It is the idea that you help those in need and less fortunate than yourself.
Not what ACA does. It is not in the least about compassion. It simply looks at your earnings, not whether you are truly in need. Otherwise, cancer patients wouldn't be getting cancellations.
Ah, yes. The old "I know you're too stupid to understand what you're doing so I'll determine what you need for you" ploy. That sir, is the height of hubris.
One can manipulate math to to describe or answer pretty much anything you want. Just because the equations match what's happening does not mean they describe what's going on.
Certainly he could argue that. It's just that no one with a modicum of ethics will buy his explanation. They will be viewing what he did in the context of the site, not some abstract unrelated thought bubble.
You might want to send that translation to all climate scientists as the current consensus is shifting towards global cooling. And remember, consensus is what counts, right?
This post is the best example of an apologist with no logic or facts for backup.
No. They awarded a known incompetent company with a record of bad projects with a non-compete contract. Then they paid them ONE HALF OF A BILLION DOLLARS for a shitty website and aren't asking for a fucking refund.
The people who actually did the work and wrote the manual or designed the project.
Of course, they'll return their salaries? That's the reason they were paid, you know, to produce something for someone else. Do you also think that an artist should be able to come along later and remove a painting or sculpture because it's "theirs" because they created it? If the answer is no because someone paid them for the work, you have a problem with your original logic.
.
All I was suggesting is that asking why they choose one method of theft over another is, well.... because they are likely dumb and it didn't even occur to them.
That is an astonishingly naive view of people. Perhaps, if they were too damned dumb to know any better, you might explain why they used weapons and violence? You know, things people do because they know BEFOREHAND that what they're about to do won't sit with other people.
I know small children that know better and I would bet any amount of money those guys weren't more ignorant than small children.
What would the ticket be for? You don't ticket thieves, you arrest them - and this "gentlemen" is a thief caught red-handed. Too damned bad he didn't consider the rest of his life before he siphoned energy without feeling the need to pay for it.
Yes it does. You simply reject the fact for convenience's sake.
"We are talking about a crime committed by many people, of which he was entirely minor; participated for a very short portion of time compared to others."
Not relevant.
"So what happens if someone else in the group gets caught? Does he pay full restitution too?"
Slashdot Mirror
It is the idea that you help those in need and less fortunate than yourself.
Not what ACA does. It is not in the least about compassion. It simply looks at your earnings, not whether you are truly in need. Otherwise, cancer patients wouldn't be getting cancellations.
Ah, yes. The old "I know you're too stupid to understand what you're doing so I'll determine what you need for you" ploy. That sir, is the height of hubris.
There are two people involved:
Incorrect. If BitCoin is a currency, then subsequent recipients are involved. This is only one link in the transaction chain for that "currency".
It changes nothing since it's always been more probable that we're in a simulation than not.
Not in the least.
If there is only one real world and we can create a complete simulation of it
That's why. Parlor thoughts only. You cannot fit a complete description of reality in said reality. Recursion.
One can manipulate math to to describe or answer pretty much anything you want. Just because the equations match what's happening does not mean they describe what's going on.
Certainly he could argue that. It's just that no one with a modicum of ethics will buy his explanation. They will be viewing what he did in the context of the site, not some abstract unrelated thought bubble.
Required response: Whoosh!
If you don't indicate you're joking, you're written word is taken as your belief.
Can you provide a link to where s/he wrote that?
The difference is they're not using a friggin' supercomputer to do it. There are far better uses of that resource.
You might want to send that translation to all climate scientists as the current consensus is shifting towards global cooling. And remember, consensus is what counts, right?
But the plan and law was heavily politicized
Yes sir, it was. Remember "We'll have to pass the law to see what's in it"? After that, every excuse is moot.
Half a billion dollars.
I fail to see what a large codebase has to do with end users using or not using it.
It isn't completely written yet, much less tested. In other words it doesn't, and with that large of code base in this state won't, work (see IRS).
Why wouldn't somebody want to compare plans and prices available off-exchange with those in the exchange, exactly?
They're incorrect plan and price quotes? They make you enter your vitals before you can compare? Just two reasons off the top of my head.
This post is the best example of an apologist with no logic or facts for backup.
No. They awarded a known incompetent company with a record of bad projects with a non-compete contract. Then they paid them ONE HALF OF A BILLION DOLLARS for a shitty website and aren't asking for a fucking refund.
Bullshit. Simple bullshit.
Delta. Remember, there's an entire back end that hasn't even hit testing.
The people who actually did the work and wrote the manual or designed the project.
Of course, they'll return their salaries? That's the reason they were paid, you know, to produce something for someone else. Do you also think that an artist should be able to come along later and remove a painting or sculpture because it's "theirs" because they created it? If the answer is no because someone paid them for the work, you have a problem with your original logic. .
And it is safe to assume that one or more of thieves was doing it because of peer pressure
No, that would be no more than an opinion to justify an opinion.
You do understand that "his" words were comprised later by other people who had different agendas, right?
All I was suggesting is that asking why they choose one method of theft over another is, well.... because they are likely dumb and it didn't even occur to them.
That is an astonishingly naive view of people. Perhaps, if they were too damned dumb to know any better, you might explain why they used weapons and violence? You know, things people do because they know BEFOREHAND that what they're about to do won't sit with other people.
I know small children that know better and I would bet any amount of money those guys weren't more ignorant than small children.
t also creates a society with less empathy which breeds more violence.
Your opinion doth not a truth make.
What would the ticket be for? You don't ticket thieves, you arrest them - and this "gentlemen" is a thief caught red-handed. Too damned bad he didn't consider the rest of his life before he siphoned energy without feeling the need to pay for it.
This was theft, not a traffic violation. If you grab someone's purse from your car window, you don't get a ticket.
I've been arrested. Your description is inaccurate.
Uh, no. It would be like fining one of a group of people who PURPOSEFULLY caused a traffic jam the prevented anyone else for moving.
Seems you conveniently left out the entire purpose of a DDOS - intent.
"DDOS does not actually damage anything."
Yes it does. You simply reject the fact for convenience's sake.
"We are talking about a crime committed by many people, of which he was entirely minor; participated for a very short portion of time compared to others."
Not relevant.
"So what happens if someone else in the group gets caught? Does he pay full restitution too?"
Hopefully.
"He should have received a slap on the wrist."
Because he's a geek? No.
"It's not possible to effectively protest anything in todays America."
Axiomatically incorrect as any news day will inform you.
BR --- Political slogans are for the intellectually lazy.