The draconian measures that have been written into law concerning "computer crimes" versus any other type of crime, seem to me to be a knee jerk reaction to a problem that is/was beyond the means of the legislators ability to deal with it. As a result, they passed a special law concerning computer crime, that could have been framed within the context of any other number of already existing laws.
Sounds like they did the same thing with "hate crimes". A criminal act is a criminal act, regardless of motivation or means.
Basically, that's it. The TSA guy never provided any reference to any law or regulation; he just repeated himself until I agreed. At least the other TSA guy watched the first one.
It's even worse than the "papers, please" that we all know and fear. The TSA goons don't even know what they are looking at. I told one at Dulles Airport that my Common Access Card was in my wallet so I wasn't going to just hand my wallet over to him. He just gave me a blank stare for a second and then said, "What do you mean you won't give me your wallet?" I pulled out my CAC and explained what it was to him and why I just couldn't hand it over. In order to get through the checkpoint, I gave him my wallet and CAC after demanding that another TSA agent observe him while he had it. Yes, it's wasn't a win over the TSA, but at least two of those bureaucrats know what a Common Access Card is now.
I once banked with a local bank; it got bought by a big bank. I then switched to another local bank, and it got by a big bank too. Again, I then switched to another local bank, and it merged with another bank, and two years later was bought by a big bank. I switched to a Credit Union.
I know everyone hates marketing and sales but they do in fact serve a purpose...
I agree. I ran a small business for a while and I noticed that people forget who you are and what you are selling in a few days at best. Sales and marketing are critical, but I think most people disparage them because of the stereotypes, which have a basis in reality, but are overblown.
Actually, I looked it up in at least five different places before making my original post you ass. You also conflated Theology with religious studies.
The definition of theology as the study of religion supports my argument. Why even bother studying Religion? It's the complete antithesis of science. A Theologist should have no more respect that someone who studies the writings of any other work of fiction. It's on a par with the study of the writings of J. R. R. Tolkien or Lewis Carroll. Theology has no practical value except one; it's a useful tool for the Clergy to separate fools from their money and to keep them in line.
This is from the Wikipedia article you referred to - In his two part The Age of Reason, the American revolutionary Thomas Paine, wrote, "The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not anything can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing."
Oh we've had those for a long time; the old C ration coffee was great stuff. I'd save enough packets to make a sauce out of them and drink it up. About 30 to 40 minutes later I'd actually be so wired I felt I was vibrating. Good times.
Those days of wine and roses are coming to an end. I found out that I'm one of about 30% of the staff that my customer can no longer afford next year. Oh well, I found another job in about two weeks. The clearance is a wonderful barrier to entry, which partially explains the high salaries.
How many more lines are left on the list? We've got past the "it's not warming at all" stage. So next up is "it may be warming, but it's not us" then "ok, it's us, but we can't/shouldn't do anything about it" and eventually "it was us but it's too late." What comes after that?
How do we make money off of it? That's what most conservatives have been thinking for quite a while now. Consider the prices of agricultural land as an indicator.
Legalization would go a long way towards defeating the cartels. Granting Phillip Morris, British American Tobacco, and the other major tobacco companies licenses provided they take care of the cartels would finish the job and provide employment for a lot of returning OIF and OEF veterans, Mexican police, and marijuana growers in the US and Mexico.
Is it a perfect solution? No. Is it entirely moral? No. Does it drastically improve the situation? Yes. Does it provide needed tax revenue for both Mexico and the US? Yes. Does it provide legitimate employment for up to millions of people? Yes.
Looks like the pluses outweigh the minuses. Especially since the minuses are abstract and not concrete, practical considerations.
Yes, I have a clue about how business works; I ran a contracting company for 3 years and learned some things the hard way; after that, I sold my interest to my business partner and went to a job with fewer headaches.
I agree that my knowledge of tax incentives is limited, but many governments have tax breaks for R&D.
Oh, it's silicon, not silicone that you are referring to; check your spelling and grammar before you insult someone. Perhaps you're just being "snarky".
The argument goes like this: if the private sector invests in something risky and fails, it is Capitalism and it is Good; when the government does it, itis Socialism, and it is Bad.
I didn't make that argument. I made the point that Crony Capitalism (regardless of administration) is Bad.
Think of the governement as a very large, highly diversify corporation (really, it is not very diversified, it mostly does insurance and has an army; but it also has a whole buch of minor subsidiaries doing a bit of everything). The question is, since the government is this huge corporation which cannot go bankrupt, what should it invest in?
Clearly, high risk, long-term stuff. In a way, like IBM. The only problem with those failed investments (and if you invest in high-risk stuff, you will fail most of the times) is that they clearly were way too application oriented and short-term!
Governments and business ventures are simply not the same in their purposes, but that's a different discussion. I agree that they have similarities. I also agree that governments are well suited for taking these kinds of risks, look at NASA and DARPA as examples of overall successes. The problem is when the programs are not adequately controlled; the money is given without adequate due diligence. However, governments aren't the only ones who can do large scale, long term R&D.
On a more philosophical note, it is wholly reasonable that the governement does the high-risk stuff: it cannot fail. Also, we expect corporations to be profitable every quarter, whereas the government has the luxury of needing only to stay solvant -- which, when you can print your own money is not overly difficult
That last part is a problem; look at Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe as examples. There's a lot more to staying solvent than merely printing money; too bad some current EU member states and the US governments (over the last 20 years, not just any one administration) and Central Banks weren't prudent.
I agree that they are very similar in that they are both costs to a government, but they aren't the same. A tax break as I described it isn't fixed, so it isn't a $1 million = $1 million. It's limited only by the amount of the desired behavior (in this case, R&D or production of an item) that companies are willing to put forth. Also, since taxes are a percentage, it's leverage in that the opportunity cost of the tax break is a percentage of the desired result, so it's more "bang for the buck". Also, if you don't have x dollars in your budget for a subsidy, the tax break is much easier to do. Future opportunity costs are a lot easier for governments to pay for since they don't need to have the capital on hand.
Look at the history of government funding solar power in America...any scandals come to mind?
You're the paranoiac, you tell me.
I'll do it for DNS-and-BIND; here's one - Solyndra. Here's the next one - Fisker
I think you knew at least one answer when you made your post. If the US government supports a particular business, it should be on strict, well known criteria; not because some "civil servant" will personally benefit. Basically, Solyndra is a "cute and green" version of Halliburton and Steven and Allison Spinner, Steven Chu, (and others) are the Obama administration's version of Dick Cheney and Richard Perle. At least no one died from the Solyndra scandal (that we know of).
It makes more sense to simply exempt taxes on the amount of R&D that a company does for particular technologies and sales of a particular product.
Slashdot Mirror
The draconian measures that have been written into law concerning "computer crimes" versus any other type of crime, seem to me to be a knee jerk reaction to a problem that is/was beyond the means of the legislators ability to deal with it. As a result, they passed a special law concerning computer crime, that could have been framed within the context of any other number of already existing laws.
Sounds like they did the same thing with "hate crimes". A criminal act is a criminal act, regardless of motivation or means.
“Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest.” - Denis Diderot
We have thousands of spare batteries for them too. Save your pity for yourself, wretch.
Rome didn't have nuclear weapons; we have thousands.
I certainly hope not. It's the first time that I've had to give them my wallet at any airport.
Basically, that's it. The TSA guy never provided any reference to any law or regulation; he just repeated himself until I agreed. At least the other TSA guy watched the first one.
It's even worse than the "papers, please" that we all know and fear. The TSA goons don't even know what they are looking at. I told one at Dulles Airport that my Common Access Card was in my wallet so I wasn't going to just hand my wallet over to him. He just gave me a blank stare for a second and then said, "What do you mean you won't give me your wallet?"
I pulled out my CAC and explained what it was to him and why I just couldn't hand it over. In order to get through the checkpoint, I gave him my wallet and CAC after demanding that another TSA agent observe him while he had it. Yes, it's wasn't a win over the TSA, but at least two of those bureaucrats know what a Common Access Card is now.
Nuke it from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
This is a domestic Chinese problem, and it will be solved when the people of China decide to deal with their government one way or another.
I wonder when the Chinese people will remember this quote? "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao Tse-Tung
I once banked with a local bank; it got bought by a big bank.
I then switched to another local bank, and it got by a big bank too.
Again, I then switched to another local bank, and it merged with another bank, and two years later was bought by a big bank.
I switched to a Credit Union.
I know everyone hates marketing and sales but they do in fact serve a purpose...
I agree. I ran a small business for a while and I noticed that people forget who you are and what you are selling in a few days at best. Sales and marketing are critical, but I think most people disparage them because of the stereotypes, which have a basis in reality, but are overblown.
I bought my Playstation because I believed I would become more self actualised (whatever the heck that means.)
So, you were waiting for Maslow's Quest to be released too? I guess the developers just couldn't code "peak experiences".
Actually, I looked it up in at least five different places before making my original post you ass. You also conflated Theology with religious studies.
The definition of theology as the study of religion supports my argument. Why even bother studying Religion? It's the complete antithesis of science. A Theologist should have no more respect that someone who studies the writings of any other work of fiction. It's on a par with the study of the writings of J. R. R. Tolkien or Lewis Carroll. Theology has no practical value except one; it's a useful tool for the Clergy to separate fools from their money and to keep them in line.
This is from the Wikipedia article you referred to -
In his two part The Age of Reason, the American revolutionary Thomas Paine, wrote, "The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not anything can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing."
Why do we even tolerate the profession of "Theologian" in the 21st century? Somehow he's committing fraud if he can make a living off being one.
Irrelevant. The ethical ramifications of doing something for survival and doing it because it is easy/tastes good are completely different.
Then cannibalism without seasonings is OK, but with seasonings is bad?
Oh we've had those for a long time; the old C ration coffee was great stuff. I'd save enough packets to make a sauce out of them and drink it up. About 30 to 40 minutes later I'd actually be so wired I felt I was vibrating. Good times.
Those days of wine and roses are coming to an end. I found out that I'm one of about 30% of the staff that my customer can no longer afford next year. Oh well, I found another job in about two weeks. The clearance is a wonderful barrier to entry, which partially explains the high salaries.
And ppl wonder why there are so many crackers out there.
Hey, didn't you see RogueyWon's post about name calling?
How many more lines are left on the list?
We've got past the "it's not warming at all" stage.
So next up is "it may be warming, but it's not us" then "ok, it's us, but we can't/shouldn't do anything about it" and eventually "it was us but it's too late." What comes after that?
How do we make money off of it? That's what most conservatives have been thinking for quite a while now. Consider the prices of agricultural land as an indicator.
Legalization would go a long way towards defeating the cartels. Granting Phillip Morris, British American Tobacco, and the other major tobacco companies licenses provided they take care of the cartels would finish the job and provide employment for a lot of returning OIF and OEF veterans, Mexican police, and marijuana growers in the US and Mexico.
Is it a perfect solution? No.
Is it entirely moral? No.
Does it drastically improve the situation? Yes.
Does it provide needed tax revenue for both Mexico and the US? Yes.
Does it provide legitimate employment for up to millions of people? Yes.
Looks like the pluses outweigh the minuses. Especially since the minuses are abstract and not concrete, practical considerations.
Yes, I have a clue about how business works; I ran a contracting company for 3 years and learned some things the hard way; after that, I sold my interest to my business partner and went to a job with fewer headaches.
I agree that my knowledge of tax incentives is limited, but many governments have tax breaks for R&D.
Also, I'm referring to the car; this page should be up - http://news.discovery.com/autos/fisker-green-car-solyndra-scandal-111025.html. It's a safe bet that Fiskars (with an "a", not an "e") isn't getting subsidies for making scissors, but hey, they may be too.
Oh, it's silicon, not silicone that you are referring to; check your spelling and grammar before you insult someone. Perhaps you're just being "snarky".
The argument goes like this: if the private sector invests in something risky and fails, it is Capitalism and it is Good; when the government does it, itis Socialism, and it is Bad.
I didn't make that argument. I made the point that Crony Capitalism (regardless of administration) is Bad.
Think of the governement as a very large, highly diversify corporation (really, it is not very diversified, it mostly does insurance and has an army; but it also has a whole buch of minor subsidiaries doing a bit of everything). The question is, since the government is this huge corporation which cannot go bankrupt, what should it invest in?
Clearly, high risk, long-term stuff. In a way, like IBM. The only problem with those failed investments (and if you invest in high-risk stuff, you will fail most of the times) is that they clearly were way too application oriented and short-term!
Governments and business ventures are simply not the same in their purposes, but that's a different discussion. I agree that they have similarities. I also agree that governments are well suited for taking these kinds of risks, look at NASA and DARPA as examples of overall successes. The problem is when the programs are not adequately controlled; the money is given without adequate due diligence. However, governments aren't the only ones who can do large scale, long term R&D.
On a more philosophical note, it is wholly reasonable that the governement does the high-risk stuff: it cannot fail. Also, we expect corporations to be profitable every quarter, whereas the government has the luxury of needing only to stay solvant -- which, when you can print your own money is not overly difficult
That last part is a problem; look at Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe as examples. There's a lot more to staying solvent than merely printing money; too bad some current EU member states and the US governments (over the last 20 years, not just any one administration) and Central Banks weren't prudent.
I agree that they are very similar in that they are both costs to a government, but they aren't the same. A tax break as I described it isn't fixed, so it isn't a $1 million = $1 million. It's limited only by the amount of the desired behavior (in this case, R&D or production of an item) that companies are willing to put forth. Also, since taxes are a percentage, it's leverage in that the opportunity cost of the tax break is a percentage of the desired result, so it's more "bang for the buck". Also, if you don't have x dollars in your budget for a subsidy, the tax break is much easier to do. Future opportunity costs are a lot easier for governments to pay for since they don't need to have the capital on hand.
Screw disruptive; I want to see disruptors!
Look at the history of government funding solar power in America...any scandals come to mind?
You're the paranoiac, you tell me.
I'll do it for DNS-and-BIND; here's one - Solyndra.
Here's the next one - Fisker
I think you knew at least one answer when you made your post. If the US government supports a particular business, it should be on strict, well known criteria; not because some "civil servant" will personally benefit. Basically, Solyndra is a "cute and green" version of Halliburton and Steven and Allison Spinner, Steven Chu, (and others) are the Obama administration's version of Dick Cheney and Richard Perle. At least no one died from the Solyndra scandal (that we know of).
It makes more sense to simply exempt taxes on the amount of R&D that a company does for particular technologies and sales of a particular product.