproof enough to make it commonplace in a student body. What's the first thing cops on TV ask victims? "Do you have any enemies who would do this?"- HS kids know this and will figure out it's a bad idea. This doesn't come close to the problem of kids shoplifting, and posting about it isn't the best way to argue that traffic cameras are a violation of privacy rights, which seems far too common.
The GPL isn't about limiting others' rights, you blithering idiot. It's about sacrificing your own into the public domain. Where's your complaint about your "freedom" using proprietary software? As a FOSS user you have no rights but those granted you by the person who OWNS the copyright, difference from proprietary is you're actually given rights.
There are places where your rights cannot be upheld if they would be violating more important ones. You don't get to exercise your property rights to own me when I have a right to be free from slavery.
I, as an individual, get close to ZERO subsidies!
You're doing it wrong.
Government subsidize things it wants to, based on either its philosophy (includes both economic and moral reasons) or influence (both from lobbying & constituency). The current administration is pushing green industry, the previous big business and the rich.
Apparently, you're not doing anything the government likes (or possibly oblivious that you actually do). You've got a few options:
1) Change the government by voting for a third party
2) Change government's influence by not supporting corporations who lobby or lobbying yourself
3) Change how you spend your money to take advantage of subsidies
4) Live off the land and don't pay taxes. But if you do, try not to use services I'm paying for
Your choice.
The "Internet kill switch" is a misguided idea, but it's not about filtering obscene and security-related information. The idea is to implement some kind of "shield" to defend against an attack by outside entities (well let's be honest, an attack sponsored by the Chinese government). The point is basically shutting off router ports which connect the US to (I presume) the rest of the world and put this power in the hands of the president.
It's quite a silly idea considering the Chinese government likely already owns thousands and thousands of US citizens' home computers. So there's isolating the US does not put our infrastructure out of reach. And considering how long it would take civilian and military bodies to get the president to actually "push the button" by the time he did it'd be far too late.
This is one of those ideas which only people who don't understand technology can be behind. You can't just translate the real world to the Internet by prefexing "cyber" to anything, and building a "virtual fence" is just one more terrible analogy.
The military is very aware of the threat (read: "Cyber Command") and any banks not protecting themselves properly deserve to go out of business. The US government should encourage Internet security but this is not the right way. Instead it could try funding of security research, public education (e.g. teach it to kids in school), declare one of those "Internet Security month" things, etc.
That such a colossally idiotic statement, it's hard to imagine where you get your misguided beliefs. Even television doesn't portray that kind of police stupidity.
Maybe you should consider not representing yourself in court?
And it's usually the sort of mistake an ISP makes (setting a simple default password) which people say "sue you" for. Verizon is breaking into routers strictly to cover their arses because the lawyers know that they've left thousands of people's data exposed to malicious attack
That's a load of horseshit, Coward.
It's not "breaking into" a router since you've not bothered to change the password, so they just walked through the door you never closed behind them.
Given how large ISPs' customers are blithering idiots who couldn't care less about their security, the ISP has to step in to stop its network from turning into a giant botnet and having users calling to complain that "the Internet is down" all day long.
If you want to be coddled, pay your ISP to send a tech to your house and configure your router. Otherwise read the damn instructions you got with the box and change the password yourself so *you* haven't exposed your data. Then download the firewall the ISP arranged for you to get for free. If you don't do at least these steps, you've got no right to complain about security.
Sure! Let's go back on topic! Here's my post where you took us off track. Answer on topic this time if you really care.
...if global warming turns out to be an artifact of inadequate sampling of long-term normal climate variation?
Which is a theory proposed by who? And what's the basis for this theory? With what kind of evidence behind it? Has it been published or critiqued, or is it just scribbles on a notepad sitting in some guy's garage? Does it predict planet-wide variation, or limited to a specific geographic region? What's the projected extreme of this variation and is it even more dire than that predicted by the global warning crowd? Because that'd be kind of an important, and certainly far more important than simply disproving our best science to date and getting their own grants [snip, because you get distracted by rhetoric]
You neglect the fact that money hidden for tax evasion isn't necessarily sitting in a zero-interest checking account. That'd be a clever argument if your type didn't love the whole "they invest it and provide for business to grow" argument. Pick whichever of the two wrong yet still contradicting arguments you like.
More importantly- it isn't being spent and helping the economy. So of course rich people hiding money has nothing to do with those false "rich people spend money on yachts and thus stimulate the economy" arguments. Hiding money in offshore accounts only serves to make obvious the point that compared to poor people, a dollar in the hands of wealthy people is far less likely to be used for purchasing. So if consumer spending is important, tax breaks for the rich are a really stupid idea.
So much for trying prove you're "people who understand money". If only you had taken knowledge of something other than theoretical economics.
How about you come back when you have an on topic rebuttal?
Sad that this comes from you, who went off topic in the first place.
Good job to you, Mr. I-claim-to-have-a-PhD-but-I-can't-really-provide-a-real-argument-against-AGW-so-I'll-just-call-the-scientists-who-work-on-it-a-bunch-of-lazy-idiots-instead. You really earned that "PhD".
Congratulations on writing the worst post I've read all week long.
Where do you get the crazy idea that they make more money than other scientists, or that they're all the same regardless of where they work and who funds them? Or the notion that funding is guaranteed and is never lost for reasons less serious than poor performance? Or the cynicism that they're somehow being bribed to fake their work? Oh, right. You're a climate skeptic who assumes the world is out to get him.
And what's with the nonsense about opportunity cost (which wouldn't be a blue collar job- better go back to your 101 textbook) as if it's always strictly a financial decision? Being a scientist isn't guaranteed or even likely to be a cushy, fun, and well-paying job. It takes tremendous dedication, years of education, and their work is under constant criticism both from within the scientific community and from without by having to maintain their grants.
Have you ever met a scientist who doesn't work for a multinational corporation? Now there's a bunch who you might be able to argue have it made with a comfortable job with security and decent pay, but that's only thanks to their proven successes.
Walk a mile in someone's shoes before shoes before being such an arrogant prick. Oh wait, you can't- you couldn't handle being a research assistant, let alone manage the actual job. Asshole.
My post had contained argument about whether it would happen.
If we can survive it, it really makes little difference
If your metric of success is "will a large enough group of humans emerge from an ice age to repopulate", it's hard to imagine we'll all die out because individually enough of us are resourceful enough to handle that.
Given that at present humankind as a whole can hardly be considered to be healthy or thriving given a very large percentage suffering from malnutrition and disease. Regardless of climate change's cause, if predictions of a drastic drop in crop yields comes true it would most likely cause death and suffering on a scale we've haven't seen since the plague.
So my question to you is do it matter if billions of people die because we didn't care enough to stop a predicted oncoming disaster? I do both for the moral reason, as well as the personal one where my living in the US is absolutely no guarantee I won't be among them.
No it can't because that's a conspiracy theory. If it were the case, they'd be proven wrong, lose their funding, and have to find a different theory or field to work in. Of course, they haven't so it's just a hypothetical to make you feel better about being in the minority.
...if global warming turns out to be an artifact of inadequate sampling of long-term normal climate variation?
Which is a theory proposed by who? And what's the basis for this theory? With what kind of evidence behind it? Has it been published or critiqued, or is it just scribbles on a notepad sitting in some guy's garage? Does it predict planet-wide variation, or limited to a specific geographic region? What's the projected extreme of this variation and is it even more dire than that predicted by the global warning crowd? Because that'd be kind of an important, and certainly far more important than simply disproving our best science to date and getting their own grants (because we've established that's why people do science- the massive paychecks and opulence in which they live, and hell- we liberals love them so much we don't even make them teach classes like other university-based researchers).
You can't just make up whatever crazy hypothesis you like and compare it to an established theory without anything to make people change their mids. If you have appropriate proof of this please let someone know so my tax dollars go to funding a better alternative. Otherwise, quit spreading nonsense on the Internets. Of course, posting AC, you don't even have the conviction to stand behind your silly idea, so what hope do I have expecting an honest answer?
I can easily disprove the claims of these so called "scientists." They claim that global warming is undeniable, and yet we see people denying it right here in the comments.
Cute, but it's implied that it's undeniable by people who actually understand the science and look at it objectively. They really don't care what morons and jebus freaks "think" about their work..