Even if their scientific value were nil, which they're not, these pictures and data coming back are great PR value. And also, it is insane to repress the quest for knowledge as it is for sex. If you wish to cut the waste, then go after the political corruption behind it. Vote the ruling party out. That will also take of your distribution of food and medical care, and everything else you mention there. The programs in and of themselves are worth every penny.
1) You didn't have any then 2) You won't get any now 3) You'll never know if we keep your stuff or not 4) Just try and prove anything 5) You're a sucker if you believe we actually abide by some silly "privacy" policy 6) Hahahahaha...
You're confusing that with the declaration of independence, which, of course, advocates nothing of the kind. It makes statements of the right and obligation to overthrow a corrupt, tyrannical government. Rebellion is not murder. The constitution, on the other hand, authorizes the government to repress such a rebellion in any way it sees fit. That would include murder. But when the government does it, it's not murder.
...Should five per cent appear too small, Be thankful I don't take it all. 'Cause I'm the taxman, Yeah, I'm the taxman.
if you drive a car - I'll tax the street; if you try to sit - I'll tax your seat; if you get too cold - I'll tax the heat; if you take a walk - I'll tax your feet...
I use use old software. Redhat 5.2 runs great on my 10 year old laptop. I never understood the Firefox thing. The difference between it and the Mozilla suite has shown to be insignificant in both size and speed. So, I stay with the all inclusive suite. What do we have here? Bud Lite Lite?
The stock market is every bit as "random" as Vegas. The house always wins. The payout is percentage set by the house. Talking about Sony is like picking out a single casino. It's like saying that the MGM Grand will go broke because one of their slot machines only made 25,000 dollars yesterday. It does nothing to show the big picture.
By bureaucrats, for bureaucrats. Just tear down the damn borders already. All of them. Europe is making baby steps. Why does the rest of the world maintain this tribal animalism?
I don't think it's always useful to make such distinctions...In this case, you choose to isolate and morally condemn the demand side of the equation as if it had no interaction with the supply side.
I really mean it to say that the relationship absolutely, entirely symbiotic. One cannot survive without the other. The seller is the gas, the buyer is the engine. Maybe I'm overreacting to the horribly one sided take I see from most, that it's the sellers' fault. Chances are they(the sellers) did fire the "first shot" by putting the idea into the buyers' heads that they(the buyers) "need...must have...will make it rich with" their product, but it's that second step by the buyers and then more sellers that want that big money that made it snowball into what we have now. Without that step, it ends right there in a brief flash. Of course it feeds on itself due to perfectly natural desires for power and domination on both sides. That is the "weakness" that I see. Both buyer and seller are falling for the same big temptation. I don't mean to place blame on one side nearly as much I mean to see it that it is placed equally on all the involved parties. The sellers are no more guilty than the buyers is what I'm trying to get at. To me this goes for all human interaction. "It takes two..."?
Being solely responsible for ones actions implies that no outside force could cause one to deviate from some completely internal compass.
Understood, but one is responsible in their decision as to which way they deviate. Will you bite the apple? Or say, "No thanks."? Will you take the natural animal path of least resistance? Or will you be a rational, thinking human?* That decision can only come from within. Those who take the natural path are not learning from experience. They are simply acting on instinct or conditioned reflex.
Punishing people for buying from spammers is a ludicrous solution. I mean, come on, we've been trying that approach to addictions since prohibition, and it has never, ever worked...Look at what has actually worked to reduce addictive behaviors: education. Instead of punishing spam-buyers like we punish drug-addicts, why not spend that same money to educate people?
Okay, then we must look at the sellers the same way. They are addicts also. To something else possibly, but the addiction is just that and nothing more. I think they should be treated with the same understanding. I will agree that guidance*, not punishment is the preferred method.
*It is the guidance of our elders that must be applied at the earliest possible age that makes rationality and the ability to become human possible, not the arbitrary, hypocritical whip of the dictator as widely practiced today. I know I'm not explaining this very well, so I depend on your mind reading abilities and a response to know if I'm making any sense.
Your wording isn't clear, so let me ask straight up: are you saying we shouldn't criticize people who engage in immoral or unethical behavior but legal behavior?
No, we should criticize it. What I'm asking is, Which is more immoral or unethical? Buying or selling? I see just as much immorality in those who buy. The root of the problem is their failure to resist the temptation of a fast buck. It seems to me that as long as there are buyers, you will always have sellers. They will seek them out. To me it is much more effective to get people to stop buying. The only effective way to deal with spammers is not prison, but to remove all profits by seizing their assets gained by it. I would have no problem with that. You track them down and garnish their income. If it was not declared, then you can nail them for tax evasion also. If they are off shore, not much you can do without the help of the host. Then use their list of clients to after them. Those who get caught buying should lose the money they spent, and possibly be charged as an accomplice to the fraud. The buyer is aiding and abetting. Notice how the government wants to go after online gamblers.
If a system encourages the exploitation of weakness, is it in the best interest of the weak to support such a system?
But they are doing just that by using it themselves to exploit those weaker than them. Weak people become pretty darn nasty when they acquire a little bit of strength or power over overs. They become vengeful, and them go about doing precisely the same thing. It's the nature of nature, and it's something we need to understand when tackling a problem like this.
The Chinese handled problems with the opium trade by killing the addicts.
Ah, the old Texas way - "They needed killin'. Maybe I should spam governments with my "capital punishment" services, now with volume discounts. "Such a deal we have for you! Kill two, and get the third one FREE!"
Slashdot Mirror
This present work appears to pattern a nano-sized post between conducting pads
Hmmm, I thought they were talking about a little, bitty abacus.
Even if their scientific value were nil, which they're not, these pictures and data coming back are great PR value. And also, it is insane to repress the quest for knowledge as it is for sex. If you wish to cut the waste, then go after the political corruption behind it. Vote the ruling party out. That will also take of your distribution of food and medical care, and everything else you mention there. The programs in and of themselves are worth every penny.
Stop wasting taxpayer money!!
Yeah, we really should get our priorities straight.
All of them.
1) You didn't have any then
2) You won't get any now
3) You'll never know if we keep your stuff or not
4) Just try and prove anything
5) You're a sucker if you believe we actually abide by some silly "privacy" policy
6) Hahahahaha...
Do I get a discount?
AFAICT your constitution says you should.
You're confusing that with the declaration of independence, which, of course, advocates nothing of the kind. It makes statements of the right and obligation to overthrow a corrupt, tyrannical government. Rebellion is not murder. The constitution, on the other hand, authorizes the government to repress such a rebellion in any way it sees fit. That would include murder. But when the government does it, it's not murder.
Hey baby, troll here often?
So, what's the plans for that?
...Should five per cent appear too small,
Another tax, what else?
Be thankful I don't take it all.
'Cause I'm the taxman,
Yeah, I'm the taxman.
if you drive a car - I'll tax the street;
if you try to sit - I'll tax your seat;
if you get too cold - I'll tax the heat;
if you take a walk - I'll tax your feet...
Wow! Minty fresh farts. A unique individual you must be.
Burn the government down.
Got a match?
Just capture all the methane coming out of the exhaust pipe.
Maybe this could be used to crush Windows altogether.
I do enjoy the train very much. It's the only way to fly
I use use old software. Redhat 5.2 runs great on my 10 year old laptop. I never understood the Firefox thing. The difference between it and the Mozilla suite has shown to be insignificant in both size and speed. So, I stay with the all inclusive suite. What do we have here? Bud Lite Lite?
The stock market is every bit as "random" as Vegas. The house always wins. The payout is percentage set by the house. Talking about Sony is like picking out a single casino. It's like saying that the MGM Grand will go broke because one of their slot machines only made 25,000 dollars yesterday. It does nothing to show the big picture.
Can anybody tell the difference? I prefer Keno myself. Drink fast and pay slow.
Offline and waiting for peace.
There goes innovation...
Here comes a great movie
hahahaHAHAHA...HAAA...HAAA...HAAA...HAAAAaaa! Oh, please, stop! You're killin' me here.
Okay, that's enough.
Stay OFF the Airbus! Take the train or a boat. What's the hurry?
By bureaucrats, for bureaucrats. Just tear down the damn borders already. All of them. Europe is making baby steps. Why does the rest of the world maintain this tribal animalism?
I don't think it's always useful to make such distinctions...In this case, you choose to isolate and morally condemn the demand side of the equation as if it had no interaction with the supply side.
I really mean it to say that the relationship absolutely, entirely symbiotic. One cannot survive without the other. The seller is the gas, the buyer is the engine. Maybe I'm overreacting to the horribly one sided take I see from most, that it's the sellers' fault. Chances are they(the sellers) did fire the "first shot" by putting the idea into the buyers' heads that they(the buyers) "need...must have...will make it rich with" their product, but it's that second step by the buyers and then more sellers that want that big money that made it snowball into what we have now. Without that step, it ends right there in a brief flash. Of course it feeds on itself due to perfectly natural desires for power and domination on both sides. That is the "weakness" that I see. Both buyer and seller are falling for the same big temptation. I don't mean to place blame on one side nearly as much I mean to see it that it is placed equally on all the involved parties. The sellers are no more guilty than the buyers is what I'm trying to get at. To me this goes for all human interaction. "It takes two..."?
Being solely responsible for ones actions implies that no outside force could cause one to deviate from some completely internal compass.
Understood, but one is responsible in their decision as to which way they deviate. Will you bite the apple? Or say, "No thanks."? Will you take the natural animal path of least resistance? Or will you be a rational, thinking human?* That decision can only come from within. Those who take the natural path are not learning from experience. They are simply acting on instinct or conditioned reflex.
Punishing people for buying from spammers is a ludicrous solution. I mean, come on, we've been trying that approach to addictions since prohibition, and it has never, ever worked...Look at what has actually worked to reduce addictive behaviors: education. Instead of punishing spam-buyers like we punish drug-addicts, why not spend that same money to educate people?
Okay, then we must look at the sellers the same way. They are addicts also. To something else possibly, but the addiction is just that and nothing more. I think they should be treated with the same understanding. I will agree that guidance*, not punishment is the preferred method.
*It is the guidance of our elders that must be applied at the earliest possible age that makes rationality and the ability to become human possible, not the arbitrary, hypocritical whip of the dictator as widely practiced today. I know I'm not explaining this very well, so I depend on your mind reading abilities and a response to know if I'm making any sense.
Your wording isn't clear, so let me ask straight up: are you saying we shouldn't criticize people who engage in immoral or unethical behavior but legal behavior?
No, we should criticize it. What I'm asking is, Which is more immoral or unethical? Buying or selling? I see just as much immorality in those who buy. The root of the problem is their failure to resist the temptation of a fast buck. It seems to me that as long as there are buyers, you will always have sellers. They will seek them out. To me it is much more effective to get people to stop buying. The only effective way to deal with spammers is not prison, but to remove all profits by seizing their assets gained by it. I would have no problem with that. You track them down and garnish their income. If it was not declared, then you can nail them for tax evasion also. If they are off shore, not much you can do without the help of the host. Then use their list of clients to after them. Those who get caught buying should lose the money they spent, and possibly be charged as an accomplice to the fraud. The buyer is aiding and abetting. Notice how the government wants to go after online gamblers.
If a system encourages the exploitation of weakness, is it in the best interest of the weak to support such a system?
But they are doing just that by using it themselves to exploit those weaker than them. Weak people become pretty darn nasty when they acquire a little bit of strength or power over overs. They become vengeful, and them go about doing precisely the same thing. It's the nature of nature, and it's something we need to understand when tackling a problem like this.
Hmmm...dust...
CAUTION! Don't watch this if you like cute, furry animals.
The Chinese handled problems with the opium trade by killing the addicts.
Ah, the old Texas way - "They needed killin'. Maybe I should spam governments with my "capital punishment" services, now with volume discounts. "Such a deal we have for you! Kill two, and get the third one FREE!"
The Brits wouldn't have it any other way