If Joe Private Citizen is an anarchist that is disrupting the peace, then it probably would be quite fine to publish his address for harassment purposes. There needs to be order of law, but some people who are essentially terrorists are out to disturb this order.
For example, take someone like Noam Chomsky. Sure, he has some good knowledge, and perhaps what he says has some place at some time. But times like these are most certainly not the time to try to bring down the nation with his anarchist ideas(he calls it anarcho-syndicalism or libertarian-socialism, whatever that means). Everything he says is used by the Islamofascists against us and our freedom. It's people like Dr. Chomsky that need to be pressured into the margins. If giving out his personal information so that other citizens may contact him in order to give up his deviant ways, than so be it. That's just one example where it would moral.
Some things which may be immoral to do to regular people may not always be immoral. We have to take it on a case by case basis. Sometimes the extraneous liberties of those who choose out of malice to be irrepsonsible with those liberties need to be curtailed so order is kept. We need order or everyone you love will be left to the whims of those who care not for life and liberty. We know this more than ever now that we've witnessed the terror of 9/11.
I think you're only partially right. I am a big music fan though, so...
If you're only getting "at best" an hour of use out of a twenty dollar disc, you're not listening to the right music I'd say.
What's the most replayable games? Something like Grand Theft Auto: Vice City(I'll admit that was pretty damn fun when I played it)? Or something you play with friends a lot, like Super Smash Brothers, or some sports games? Even if you take these highly replayable games, can you still imagine yourself playing them twenty years from now?
Now take any good recording. How could you not still want to listen to it twenty years from now? How could you not want to listen to it, assuming your in the mood, at any time until your very death?
The new(?) Republican thing is double standards. They get away with it because the left(not saying the Dems are the left) is toothless and because they themselves don't see it as double standards but just one standard: whatever helps "the right" is good, whatever helps "the left" is bad. Everything's a war for them nowadays and everything's fair in war.
"The military is only a small percentage of the total federal budget."
Wait, wait, wait, did you read that "The military budget is only 2.3%(or whatever the 'small percentage' was) of the GDP" meme and, like everyone else who is looking for comfort from the numbers, interpret the GDP to mean the federal budget? The national GDP isn't the federal budget. The GDP is one of the few things that is larger than US military spending. Maybe whoever puts out those little lines should start comparing the military spending to the GDP of the world next time: make it seem even smaller! Or perhaps to the estimated total value of the Sun. Next, the Milky Way!
I'd wager that you're confusing the speech with the actions that speech can also bring when you use that speech. You can infringe a contract with speech, or make a threat, but it is the infringment of the contract or the threat that is illegal, not the speech.
Yes, you're not free to threaten someone; but a threat is not a form of speech, though speech can be used to make a threat.
Just like shooting someone in the head isn't illegal. It's the murder that that brings which is illegal. If shooting someone in the head caused no harm and was indetectable to the "victim" no one would ever be picked up by the cops after doing it. There's no law against "shooting someone in the head." And there's no law against "screaming 'Fire!' in a theatre." There's just a law against murder, and a law against disturbing the peace or whatever it is exactly you would probably be charged with if you did the latter.
In the United States I don't really see where freedom of speech is balanced at all: there's endless freedom of speech, at least on the books.
That basic morality is just a card played by people when it benefits them in some way. Possibly materially, possibly symbolically, but in some way. It's not the only moral position to take.
The ruling class or ruling class intellectuals, taken as a whole, probably don't think of themselves as any less or more moral than the general populace. They would generally see what they're doing as an expression of their will. And that can be their morality, a Nietzschen one. The Straussian, exoteric and esoteric take on this seems to be popular one nowadays, at least a one that is popular to attribute to them by left thinkers of various quality. Where the morality is inextricable because the ruling class takes up two philosophical positions: an(or many) exoteric one(s) and an esoteric one which can weave together. One they tell you about, one they hold between themselves in a sort of "read between the lines" type thing. So anything they say can be read both ways: but you can never condemn them, because, you know, innocent until proven guilty, and always given the benefit of the doubt.
You can look at the "neo-conservative"(as they're labelled) Straussians to see this clearly, because they are particularly terrible at keeping their esoteric meanings actually esoteric (which is probably a testament that the real power, and the words behind real power, lies not with the "Straussians" as the left likes to accusse them of so much nowadays, but probably somewhere else, because the crafty wouldn't slip up so embarrasingly. Or maybe, like Baudrillard says, power doesn't exist anymore, since everything is transparent. What we see as evil, powerful figures creating or being evil, is just an effect of the system, and can't be helped. That thought makes anarchists like Zerzan cry; but it seems to make the [true] post-modernists happy, maybe the anarchists should learn from them, and be happy too). Anyway, looking at what the Straussians say. Take Irving Kristol. He says:
"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."
You can see him letting his esoteric, "Nietzschean" metaphysics slip out. That idea that their is no higher order of truth, and "truth" is just the triumph of a power or will behind an interpretation. And that you don't tell some people this, you tell them some other "truth;" that God exists and Christ died for your sins, etc. for example. But then this all conflates with the exoteric meanings. For example, that it's just "realpolitik" you'll hear nowadays from other modern ruling-class intellectuals like, say, Robert Kaplan. As they would say, you need a strong government and leaders like the Republicans and Democrats with the institutions that back them(central banks, military-industrial complex, etc.) in order to maintain the rule of law, a fundamental requirement of society and aim of morality.
So that brings us to an answer to your question("Who would consider the argument that taxes are immoral? [And yet, who can come up with a counter argument?]"). The ruling class thinkers have, and it's the realpolitik that Machiavelli originally desribed. You need to do some immoral things for a greater good. And if you don't buy "that truth" because you're one of the "highly educated" ones that Kristol describes, then they've got another one for you. That taxes are just one expression of the triumph of the more powerful will of the ruling class, and so not immoral at all, since muffling your own will to power is what is truly immoral, and "nihilistic."
Okay that's all well and nice, but still, why should they listen to you and not do it?
Because they can be legally prosecuted for it is your actual asnwer? Pff, what's the chances of that? How in the world are they going to be prosecuted for violating something like the DMCA in a case like this? Unless they happen to be under FBI surveillence at the time or are involved in something that could get them to be under FBI surveillence in the near furture, fat chance I'd say.
It's just not a compelling argument. There's no effective mechanism for the authorities to prosecute anyone cracking the Apple DRM when they do it in their own home. It's not going to happen, and everyone who wants DRM-free ITMS files knows this. It's the same with piracy; millions upon millions pirate media despite that they have no legal right to and they could be sued. They do it because they know they have a one in a million chance of getting caught. Higher chance they'll die tommorow on the car ride to work. It's just not risky by any stretch of the imagination. Cracking the Apple DRM involves even less of a risk of being caught. There's no real mechanism in which the authorities can find out if you're doing it. So why should they not do it?
Why? You're probably not a loved or feared one of most of these people, so why exactly will they listen to you?
You have to give a reason for people to listen or they just won't; moralizing people won't do anything. People get moralized by others all the time, and demoralized by others still. Children rot in the poorest parts of the world by the thousands each day, the more fortunate are exceedingly rarely going to go save them, and you think these same people care enough about morals that they're going to feel obliged to fulfil the iTMS contract? A contract they didn't even read and probably don't even recall signing? "That annoying thing you press 'Yes' to when it asks you 'Do you agree?'"
You got some high hopes for people, assuming they would even come to the same moral conclusions as you on the issue. Which most quite possibly wouldn't, which may explain why so many are so gung-ho with piracy and the like in the apparent face of morality.
"Let's see, kids dying of malnourishment in Somalia. Nope, I'll let them rot. Oh, MoneyT says it's immoral to go against my iTMS contract...man, wouldn't want to be immoral."
There's two different joint stereo methods: mid/side and intensity joint stereo. Intensity does use a weird algorithm, but it's not the common one, because it's quite lossy, at least the Fraunhofer implementations that I've heard are. I guess it has it's uses though, just keep it away from my music.
Mid/side is the common one, it's the one used in LAME, at least most programs that implement it, as far as I know. Mid/side doesn't use a weird algorithm: it's just a different way of arranging the stereo channels. Instead of having Left and Right, you have Sum and Difference. One channel is the Sum of the left and right channels and the other channel is the difference between them. Just subtraction and addition of the waves. So, in an uncompressed wave, mid/side joint stereo gives you no benefits whatsoever, it's just a rearrangement of the same thing.
The benefit of mid/side only comes in when you compress channels with are enough alike, which is most music people listen to I guess. It's just that that it's more efficient for the compression algorithm when you have a larger sum signal with a smaller signal difference signal. However, if the two channels are not enough alike, mid/side joint stereo is going to be counter-productive.
I've been wrong before on digital audio on Slashdot before though, so maybe someone will come around and correct some error of mine.
'that game will only be cool if you can play online as 50 and his gunit with your buddies. Then it will be as cool as a civic with chrome tailpipes. -- "Something's wrong with you...and I hope we never do meet again." - Deftones When Girls Telephone Boys'
Wait, a guy who quotes the Deftones has enough hipness to have the confidence to make fun of 50 Cent? 50 Cent must be really uncool.
Hey, you're just an atheist, nihilist, anti-christain, anti-semite!
You're just out to destroy the divine project of all those who are holy! The US and Israel and all their courageous militarymen, gracious transnational financiers and conservatives in general will achieve Zion in the Holy Lands! It will happen, but God needs us, and our nations, to make it happen! He needs us because he's weak and needs our hel-NO, wait I mean! He's strong! I mean eht! ghcht! Gah!
"Bottom line though is that Microsoft didn't do anything wrong, goverments are just looking at a quick way to make money while keeping the public happy by not raising taxes."
What ridiculous conjecture.
If the governments want more money without taxing they'll just get their treasuries to tell the central banks to circulate more euros. They control a fiat currency that nearly everyone uses: they don't need to take money from other people if they need more. For most modern governments, money does grow on trees.
Unemployment in Scandinavia by Country, according to the CIA world factbook. Finland, Greenland and Iceland included as they're all at various times and places considered Scandinavian, at least that's what Wikipedia told me.
This link says that the European Union's unemployment rate as a whole is 8%. They report various numbers differently than the CIA world factbook, such as reporting Denmark's rate as "below 5 per cent." They also say:
"Still, there is however no obvious relationship between the degree of social protection and the unemployment rate today. For example, the Netherlands has returned to low unemployment while continuing to offer high social protection. Scandinavian countries have maintained both high social protection and a low natural rate of unemployment."
I've had one article I've submitted accepted and the headline was changed from the one I submitted it with. As far as I know this is standard procedure: the editor chooses a headline he likes, could be the one submitted, could not.
The actual writeup seems to pretty clearly say that it was the hackers using the keyloggers, the headline says the opposite. Probably an editorial mistake.
As a guy who's seen it, I even read it one cold night in December, which is a different story, the research guide, isn't any sort of an official guide. It's just, like, a posting on a bulletin board giving some "quick tips"-styled advice to people.
No post-grads are using that thing to guide them in their dissertations. It just says flatly to not use any internet source as a source for information in anything you hand in unless it's just an academic web-libary-type thing of actual publications and papers.
You pay taxes because the alternative isn't any different. Say taxes went down to zero percent. All that would happen is that US $ inflation would go up. What do you use to buy stuff with? Probably Federal Reserve dollars like everyone else. So go to this future, where you have no taxes now. Yay! Now the government doesn't get your money! But you still lose all the equivalent value because the FR just circulates more dollars taking away your purchasing power and giving that value to the government.
The tax collectors don't need guns, everyone voluntarily uses the dollars of which they set the value. You can't escape being "taxed" as long as you use federal dollars.
Unless you have some objection to the act of taxing itself, and not to the more general act of the government is taking your wealth away from you for things you don't see a return in, then you have no real objection to taxation.
The situation is a whole lot more dire then them enforcing taxation through violence, they control the very fabric of trade. You can end their violently backed taxation, but you don't escape taxation in general, so why bother? Any work against unjust taxation, in its totality, is over in that it has failed. Your only hope is to not play the game at all, and set yourself back a couple hundred years in terms of what you can do in the marketplace(i.e. trade in the form gold nuggets) and that's a rather bizarre thing to do.
You should make that into a cartoon, you know an "evil" Magus Adam Warlock-style GWB splits off from him and they become arch-enemies. Students would eat it up, you'd be rich.
You just get icreased inflation however, so then what's the benefit of reducing taxes? You keep more money, but lose the same value, because the money that you now have more of just buys less.
Do you want 100 dollars that are valued at 90% or 90 dollars that are valued at 100%? By favoring decreased taxes all you're doing is taking the first option. You may have more money, but both situations are functionally the same.
You could have a 1% tax, but how would that help you when inflation is 40%?
We throw its sorry ass in jail and throw away the key? Most violent crimes are never solved. The clearance rate for violent crimes(which includes only murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) in 2002 was 46.8%. And the rate of solved, in the common sense of the word, is ever less; the clearance rate just means "cleared by arrest."
It's good to dream friend, but maybe you should wake up once in a while?
Of course, you should understand that you understate the level of agreement we are in when you say, "I don't mean to criticize you."
EULAs have definitely been legally upheld. Not every one, but, of course, we're speaking very general anyway. The concept of an EULA is definitely upheld.
This article describes another incidences where software shrink-wrap licences have been upheld. Even ruling against reverse-engineering!
This doesn't apply to the US directly, but this PDF describes how the GPL, just another EULA when you get down to it, was upheld in Germany. Eben Moglen says it's more than fine in the US as well.
Of course, you argue that, even then, you are still allowed to do things like reverse-engineer because it's in your rights and the license isn't valid. That's a normative argument, and I have nothing to say to that though(when you look at things like the GPL I'm sure it doesn't take you long to come up with some good arguments against yourself though). The fact is, the law does see EULAs as valid, that's all I'm describing.
Slashdot Mirror
That completely depends.
If Joe Private Citizen is an anarchist that is disrupting the peace, then it probably would be quite fine to publish his address for harassment purposes. There needs to be order of law, but some people who are essentially terrorists are out to disturb this order.
For example, take someone like Noam Chomsky. Sure, he has some good knowledge, and perhaps what he says has some place at some time. But times like these are most certainly not the time to try to bring down the nation with his anarchist ideas(he calls it anarcho-syndicalism or libertarian-socialism, whatever that means). Everything he says is used by the Islamofascists against us and our freedom. It's people like Dr. Chomsky that need to be pressured into the margins. If giving out his personal information so that other citizens may contact him in order to give up his deviant ways, than so be it. That's just one example where it would moral.
Some things which may be immoral to do to regular people may not always be immoral. We have to take it on a case by case basis. Sometimes the extraneous liberties of those who choose out of malice to be irrepsonsible with those liberties need to be curtailed so order is kept. We need order or everyone you love will be left to the whims of those who care not for life and liberty. We know this more than ever now that we've witnessed the terror of 9/11.
Wasn't in Fedora 2 either...if I recall correctly.
I think you're only partially right. I am a big music fan though, so...
If you're only getting "at best" an hour of use out of a twenty dollar disc, you're not listening to the right music I'd say.
What's the most replayable games? Something like Grand Theft Auto: Vice City(I'll admit that was pretty damn fun when I played it)? Or something you play with friends a lot, like Super Smash Brothers, or some sports games? Even if you take these highly replayable games, can you still imagine yourself playing them twenty years from now?
Now take any good recording. How could you not still want to listen to it twenty years from now? How could you not want to listen to it, assuming your in the mood, at any time until your very death?
The link I followed from there did bring me to this:
http://linuxcertified.com/linux_laptops.html
Says on the pages "No windows tax"; and, I'm not the hippest when it comes to the newest specs, but they seem to have the latest and greatest.
The new(?) Republican thing is double standards. They get away with it because the left(not saying the Dems are the left) is toothless and because they themselves don't see it as double standards but just one standard: whatever helps "the right" is good, whatever helps "the left" is bad. Everything's a war for them nowadays and everything's fair in war.
" (: "
Yeah, I'd be sad too if my eyes were on my fucking chin!
"The military is only a small percentage of the total federal budget."
Wait, wait, wait, did you read that "The military budget is only 2.3%(or whatever the 'small percentage' was) of the GDP" meme and, like everyone else who is looking for comfort from the numbers, interpret the GDP to mean the federal budget? The national GDP isn't the federal budget. The GDP is one of the few things that is larger than US military spending. Maybe whoever puts out those little lines should start comparing the military spending to the GDP of the world next time: make it seem even smaller! Or perhaps to the estimated total value of the Sun. Next, the Milky Way!
I'd wager that you're confusing the speech with the actions that speech can also bring when you use that speech. You can infringe a contract with speech, or make a threat, but it is the infringment of the contract or the threat that is illegal, not the speech.
Yes, you're not free to threaten someone; but a threat is not a form of speech, though speech can be used to make a threat.
Just like shooting someone in the head isn't illegal. It's the murder that that brings which is illegal. If shooting someone in the head caused no harm and was indetectable to the "victim" no one would ever be picked up by the cops after doing it. There's no law against "shooting someone in the head." And there's no law against "screaming 'Fire!' in a theatre." There's just a law against murder, and a law against disturbing the peace or whatever it is exactly you would probably be charged with if you did the latter.
In the United States I don't really see where freedom of speech is balanced at all: there's endless freedom of speech, at least on the books.
That basic morality is just a card played by people when it benefits them in some way. Possibly materially, possibly symbolically, but in some way. It's not the only moral position to take.
The ruling class or ruling class intellectuals, taken as a whole, probably don't think of themselves as any less or more moral than the general populace. They would generally see what they're doing as an expression of their will. And that can be their morality, a Nietzschen one. The Straussian, exoteric and esoteric take on this seems to be popular one nowadays, at least a one that is popular to attribute to them by left thinkers of various quality. Where the morality is inextricable because the ruling class takes up two philosophical positions: an(or many) exoteric one(s) and an esoteric one which can weave together. One they tell you about, one they hold between themselves in a sort of "read between the lines" type thing. So anything they say can be read both ways: but you can never condemn them, because, you know, innocent until proven guilty, and always given the benefit of the doubt.
You can look at the "neo-conservative"(as they're labelled) Straussians to see this clearly, because they are particularly terrible at keeping their esoteric meanings actually esoteric (which is probably a testament that the real power, and the words behind real power, lies not with the "Straussians" as the left likes to accusse them of so much nowadays, but probably somewhere else, because the crafty wouldn't slip up so embarrasingly. Or maybe, like Baudrillard says, power doesn't exist anymore, since everything is transparent. What we see as evil, powerful figures creating or being evil, is just an effect of the system, and can't be helped. That thought makes anarchists like Zerzan cry; but it seems to make the [true] post-modernists happy, maybe the anarchists should learn from them, and be happy too). Anyway, looking at what the Straussians say. Take Irving Kristol. He says:
"There are different kinds of truths for different kinds of people. There are truths appropriate for children; truths that are appropriate for students; truths that are appropriate for educated adults; and truths that are appropriate for highly educated adults, and the notion that there should be one set of truths available to everyone is a modern democratic fallacy. It doesn't work."
You can see him letting his esoteric, "Nietzschean" metaphysics slip out. That idea that their is no higher order of truth, and "truth" is just the triumph of a power or will behind an interpretation. And that you don't tell some people this, you tell them some other "truth;" that God exists and Christ died for your sins, etc. for example. But then this all conflates with the exoteric meanings. For example, that it's just "realpolitik" you'll hear nowadays from other modern ruling-class intellectuals like, say, Robert Kaplan. As they would say, you need a strong government and leaders like the Republicans and Democrats with the institutions that back them(central banks, military-industrial complex, etc.) in order to maintain the rule of law, a fundamental requirement of society and aim of morality.
So that brings us to an answer to your question("Who would consider the argument that taxes are immoral? [And yet, who can come up with a counter argument?]"). The ruling class thinkers have, and it's the realpolitik that Machiavelli originally desribed. You need to do some immoral things for a greater good. And if you don't buy "that truth" because you're one of the "highly educated" ones that Kristol describes, then they've got another one for you. That taxes are just one expression of the triumph of the more powerful will of the ruling class, and so not immoral at all, since muffling your own will to power is what is truly immoral, and "nihilistic."
Okay that's all well and nice, but still, why should they listen to you and not do it?
Because they can be legally prosecuted for it is your actual asnwer? Pff, what's the chances of that? How in the world are they going to be prosecuted for violating something like the DMCA in a case like this? Unless they happen to be under FBI surveillence at the time or are involved in something that could get them to be under FBI surveillence in the near furture, fat chance I'd say.
It's just not a compelling argument. There's no effective mechanism for the authorities to prosecute anyone cracking the Apple DRM when they do it in their own home. It's not going to happen, and everyone who wants DRM-free ITMS files knows this. It's the same with piracy; millions upon millions pirate media despite that they have no legal right to and they could be sued. They do it because they know they have a one in a million chance of getting caught. Higher chance they'll die tommorow on the car ride to work. It's just not risky by any stretch of the imagination. Cracking the Apple DRM involves even less of a risk of being caught. There's no real mechanism in which the authorities can find out if you're doing it. So why should they not do it?
"Don't like the contract, don't buy iTMS."
Why? You're probably not a loved or feared one of most of these people, so why exactly will they listen to you?
You have to give a reason for people to listen or they just won't; moralizing people won't do anything. People get moralized by others all the time, and demoralized by others still. Children rot in the poorest parts of the world by the thousands each day, the more fortunate are exceedingly rarely going to go save them, and you think these same people care enough about morals that they're going to feel obliged to fulfil the iTMS contract? A contract they didn't even read and probably don't even recall signing? "That annoying thing you press 'Yes' to when it asks you 'Do you agree?'"
You got some high hopes for people, assuming they would even come to the same moral conclusions as you on the issue. Which most quite possibly wouldn't, which may explain why so many are so gung-ho with piracy and the like in the apparent face of morality.
"Let's see, kids dying of malnourishment in Somalia. Nope, I'll let them rot. Oh, MoneyT says it's immoral to go against my iTMS contract...man, wouldn't want to be immoral."
There's two different joint stereo methods: mid/side and intensity joint stereo. Intensity does use a weird algorithm, but it's not the common one, because it's quite lossy, at least the Fraunhofer implementations that I've heard are. I guess it has it's uses though, just keep it away from my music.
Mid/side is the common one, it's the one used in LAME, at least most programs that implement it, as far as I know. Mid/side doesn't use a weird algorithm: it's just a different way of arranging the stereo channels. Instead of having Left and Right, you have Sum and Difference. One channel is the Sum of the left and right channels and the other channel is the difference between them. Just subtraction and addition of the waves. So, in an uncompressed wave, mid/side joint stereo gives you no benefits whatsoever, it's just a rearrangement of the same thing.
The benefit of mid/side only comes in when you compress channels with are enough alike, which is most music people listen to I guess. It's just that that it's more efficient for the compression algorithm when you have a larger sum signal with a smaller signal difference signal. However, if the two channels are not enough alike, mid/side joint stereo is going to be counter-productive.
I've been wrong before on digital audio on Slashdot before though, so maybe someone will come around and correct some error of mine.
'that game will only be cool if you can play online as 50 and his gunit with your buddies. Then it will be as cool as a civic with chrome tailpipes.
--
"Something's wrong with you...and I hope we never do meet again." - Deftones When Girls Telephone Boys'
Wait, a guy who quotes the Deftones has enough hipness to have the confidence to make fun of 50 Cent? 50 Cent must be really uncool.
Hey, you're just an atheist, nihilist, anti-christain, anti-semite!
You're just out to destroy the divine project of all those who are holy! The US and Israel and all their courageous militarymen, gracious transnational financiers and conservatives in general will achieve Zion in the Holy Lands! It will happen, but God needs us, and our nations, to make it happen! He needs us because he's weak and needs our hel-NO, wait I mean! He's strong! I mean eht! ghcht! Gah!
"Bottom line though is that Microsoft didn't do anything wrong, goverments are just looking at a quick way to make money while keeping the public happy by not raising taxes."
What ridiculous conjecture.
If the governments want more money without taxing they'll just get their treasuries to tell the central banks to circulate more euros. They control a fiat currency that nearly everyone uses: they don't need to take money from other people if they need more. For most modern governments, money does grow on trees.
Unemployment in Scandinavia by Country, according to the CIA world factbook. Finland, Greenland and Iceland included as they're all at various times and places considered Scandinavian, at least that's what Wikipedia told me.
Sweden: 4.9% (2003 estimate)
Norway: 4.7% (2003 est.)
Denmark: 6.1% (2003)
Finland: 9% (2003 est.)
Iceland: 3.4% (2003 est.)
Greenland: 10% (2000 est.)
For comparison:
United States: 6% (2003)
United Kingdom: 5% (2003 est.)
Canada: 7.8% (2003 est.)
France: 9.7% (2003 est.)
Germany: 10.5% (2003 est.)
Netherlands: 3.7% (2003 est.)
Switzerland: 3.7% (2003 est.)
This link says that the European Union's unemployment rate as a whole is 8%. They report various numbers differently than the CIA world factbook, such as reporting Denmark's rate as "below 5 per cent." They also say:
"Still, there is however no obvious relationship between the degree of social protection and the unemployment rate today. For example, the Netherlands has returned to low unemployment while continuing to offer high social protection. Scandinavian countries have maintained both high social protection and a low natural rate of unemployment."
I've had one article I've submitted accepted and the headline was changed from the one I submitted it with. As far as I know this is standard procedure: the editor chooses a headline he likes, could be the one submitted, could not.
The actual writeup seems to pretty clearly say that it was the hackers using the keyloggers, the headline says the opposite. Probably an editorial mistake.
As a guy who's seen it, I even read it one cold night in December, which is a different story, the research guide, isn't any sort of an official guide. It's just, like, a posting on a bulletin board giving some "quick tips"-styled advice to people.
No post-grads are using that thing to guide them in their dissertations. It just says flatly to not use any internet source as a source for information in anything you hand in unless it's just an academic web-libary-type thing of actual publications and papers.
You pay taxes because the alternative isn't any different. Say taxes went down to zero percent. All that would happen is that US $ inflation would go up. What do you use to buy stuff with? Probably Federal Reserve dollars like everyone else. So go to this future, where you have no taxes now. Yay! Now the government doesn't get your money! But you still lose all the equivalent value because the FR just circulates more dollars taking away your purchasing power and giving that value to the government.
The tax collectors don't need guns, everyone voluntarily uses the dollars of which they set the value. You can't escape being "taxed" as long as you use federal dollars.
Unless you have some objection to the act of taxing itself, and not to the more general act of the government is taking your wealth away from you for things you don't see a return in, then you have no real objection to taxation.
The situation is a whole lot more dire then them enforcing taxation through violence, they control the very fabric of trade. You can end their violently backed taxation, but you don't escape taxation in general, so why bother? Any work against unjust taxation, in its totality, is over in that it has failed. Your only hope is to not play the game at all, and set yourself back a couple hundred years in terms of what you can do in the marketplace(i.e. trade in the form gold nuggets) and that's a rather bizarre thing to do.
You should make that into a cartoon, you know an "evil" Magus Adam Warlock-style GWB splits off from him and they become arch-enemies. Students would eat it up, you'd be rich.
Um, some of us haven't beaten that game yet you know? Mods, maybe mark this guy down as a troll so that no one else will have it spoiled for them.
You just get icreased inflation however, so then what's the benefit of reducing taxes? You keep more money, but lose the same value, because the money that you now have more of just buys less.
Do you want 100 dollars that are valued at 90% or 90 dollars that are valued at 100%? By favoring decreased taxes all you're doing is taking the first option. You may have more money, but both situations are functionally the same.
You could have a 1% tax, but how would that help you when inflation is 40%?
We throw its sorry ass in jail and throw away the key? Most violent crimes are never solved. The clearance rate for violent crimes(which includes only murder, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault) in 2002 was 46.8%. And the rate of solved, in the common sense of the word, is ever less; the clearance rate just means "cleared by arrest."
It's good to dream friend, but maybe you should wake up once in a while?
I fucked up my list of links, but, whatever, you get the point.
Of course, you should understand that you understate the level of agreement we are in when you say, "I don't mean to criticize you."
EULAs have definitely been legally upheld. Not every one, but, of course, we're speaking very general anyway. The concept of an EULA is definitely upheld.
This article describes another incidences where software shrink-wrap licences have been upheld. Even ruling against reverse-engineering!
This doesn't apply to the US directly, but this PDF describes how the GPL, just another EULA when you get down to it, was upheld in Germany. Eben Moglen says it's more than fine in the US as well.
Of course, you argue that, even then, you are still allowed to do things like reverse-engineer because it's in your rights and the license isn't valid. That's a normative argument, and I have nothing to say to that though(when you look at things like the GPL I'm sure it doesn't take you long to come up with some good arguments against yourself though). The fact is, the law does see EULAs as valid, that's all I'm describing.