The term "Click fraud" didn't use to bother me, as a concept. Now it's just a symbol of getting a little bit of disinformation in on a horrendous web-based spying and manipulation industry. I don't sympathize with those trying to extract money from advertisers by lying, but I'm 100% behind their collective bankruptcy.
Here's a clear example of someone demanding compliance with a specific way of thinking, and all else being "stupidity" and demanding moderation to comply with their own willfully ignorant perspective. You are the detestable groupthink that no one likes here.
Yep, you're never going to stop criminals by having no empathy for them. When you understand why they do the things they do, you can take away that why.
... a position which is frightfully naive. Of course making things more illegal is a deterrent. It used to be totally legal to drive with your kids in the back of your truck on the open freeway. It's now more illegal (at least in California) and you don't see (very many) people driving on the freeway with kids in the back of their truck.
All officially recognized crimes are punished with the intent of deterring future crime, and you live in a time and place which ranks as among the most peaceful and civilized periods in all of known history. To suggest that this concept does not work betrays a stunning lack of understanding and respect for all the work put in by the millions of people who worked to establish and maintain the system that provides such domestic peace and tranquility.
Did you actually think that spending 10 years in jail actually compensates the parents and loved ones of a murder victim? Sorry, if they're dead, no amount of punishment will ever bring them back, and until you've personally experienced the loss of a close loved one, you cannot really understand just how devastating such a loss can be.
However, even sociopaths can understand personal injury and suffering even if they lack the ability empathize in any way with their victims.
You call me naive repeatedly, but I'm basing my position on the fact that it's been known for decades that it's measurably untrue that longer sentences do anything.
In day to day free life, the difference between 5 years of captivity and 50 can seem pretty damn abstract. Maybe once you're there, in a cell, it's meaningful, but not to the thought processes of a would-be criminal. Your own naivety and need for petty revenge blinds you to the fact that crime is an objective, measurable problem, and can have objective, measurable analysis of solutions.
The fundamental physical principles of electromechanics have always allowed this, but safety and efficiency concerns couldn't really be mitigated without good sensors.
Jesus Christ, can I make one post here with metaphorical language without someone coming along to say "don't you mean [literal version of the colloquialism I just used]?"
If I choose to pay someone $5.5 million to put up a "no trespassing" sign and a chain link fence after getting hit by vandals, that doesn't mean the vandals cost me $5.5MM
Eh, I faced zero tolerance policies, and I clearly agree with you more than the GGP. That sounds more like a "damn kids!!!" argument than anything to me.
And however extreme your new proposed penalties are, they also won't because "what happens when I get caught" isn't the top of a vandals thoughts when they vandalize.
But it won't work that way. It's never really worked that way. Making things more illegal doesn't really put more hindrance on what people do compared to just being illegal, else we'd have the whole crack thing wrapped up by now.
"Tough on crime" is a moronic stance that doesn't address why people actually engage in crimes. A hint: very few people breaking the law are thinking rationally about consequences when they do.
That depends, how are we defining male and female? And using your metric, what gender are people with 3 sex chromosomes? (making assumptions about your answer to the first question)And why should your definition be accepted?
Well, telling the company about itself isn't going to annoy itself. Telling federal or state officials might, but then... whistle-blower protection laws, suckers(you still secretly get blacklisted).
That's, sadly, the extent of his employer's financial liability then and his manager is making the financially sensible choice. If the laws aren't in favor of the customer enough to make an incentive, then that's everyone's problem, not the OP's.
Sorry you're a moronic bigot whose primitive brain will never be able to hand a complex and color-filled world. Regardless of what gender you are, you can count on the fact that you're the bottom end of intelligence for it.
Well, you'll take approximately 2 centuries to push corporate America off a monopoly that took 2 decades to develop, but if enough games ran on linux, I could easily see being done with windows at home. Especially given Windows 8.
Those laws already found their use. What's more problematic is all the weapons and tactics that have been devised as a means of prosecuting a guerrilla war from the evil empire side.
I like to think positively about it, like you do but recent trends seem to show voting rights as fickle and easily removed, while more violent solutions face the reality of militarized drones.
If one characterizes the "war on terror" as an intercontinental class struggle(and I'm not saying that's the most informative characterization, just a useful one), another, far less pleasant, possible future appears.
Slashdot Mirror
The term "Click fraud" didn't use to bother me, as a concept. Now it's just a symbol of getting a little bit of disinformation in on a horrendous web-based spying and manipulation industry. I don't sympathize with those trying to extract money from advertisers by lying, but I'm 100% behind their collective bankruptcy.
Here's a clear example of someone demanding compliance with a specific way of thinking, and all else being "stupidity" and demanding moderation to comply with their own willfully ignorant perspective. You are the detestable groupthink that no one likes here.
Yep, you're never going to stop criminals by having no empathy for them. When you understand why they do the things they do, you can take away that why.
... a position which is frightfully naive. Of course making things more illegal is a deterrent. It used to be totally legal to drive with your kids in the back of your truck on the open freeway. It's now more illegal (at least in California) and you don't see (very many) people driving on the freeway with kids in the back of their truck.
All officially recognized crimes are punished with the intent of deterring future crime, and you live in a time and place which ranks as among the most peaceful and civilized periods in all of known history. To suggest that this concept does not work betrays a stunning lack of understanding and respect for all the work put in by the millions of people who worked to establish and maintain the system that provides such domestic peace and tranquility.
Did you actually think that spending 10 years in jail actually compensates the parents and loved ones of a murder victim? Sorry, if they're dead, no amount of punishment will ever bring them back, and until you've personally experienced the loss of a close loved one, you cannot really understand just how devastating such a loss can be.
However, even sociopaths can understand personal injury and suffering even if they lack the ability empathize in any way with their victims.
You call me naive repeatedly, but I'm basing my position on the fact that it's been known for decades that it's measurably untrue that longer sentences do anything.
In day to day free life, the difference between 5 years of captivity and 50 can seem pretty damn abstract. Maybe once you're there, in a cell, it's meaningful, but not to the thought processes of a would-be criminal. Your own naivety and need for petty revenge blinds you to the fact that crime is an objective, measurable problem, and can have objective, measurable analysis of solutions.
The very existence of trials suggests a good reason to review that perspective.
The fundamental physical principles of electromechanics have always allowed this, but safety and efficiency concerns couldn't really be mitigated without good sensors.
Jesus Christ, can I make one post here with metaphorical language without someone coming along to say "don't you mean [literal version of the colloquialism I just used]?"
If I choose to pay someone $5.5 million to put up a "no trespassing" sign and a chain link fence after getting hit by vandals, that doesn't mean the vandals cost me $5.5MM
Eh, I faced zero tolerance policies, and I clearly agree with you more than the GGP. That sounds more like a "damn kids!!!" argument than anything to me.
And however extreme your new proposed penalties are, they also won't because "what happens when I get caught" isn't the top of a vandals thoughts when they vandalize.
But it won't work that way. It's never really worked that way. Making things more illegal doesn't really put more hindrance on what people do compared to just being illegal, else we'd have the whole crack thing wrapped up by now.
"Tough on crime" is a moronic stance that doesn't address why people actually engage in crimes. A hint: very few people breaking the law are thinking rationally about consequences when they do.
Spray painting a wall costs people time and money, and you know what, we don't drop fines that ruin peoples' lives over it.
That depends, how are we defining male and female? And using your metric, what gender are people with 3 sex chromosomes? (making assumptions about your answer to the first question)And why should your definition be accepted?
<clippy> It looks like you're trying to use advanced CSS/javascript features that we don't support. Would you like to write a letter instead </clippy>
Well, telling the company about itself isn't going to annoy itself. Telling federal or state officials might, but then... whistle-blower protection laws, suckers(you still secretly get blacklisted).
That's, sadly, the extent of his employer's financial liability then and his manager is making the financially sensible choice. If the laws aren't in favor of the customer enough to make an incentive, then that's everyone's problem, not the OP's.
Oh, what an insult, being compared to someone who proposed some of the most useful mechanical theories of evolution in history.
Oooh, look a completely incorrect armchair psychological analysis from someone who doesn't understand the world in the slightest. How precious.
Sorry you're a moronic bigot whose primitive brain will never be able to hand a complex and color-filled world. Regardless of what gender you are, you can count on the fact that you're the bottom end of intelligence for it.
Explain the possibility of liability. Let them investigate the risks. Problem will then resolve itself from the top down.
That's not comparable at all. Hardware is cheap to replace, custom software isn't.
Well, you'll take approximately 2 centuries to push corporate America off a monopoly that took 2 decades to develop, but if enough games ran on linux, I could easily see being done with windows at home. Especially given Windows 8.
Or maybe you're a moron, and I'm at work which blocks youtube.
The "you're a moron" answer has a lot more supporting evidence. Like everything you've posted.
Those laws already found their use. What's more problematic is all the weapons and tactics that have been devised as a means of prosecuting a guerrilla war from the evil empire side.
I like to think positively about it, like you do but recent trends seem to show voting rights as fickle and easily removed, while more violent solutions face the reality of militarized drones.
If one characterizes the "war on terror" as an intercontinental class struggle(and I'm not saying that's the most informative characterization, just a useful one), another, far less pleasant, possible future appears.