Paid-for isn't relevant, Google Apps accounts aren't supported at all. For better or worse, access for Apps accounts always seems to lag behind others.
Probably true, but that's a devil's advocate for a different conversation. This isn't about whether one platform is better, or even whether it's a complete waste of time to jailbreak a console; it's about whether you should be *allowed* to do so. I'll probably never bother (don't have one now anyway), but there's no reason it shouldn't be permitted by law.
What proof do you have that legalizing drugs won't cause more problems than it supposedly solves? I'm skeptical that legalizing drugs would solve anything and so far haven't seen any proof.
The same proof that you have that it won't help.
As I pointed out elsewhere, the violent criminals won't change. What could change is having more resources to throw at that fight rather than prosecuting and imprisoning drug users. I don't know if it will help or hurt and neither do you, but only a fool would fail to consider different options.
Funny, I wonder which of your two options are counter to my suggestion.
Like drugs, there is a problem with alcohol. People become addicted to it, lose their jobs, end up homeless, commit crimes to get by. However, I'm pretty sure that not all drinkers are alcoholics. I don't think that just because something bad becomes easier to obtain that everyone in the world will rush out to do it- the reduction in cigarette smoking in the US in recent years belies that notion.
I think there would be a lot more addicts than there are now. But I don't know if that number, who choose to ruin their lives, will outweigh the reduction in other violent crimes and the economic benefits.
Your emotional appeal is well-phrased, but I've still no reason to believe that the "war on drugs" is a good idea. It's an unknown, and I personally lean toward reducing that effort.
Absolutely. Whether it's stupid (which is still unknown) or not. Trading based on knowledge that is not public is "insider trading". And it doesn't need to be an executive.
Of course, remember that "publicly available" may not mean what you think it means. They don't have to advertise it, or put disclaimers on their TV commercials. Including a statement with their SEC or other financial filings is probably sufficient.
Speaking of dumb... You might be able to argue that Drug Cartels exist because narcotics are illegal, but don't think for a minute that the Cartels themselves won't go away if drugs become legal. There are plenty of other illegal things that they do.
What might (wishful thinking) happen is that there would be huge resources freed up from the "war on drugs" to fight the real threats as if we mean it.
Then lock them up where they can't get to it. If they're a "danger to society", then they need to be removed from it whether or not drugs are involved. I'm sure that some drugs should remain illegal- perhaps heroin, probably PCP. For those who can't handle it, treatment should be an option, and they could be locked up if they're really problems.
But since we're talking about a rainbows-and-unicorns world, where violent people are no longer violent simply because there's no market for their product, or they can get drugs from more reputable sources...
Consider the options available when we can redirect the entire DEA budget, plus a large portion of FBI, ATF and local PD budgets, toward something more useful.
-- prisons where people aren't locked up for use & possession, leaving room for those who commit crimes against persons & property (including drug-related)
-- we'd have practically a new army of former drug-enforcement officers to deploy to border protection, looking for real danger signs rather than chasing around after smuggled drugs.
-- the freed-up budgets could be used to enhance treatment for addictions. We don't need to lock up every user or even every addict, just those who cause problems.
Of course, drug dealers and cartels will find something else to do, but there would be more resources available to fight them. Legalization and decriminalization aren't magic bullets, but something worth considering. And it doesn't have to be all-or-none, as you seem to think. The biggest hurdle is getting the people to believe that there are bigger fights worth fighting, and that these resources could be better deployed somewhere besides hunting down potheads.
Yep, caveat emptor. Screw the buyer if you can. Nothing wrong with that, is there? I'm glad to see that you're happy with the various level of mortgage and banking fraud that's been going on, also.
I think the first desire is to "try and figure out how their code works" and find some nice open source projects to look at to get an idea for how programming works in the real world." I'm not sure that a large, buggy project would be the best option for this.
Once these are satisfied, though, such a project would be a good place to address the overall objective: "start giving back to the FOSS community."
I generally start with small programs to learn how do something so that looking at a larger one isn't overwhelming.
I'm pretty sure they're not. Anyone can be a CA. The only thing necessary to be a "real" CA is to have your cert installed by default in the major browsers. They (Opera, Microsoft, Mozilla, Google) decide who's a "real" CA or not.
In other words, it's just about trust. Your browser trusts Thawte, Verisign, and a ton of others by default. If you install my personal root CA in your browser, then for you I'll be just as "real" as the others.
I've no problem with that, it's the other people that get blinded that I'm concerned about. Kind of like the innocent victims of a gang shootout, or the other drivers killed by the drunk- we're better off without the perpetrators, if only the victims weren't involved.
It's simple. They shouldn't favor one over the other sight unseen. Hopefully (but not likely) they'd be considering all options equally and choosing the right tool for the job. Open-source won't always be the right tool.
That's very true on the consumer end, but you have to watch the use of the word "overcharge." Normally this means to charge too much, but this contradicts the earlier post saying "Apple is profitable because they overcharge but typically they do not cut corners so their customers feel that the prices are mostly fair."
Actually, that statement doesn't even make sense. Either they're charging too much, or they're charging a fair price. Some people (including the poster, it seems) may feel that the price is too high, but if enough people disagree then Apple is likely charging the correct price.
They could charge less, increasing sales, but the effect on profit might be small. They could also charge more, increasing per-unit gross profit at the expense of reduced sales. The first part of the statement "Apple is profitable..." indicates that they've found a good price point even if it's not the optimal solution.
First, "undercover officer" is not the same as "secret police." I can understand how the similar words might confuse you.
Second, the relative danger in being a cop isn't the issue; keeping it from increasing is. Deliberately increasing the danger of being a taxi driver or construction worker would be equally stupid.
I like the multi-window interface, and I'm not even a Linux drone. What I'd really like is better printer support, but for now will print from PS Elements.
Wikipedia image blocking is done on the client side, this means the government can't issue a law or make a deal with Wikipedia to force it upon you. They'd have to disable SSL access and run man-in-the-middle proxies on all traffic.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you SSH to an SMTP server on port 25?
Paid-for isn't relevant, Google Apps accounts aren't supported at all. For better or worse, access for Apps accounts always seems to lag behind others.
Probably true, but that's a devil's advocate for a different conversation. This isn't about whether one platform is better, or even whether it's a complete waste of time to jailbreak a console; it's about whether you should be *allowed* to do so. I'll probably never bother (don't have one now anyway), but there's no reason it shouldn't be permitted by law.
What proof do you have that legalizing drugs won't cause more problems than it supposedly solves? I'm skeptical that legalizing drugs would solve anything and so far haven't seen any proof.
The same proof that you have that it won't help.
As I pointed out elsewhere, the violent criminals won't change. What could change is having more resources to throw at that fight rather than prosecuting and imprisoning drug users. I don't know if it will help or hurt and neither do you, but only a fool would fail to consider different options.
Funny, I wonder which of your two options are counter to my suggestion.
Like drugs, there is a problem with alcohol. People become addicted to it, lose their jobs, end up homeless, commit crimes to get by. However, I'm pretty sure that not all drinkers are alcoholics. I don't think that just because something bad becomes easier to obtain that everyone in the world will rush out to do it- the reduction in cigarette smoking in the US in recent years belies that notion.
I think there would be a lot more addicts than there are now. But I don't know if that number, who choose to ruin their lives, will outweigh the reduction in other violent crimes and the economic benefits.
Your emotional appeal is well-phrased, but I've still no reason to believe that the "war on drugs" is a good idea. It's an unknown, and I personally lean toward reducing that effort.
I won't live somewhere if I can't afford earthquake and flood insurance at that location
So as your income increases you are happy to live in riskier areas?
Wow, what logic. It's hard to imagine that someone believes that "I won't do A unless I have B" is equal to "If I have B I absolutely will do A."
Absolutely. Whether it's stupid (which is still unknown) or not. Trading based on knowledge that is not public is "insider trading". And it doesn't need to be an executive.
Of course, remember that "publicly available" may not mean what you think it means. They don't have to advertise it, or put disclaimers on their TV commercials. Including a statement with their SEC or other financial filings is probably sufficient.
Speaking of dumb... You might be able to argue that Drug Cartels exist because narcotics are illegal, but don't think for a minute that the Cartels themselves won't go away if drugs become legal. There are plenty of other illegal things that they do.
What might (wishful thinking) happen is that there would be huge resources freed up from the "war on drugs" to fight the real threats as if we mean it.
Then lock them up where they can't get to it. If they're a "danger to society", then they need to be removed from it whether or not drugs are involved. I'm sure that some drugs should remain illegal- perhaps heroin, probably PCP. For those who can't handle it, treatment should be an option, and they could be locked up if they're really problems.
But since we're talking about a rainbows-and-unicorns world, where violent people are no longer violent simply because there's no market for their product, or they can get drugs from more reputable sources ...
Consider the options available when we can redirect the entire DEA budget, plus a large portion of FBI, ATF and local PD budgets, toward something more useful.
-- prisons where people aren't locked up for use & possession, leaving room for those who commit crimes against persons & property (including drug-related)
-- we'd have practically a new army of former drug-enforcement officers to deploy to border protection, looking for real danger signs rather than chasing around after smuggled drugs.
-- the freed-up budgets could be used to enhance treatment for addictions. We don't need to lock up every user or even every addict, just those who cause problems.
Of course, drug dealers and cartels will find something else to do, but there would be more resources available to fight them. Legalization and decriminalization aren't magic bullets, but something worth considering. And it doesn't have to be all-or-none, as you seem to think. The biggest hurdle is getting the people to believe that there are bigger fights worth fighting, and that these resources could be better deployed somewhere besides hunting down potheads.
Possibly, but an irrelevant point here.
Many torts are, or are similar to, crimes.
Yep, caveat emptor. Screw the buyer if you can. Nothing wrong with that, is there? I'm glad to see that you're happy with the various level of mortgage and banking fraud that's been going on, also.
I think the first desire is to "try and figure out how their code works" and find some nice open source projects to look at to get an idea for how programming works in the real world." I'm not sure that a large, buggy project would be the best option for this.
Once these are satisfied, though, such a project would be a good place to address the overall objective: "start giving back to the FOSS community."
I generally start with small programs to learn how do something so that looking at a larger one isn't overwhelming.
I'm pretty sure they're not. Anyone can be a CA. The only thing necessary to be a "real" CA is to have your cert installed by default in the major browsers. They (Opera, Microsoft, Mozilla, Google) decide who's a "real" CA or not. In other words, it's just about trust. Your browser trusts Thawte, Verisign, and a ton of others by default. If you install my personal root CA in your browser, then for you I'll be just as "real" as the others.
I've no problem with that, it's the other people that get blinded that I'm concerned about. Kind of like the innocent victims of a gang shootout, or the other drivers killed by the drunk- we're better off without the perpetrators, if only the victims weren't involved.
It's simple. They shouldn't favor one over the other sight unseen. Hopefully (but not likely) they'd be considering all options equally and choosing the right tool for the job. Open-source won't always be the right tool.
Those who assist the killers are equally responsible.
Of course not. You just have to tell them where you want to work, and they'll pack up their facilities and relocate for you!
You've got a very unusual idea of "participation."
That's very true on the consumer end, but you have to watch the use of the word "overcharge." Normally this means to charge too much, but this contradicts the earlier post saying "Apple is profitable because they overcharge but typically they do not cut corners so their customers feel that the prices are mostly fair."
Actually, that statement doesn't even make sense. Either they're charging too much, or they're charging a fair price. Some people (including the poster, it seems) may feel that the price is too high, but if enough people disagree then Apple is likely charging the correct price.
They could charge less, increasing sales, but the effect on profit might be small. They could also charge more, increasing per-unit gross profit at the expense of reduced sales. The first part of the statement "Apple is profitable..." indicates that they've found a good price point even if it's not the optimal solution.
First, something like that is never necessary in a production-quality product.
Second, the automated tool should be part of the Firefox upgrade process if that's the correct solution.
Doubtful.
First, "undercover officer" is not the same as "secret police." I can understand how the similar words might confuse you.
Second, the relative danger in being a cop isn't the issue; keeping it from increasing is. Deliberately increasing the danger of being a taxi driver or construction worker would be equally stupid.
I like the multi-window interface, and I'm not even a Linux drone. What I'd really like is better printer support, but for now will print from PS Elements.
Wikipedia image blocking is done on the client side, this means the government can't issue a law or make a deal with Wikipedia to force it upon you. They'd have to disable SSL access and run man-in-the-middle proxies on all traffic.