Thus [society] has a justification to pass laws prohibiting risky behaviors like texting while walking.
Does society also have a justification to knock everybody out with drugs, feed them intravenously, and hold them all under restraint 24x7? Because that is the full expression if we follow that bizarre line of thought to its logical conclusion.
Why do you assume that lawmakers do not already know this? Why do you assume that it is not part of their purpose to make evil?
Hanlon's razor: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". It is instructive to add ", obstinacy, and arrogance" to the end.
If we are confronted by evil (malice), then we are morally justified in wiping out that evil without a moment's hesitation or remorse. If we believe what is far more likely - that we are confronted by smug, stupid, self-satisfied fucking assholes who are truly convinced that they have our best interests at heart, and our own intellect and self-responsibility are puny - then, unfortunately, common decency dictates a more circumspect response.
The Nazis made it morally easy to hate them, find no redeeming qualities, and wipe them out. The fascist corporate statists who hold the reigns of power practically everywhere do not make it morally easy. They really believe that they need to tame the bad instincts and behavior of the people comprehensively, in a million details, for the people's own good.
Coal wouldn't kill many people if the exhaust was properly filtered.
First of all, many of the deaths and injuries are due to mining and transporting the coal, not just burning it.
Then too, you can't just make the pollution problem go away with some magical "cleaning". As of 2006, 125 million tons of coal combustion solid byproducts, including fly ash, were produced annually in the USA. If you use coal, you can't will that away into nonexistence. You HAVE to PUT it somewhere. You can disperse most of it into the atmosphere, or you can try to trap it in filters, but where do you put what the filters trap? In 2005, 34 million cubic meters (42 million tons) of fly ash from USA coal power plants were land-filled over and above the amount recycled into various products.
You can't burn up fly ash, because it is already the irreducible leftover of burning in the first place. About 10% of all the coal burned turns into fly ash.
Fly ash contains such toxic substances as arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, thallium, selenium, molybdenum and mercury. Makes you wonder how safe those products containing recycled fly ash are, eh?
Emacs is GUI based, it's only ncurses based if you're using it from a terminal.
Or if you are using the one built without X support. I wouldn't have that bloat on my system for a fucking TEXT EDITOR. Not even on a system which has X; let alone a server with no X.
The naive part is the interest in a "dirty bomb" in the first place.
Why take on the significant additional risk of discovery for something that won't inflict much more damage?
A "dirty bomb" only spreads radioactive material in the area where it explodes. So it is easier to just rely upon shrapnel and the explosion. Any radioactive material they could get probably wouldn't do more damage than that. Most of it just isn't that damaging. Except in large quantities over many years.
Get a clue. The damage of a dirty bomb would be incalculable in a financial sense and a psychological sense. Fukushima radiation didn't kill anyone either, but the financial and psychological damage has been colossal and continues with no sign of a letup five years later. If you were to touch off an effective dirty bomb in the New York financial district, it would probably be more damaging than the Great Depression, and hurt the USA much much more than even WW II (which actually finally lifted the USA out of the depression). The entire area would become a wasteland because nobody would want to go near it. The largest gold repository in the world - the Federal Reserve Bank at 33 Liberty Street[*] - would likely become effectively inaccessible - a realization of the nightmare scenario from Goldfinger. Most of that gold is actually owned by foreign interests, so there would be terrible international repercussions.
And it is the epitome of asymmetrical warfare. There would be no target to nuke in return, even if the USA (or ANY other nation, save North Korea and maybe Iran in a few years) had the stomach to consider doing so for an instant - which it most certainly doesn't. Look how we bankrupted ourselves responding ineffectively to 9/11.
[*] Much more gold is held there than in Fort Knox.
Yes. However... the amount of ransom demanded should have no relation to the sentence that should be applied to the scum-suckers responsible. There should be no leeway for laughing it all off if the ransom is deemed a "minor" amount. Kidnapping is equally reprehensible whether you demand $1 million or $10.
Blaming the victim, if you claim the Hospital is the victim, is actually appropriate.
Some blame for recklessness/incompetence is due, but it is distinctly secondary to the blame for the actual CRIME. It in no way diminishes the culpability of the scum-sucker who ACTUALLY DID THE DAMAGE.
That said, I would support charging anybody who pays a ransom as a [sic] accomplice
Jesus H. Christ. That is a perfectly asinine view. I cannot believe anyone is that morally bankrupt. So some scum kidnaps your elderly mother, threatens you that you will neer see her again, and you pay the ransom. Do you really think you should be charged with being accomplice to kidnapping? THINK. I know it's hard, but try.
Look, I know the situation with this ransomware shit is exasperating. It's pretty much a no-brainer that you pay the ransom if it makes financial sense and you can't rescue it otherwise, but after that is done and the data is restored, and maybe after you take serious and effective steps to make sure that it can never happen again, you (and the system) go after the scum-sucking low-lifes who are responsible for the ACTUAL law-breaking, and all others like them, with a fury and resolve that knows no bounds. These ransomware attacks should be crimes of a very high order, and a first offense should be a minimum multi-decade sentence.
Making the victim a double victim (victim of the law as well as victim of micreants) is absolutely the worst idea I ever heard of.
Then you are not relevant to me. Because all of what he said is highly relevant to me. And I can't even imagine anyone thinking it is not relevant to them. But that is my problem. More power to you. I won't belittle independent thought if you don't.
Sorry. That is a blatant lie. Jesus Christ advocated love. Mohammed advocated hate and retribution. You can't have even a nodding aquaintance with the two and say that. Yes, they share basics from before that period, including violent leadings, but they diverged fundamentally beginning with that period.
You fail the challenge as posed. The Abrahamic God is the same being in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. God does not define Christianity. Jesus does. Christianity only EXISTED beginning with the time of Jesus. It is named AFTER Jesus Christ.
As you point out, none of that Old Testament stuff is attributable to Jesus. The Old Testament is basically shared by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and yes, you will find a lot of violence in it. But after that they differ. Christianity has Jesus advocating love. Islam has Mohammed advocating hate, retribution, and violence. Judaism has the Talmud, and so far as I know you don't find hate, retribution, and violence there.
If you think Christianity has any substantial basis for violence and hate toward non-Christians, you are a bloody idiot.
Illiterate boob. You don't advocate FOR something. You advocate something. Do you favor FOR free beer? Do you play FOR the piano? Sorry, this shit gets my goat but good. Language skills have gone downhill during my lifetime faster than an airliner bombed by Islamist extremist swine.
The majority of crashes on Linux distributions have nothing to do with the kernel at all.
You've got me really scratching my head in puzzlement. Virtually by definition, ALL system crashes HAVE TO BE in the kernel. That includes all the drivers, due to monolithic design. Process separation and protections make it all but impossible to create a userland program which can crash the system. Even if X crashes, you still have the text mode console, and even failing that you can ssh in or come in on a serial port. And then you can fix X.
I'll give you an example of how busted the linux kernel is. I've been bitten so many times by the system bogging down horribly from swapping, so the only viable way out is the power switch, that I cleverly turned swapping off entirely. Surely, processes will just core dump if it hits the wall then, right? There is even supposed to be a process killer to keep things tamed. Well, I'm here to tell you that is not what happens at all. The SSD activity light comes on hard from pointless RAM thrashing. It's not even interrupted by seek delays, because SSD. The mouse only updates once every 10 seconds, and before you can react it, stops responding at all. Alt-tab on the keyboard does nothing. This is on a 4 core, 8 thread CPU and 16 GB of RAM. You guessed it, I had to resort to the power switch again. This is just STUPID. It is a bloody INSANE design.
Besides running on PCs, BSD and Linux are the core of iOS/watchOS/tvOS/macOS and android. We're talking billions of devices here. I'd be interested to know what they call a failure. If you have one of these "failure OS"s in your pocket, you may reconsider your zealotry.
They are miserable abject, irredeemable failures from a security point of view, that's how they are failures. The fail is built in to the design philosophy and choice of system programming language. It can't be fixed by discipline. None of them will ever be secure in anything remotely like their present form. OpenBSD is the sole arguable exception, in that it is damn good by discipline and one hell of a strong and visionary leader. And nothing commercial seems to be using it.
IMHO they were all crackerjack achievements for their time, but the world has become a motherfucking hostile place, and they can't hack it.
Well, borrowing linux drivers would be one way to attack the problem, but they can't, because LINUX DOESN'T HAVE A STABLE GODDAM DRIVER INTERFACE! Quite aside from the GPL standing obstinately in their way.
They could borrow FreeBSD drivers, or maybe OSX or Windows drivers, but the latter couldn't be bundled. It would have to be hunt 'em down and add 'em yourself by the user. Of course, this would totally shitcan their ideal of eliminating the security nightmare of C-code, which is their whole point.
I'm not knocking Minix 3 really, but come back when it: Runs on Raspberry Pi Runs native on x86_64 Supports UEFI (this is not the 20th century any longer) Supports USB at least; Firewire would be nice too
I mean, really! Nobody is going to adopt it for anything until it gets critical mass. I will probably throw it on a Beaglebone to play with it.
Python is like Fortran: used by datascientists who really don't know what they're doing otherwise. Python is like BASIC: "It is practically impossible to teach good programming to students that have had a prior exposure to Python: as potential programmers they are mentally mutilated beyond hope of regeneration"
Utterly, hopelessly clueless. If you're using another scripting language, you're using the wrong one. Anyone with half a functioning brain cell knows this. I speak as a one-time perl scripter.
Corporations have RESPONSIBILITIES, not just rights
Yeah. Fiduciary responsibilities. Corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to their SHAREHOLDERS. In the system we have set up, corporations are REQUIRED to act in the best interest of their shareholders. They are not required to employ a single person, and to the extent that they HAVE TO (sigh) employ people in order to conduct business, they are not required to act in the best interest of those employees or pay them any more than legally required, or necessitated by market conditions.
At a macro scale, arguing against a minimum wage [is] arguing the economy can not be productive enough to support all of its participants.
Your implication is that the existence of a minimum wage law somehow guarantees that the economy will be productive enough. It doesn't guarantee anything, and it can't guarantee anything. You can make the minimum wage $100/h, but that doesn't mean that anyone will be employed to do jobs at that rate. Certainly, tinkering with whether the minimum wage is a measly $7/h or a paltry $12/h doesn't change anything meaningful, and practically nobody thinks it is viable to make it what it actually needs to be to actually serve a useful and fair purpose - say $30/h.
It is evident that the economy IS productive enough to support everyone. Not just participants, but everyone. The problem is profit and greed, the skewed distribution of the proceeds. I.e., the problem is capitalism. Not free enterprise, but capitalism. The warped entitlement that having money gets you more money. Scads and oodles of money.
I like to think a lot of people will use their free time to enrich their intellect in self-driven scholarly pursuits. The internet is not just a sewer of pornography and gross time-wasting crap. It is also a miracle of vast self-learning and philosophical-development potential. And I would make access completely free.
Slashdot Mirror
Does society also have a justification to knock everybody out with drugs, feed them intravenously, and hold them all under restraint 24x7? Because that is the full expression if we follow that bizarre line of thought to its logical conclusion.
Hanlon's razor: "never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity". It is instructive to add ", obstinacy, and arrogance" to the end.
If we are confronted by evil (malice), then we are morally justified in wiping out that evil without a moment's hesitation or remorse. If we believe what is far more likely - that we are confronted by smug, stupid, self-satisfied fucking assholes who are truly convinced that they have our best interests at heart, and our own intellect and self-responsibility are puny - then, unfortunately, common decency dictates a more circumspect response.
The Nazis made it morally easy to hate them, find no redeeming qualities, and wipe them out. The fascist corporate statists who hold the reigns of power practically everywhere do not make it morally easy. They really believe that they need to tame the bad instincts and behavior of the people comprehensively, in a million details, for the people's own good.
First of all, many of the deaths and injuries are due to mining and transporting the coal, not just burning it.
Then too, you can't just make the pollution problem go away with some magical "cleaning". As of 2006, 125 million tons of coal combustion solid byproducts, including fly ash, were produced annually in the USA. If you use coal, you can't will that away into nonexistence. You HAVE to PUT it somewhere. You can disperse most of it into the atmosphere, or you can try to trap it in filters, but where do you put what the filters trap? In 2005, 34 million cubic meters (42 million tons) of fly ash from USA coal power plants were land-filled over and above the amount recycled into various products.
You can't burn up fly ash, because it is already the irreducible leftover of burning in the first place. About 10% of all the coal burned turns into fly ash.
Fly ash contains such toxic substances as arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, chromium, thallium, selenium, molybdenum and mercury. Makes you wonder how safe those products containing recycled fly ash are, eh?
Or if you are using the one built without X support. I wouldn't have that bloat on my system for a fucking TEXT EDITOR. Not even on a system which has X; let alone a server with no X.
Get a clue. The damage of a dirty bomb would be incalculable in a financial sense and a psychological sense. Fukushima radiation didn't kill anyone either, but the financial and psychological damage has been colossal and continues with no sign of a letup five years later. If you were to touch off an effective dirty bomb in the New York financial district, it would probably be more damaging than the Great Depression, and hurt the USA much much more than even WW II (which actually finally lifted the USA out of the depression). The entire area would become a wasteland because nobody would want to go near it. The largest gold repository in the world - the Federal Reserve Bank at 33 Liberty Street[*] - would likely become effectively inaccessible - a realization of the nightmare scenario from Goldfinger. Most of that gold is actually owned by foreign interests, so there would be terrible international repercussions.
And it is the epitome of asymmetrical warfare. There would be no target to nuke in return, even if the USA (or ANY other nation, save North Korea and maybe Iran in a few years) had the stomach to consider doing so for an instant - which it most certainly doesn't. Look how we bankrupted ourselves responding ineffectively to 9/11.
[*] Much more gold is held there than in Fort Knox.
Even if they do, if a whole lot of data has been lost from on-line storage, it would cost a whole lot more than $1600 in time and labor to restore it.
I can see you haven't been in an ER for half a day, or know anybody who has.
Yes. However ... the amount of ransom demanded should have no relation to the sentence that should be applied to the scum-suckers responsible. There should be no leeway for laughing it all off if the ransom is deemed a "minor" amount. Kidnapping is equally reprehensible whether you demand $1 million or $10.
Some blame for recklessness/incompetence is due, but it is distinctly secondary to the blame for the actual CRIME. It in no way diminishes the culpability of the scum-sucker who ACTUALLY DID THE DAMAGE.
Jesus H. Christ. That is a perfectly asinine view. I cannot believe anyone is that morally bankrupt. So some scum kidnaps your elderly mother, threatens you that you will neer see her again, and you pay the ransom. Do you really think you should be charged with being accomplice to kidnapping? THINK. I know it's hard, but try.
Look, I know the situation with this ransomware shit is exasperating. It's pretty much a no-brainer that you pay the ransom if it makes financial sense and you can't rescue it otherwise, but after that is done and the data is restored, and maybe after you take serious and effective steps to make sure that it can never happen again, you (and the system) go after the scum-sucking low-lifes who are responsible for the ACTUAL law-breaking, and all others like them, with a fury and resolve that knows no bounds. These ransomware attacks should be crimes of a very high order, and a first offense should be a minimum multi-decade sentence.
Making the victim a double victim (victim of the law as well as victim of micreants) is absolutely the worst idea I ever heard of.
Sorry. Trinity is dead in the water.
What he should look at is Lumina.
Then you are not relevant to me. Because all of what he said is highly relevant to me. And I can't even imagine anyone thinking it is not relevant to them. But that is my problem. More power to you. I won't belittle independent thought if you don't.
Yes, and pre-pre-screening. And pre-pre-pre-screening. Hell, let's screen EVERYBODY every day!
Sorry. That is a blatant lie. Jesus Christ advocated love. Mohammed advocated hate and retribution. You can't have even a nodding aquaintance with the two and say that. Yes, they share basics from before that period, including violent leadings, but they diverged fundamentally beginning with that period.
You fail the challenge as posed. The Abrahamic God is the same being in Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. God does not define Christianity. Jesus does. Christianity only EXISTED beginning with the time of Jesus. It is named AFTER Jesus Christ.
As you point out, none of that Old Testament stuff is attributable to Jesus. The Old Testament is basically shared by Christianity, Judaism, and Islam, and yes, you will find a lot of violence in it. But after that they differ. Christianity has Jesus advocating love. Islam has Mohammed advocating hate, retribution, and violence. Judaism has the Talmud, and so far as I know you don't find hate, retribution, and violence there.
If you think Christianity has any substantial basis for violence and hate toward non-Christians, you are a bloody idiot.
Illiterate boob. You don't advocate FOR something. You advocate something. Do you favor FOR free beer? Do you play FOR the piano? Sorry, this shit gets my goat but good. Language skills have gone downhill during my lifetime faster than an airliner bombed by Islamist extremist swine.
You've got me really scratching my head in puzzlement. Virtually by definition, ALL system crashes HAVE TO BE in the kernel. That includes all the drivers, due to monolithic design. Process separation and protections make it all but impossible to create a userland program which can crash the system. Even if X crashes, you still have the text mode console, and even failing that you can ssh in or come in on a serial port. And then you can fix X.
I'll give you an example of how busted the linux kernel is. I've been bitten so many times by the system bogging down horribly from swapping, so the only viable way out is the power switch, that I cleverly turned swapping off entirely. Surely, processes will just core dump if it hits the wall then, right? There is even supposed to be a process killer to keep things tamed. Well, I'm here to tell you that is not what happens at all. The SSD activity light comes on hard from pointless RAM thrashing. It's not even interrupted by seek delays, because SSD. The mouse only updates once every 10 seconds, and before you can react it, stops responding at all. Alt-tab on the keyboard does nothing. This is on a 4 core, 8 thread CPU and 16 GB of RAM. You guessed it, I had to resort to the power switch again. This is just STUPID. It is a bloody INSANE design.
They are miserable abject, irredeemable failures from a security point of view, that's how they are failures. The fail is built in to the design philosophy and choice of system programming language. It can't be fixed by discipline. None of them will ever be secure in anything remotely like their present form. OpenBSD is the sole arguable exception, in that it is damn good by discipline and one hell of a strong and visionary leader. And nothing commercial seems to be using it.
IMHO they were all crackerjack achievements for their time, but the world has become a motherfucking hostile place, and they can't hack it.
Well, borrowing linux drivers would be one way to attack the problem, but they can't, because LINUX DOESN'T HAVE A STABLE GODDAM DRIVER INTERFACE! Quite aside from the GPL standing obstinately in their way.
They could borrow FreeBSD drivers, or maybe OSX or Windows drivers, but the latter couldn't be bundled. It would have to be hunt 'em down and add 'em yourself by the user. Of course, this would totally shitcan their ideal of eliminating the security nightmare of C-code, which is their whole point.
I'm not knocking Minix 3 really, but come back when it:
Runs on Raspberry Pi
Runs native on x86_64
Supports UEFI (this is not the 20th century any longer)
Supports USB at least; Firewire would be nice too
I mean, really! Nobody is going to adopt it for anything until it gets critical mass. I will probably throw it on a Beaglebone to play with it.
Fuckwit.
Utterly, hopelessly clueless. If you're using another scripting language, you're using the wrong one. Anyone with half a functioning brain cell knows this. I speak as a one-time perl scripter.
Yeah. Fiduciary responsibilities. Corporations have a fiduciary responsibility to their SHAREHOLDERS. In the system we have set up, corporations are REQUIRED to act in the best interest of their shareholders. They are not required to employ a single person, and to the extent that they HAVE TO (sigh) employ people in order to conduct business, they are not required to act in the best interest of those employees or pay them any more than legally required, or necessitated by market conditions.
Your implication is that the existence of a minimum wage law somehow guarantees that the economy will be productive enough. It doesn't guarantee anything, and it can't guarantee anything. You can make the minimum wage $100/h, but that doesn't mean that anyone will be employed to do jobs at that rate. Certainly, tinkering with whether the minimum wage is a measly $7/h or a paltry $12/h doesn't change anything meaningful, and practically nobody thinks it is viable to make it what it actually needs to be to actually serve a useful and fair purpose - say $30/h.
It is evident that the economy IS productive enough to support everyone. Not just participants, but everyone. The problem is profit and greed, the skewed distribution of the proceeds. I.e., the problem is capitalism. Not free enterprise, but capitalism. The warped entitlement that having money gets you more money. Scads and oodles of money.
I like to think a lot of people will use their free time to enrich their intellect in self-driven scholarly pursuits. The internet is not just a sewer of pornography and gross time-wasting crap. It is also a miracle of vast self-learning and philosophical-development potential. And I would make access completely free.