According to the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey
I've read through much of that report and don't see the numbers you mention. Give me a link if one really exists. The numbers I've read within that very report (the report is very diverse and many thousands of pages written by many different people) contradict your statement.
According to the latest FATUS report put out by the Department of Agriculture the country is still exporting more food than it imports.
While you're at it, show me a link for this too. Perhaps you're mistaking the fact that we make more money selling food than we spend importing it for an indication that we export more food?
A trade deficit is unsustainable over the long-term, but this has no bearing on the population numbers or the square mileage of the country. I can't even begin to imagine how you make the connection between these two unrelated items.
It was a rebuttal to your previous statement claiming that we currently do produce enough food, manufactured goods, living space, and infrastructure with our current amount of land. You were ignoring imports/exports which invalidate your proof.
No, it's a representative republic.
OK then. And what is a representative republic? It's also known as a indirect or representative democracy. It is, of course, true that we don't have a direct or classic democracy, maybe that's why I added "of sorts" to the end of it? The point is that our system theoretically serves the will of the people as represented by a significant majority. That is how the system was designed.
The guy pointing out that the Constitution grants no such power to the government, that's who.
Actually, the constitution does empower the government to collect taxes, and taxes are collected in plenty of ways to encourage particular behaviors. These range from "sin" taxes on tobacco and alcohol, to tax breaks for those who invest money in the stock market. What country do you live in?
Most of the people in this country are adamantly against any form of population control
That is a completely unsubstantiated opinion. Historically the people have voted for population controls and likely will again. In fact (as sickening as it is) abortion was legalized largely because it was advertised as a way to keep minorities from breeding. I won't go into the other population controls that have been enacted by our government because they were almost entirely the work of racists and are rather sickening.
Europe is far more crowded than the U.S. ever will be and I don't hear about reports of mass die-offs in France or Hungary on CNN.
You must have missed your history lessons then. Ever hear of the black plague? Maybe that pre-dated CNN a bit. Just because there have not been any huge epidemics lately does not mean they will not happen. However, if you do believe that I have a rock that repels tigers to sell you. Some of us passed our logic classes.
No, it isn't. Try brushing up on some Constitutional law before you open your mouth and make a fool of yourself.
OK Mr. constitutional expert. Find me some constitutional grounds that would prevent both a federal and state tax upon individuals with more than two offspring. I'm waiting.
Just because you think there are too many people in the country doesn't mean there's a problem.
Well, that is your opinion. Mine differs. A lot of people, including scientists with a good handle on population growth seem to agree with me. Did you even look at the population projections for the next 20 years? They are fairly prominent on may of the reports in the population survey you mention.
...and has the right to enforce his views on others.
You're the one who claimed the constitution, due to some clause you did not reference or explain would stop laws from being passed and enforced. I was just disabusing you of th
Because we disable anonymous connections (RestrictAnonymous registry key), which has been a recommended practice for YEARS.
Yeah, but MS also recommend you copy and paste all link URLs rather than clicking links in IE. They recommend about a hundred thousand other things too. Why not just make the system secure by default instead of relying on administrators to work around and reconfigure boxes to deal with all these problems? Alternately you could just buy a different OS that is relatively secure by default.
That's a simple fact. Eliminate immigration, and within a generation the higher immigrant birth rate will decline to conform to that of any other American family. Eliminate immigration altogether and population growth will actually become negative.
I don't believe you. Based upon the numbers I saw it is just barely possible, but given the percentage of the population made up by first generation families they would need excessively high marriage and birth rates. I challenge you to back up your assertion with a link to hard facts. You claim it is a fact, fine, prove it.
I don't need to speculate *because it's being done right now*
Ever hear of imports genius? Right now the U.S. imports a whole lot more food and manufactured goods than it exports, but that is not a long-term sustainable situation.
You can always move to the Northern Territory if people oppress you so.
Not really, I'm not Canadian, there is no work there, and it is likely not livable for a person who can't afford to import goods. Remember that talk about land that can sustain human life?
If you try to get legislation passed forcing others to conform to your views of what the 'right' population of America should be, I'll be one of the members of the lynch mob who hangs you from the nearest flagpole.
This is America, remember? People who try to hang me get a bullet in the head. Besides this is a democracy of sorts. If the majority of the people feel that overpopulation is a problem and want to ameliorate that problem with tax incentives then who are you to tell them they can't? No one said anything about "forcing others to conform to your[my] views" and there is no need. People can believe whatever the hell they want, but if the majority of the country does not want overcrowding then it is perfectly legitimate for them to pass laws restricting it.
Just don't do it with my tax dollars.
We might have a lot more of your tax dollars if you have too many children and there does not seem to be a better way to solve the problem.
Not that I would have to, since the courts would strike it down as unconstitutional anyway.
First, since when has unconstitutionality stopped laws from being passed an enforced? Second, I don't see anything that makes it any more unconstitutional than tax breaks for people who get married or tax breaks for clergy.
And it's rather clear that you belong to a tiny minority who thinks that the current population is something which can't be sustained, or isn't desirable.
Perhaps that is so, perhaps not. I know plenty of organizations and scientists support my position and speak on the matter publicly. There is even a lobbying group. It is mob rule around here, and it's entirely possible that the mob will agree with you, at least right up until it gets really bad and it is too late to do much about it. Large groups are not well known for their ability to make good decisions regarding the future. I guess time will tell.
So what your saying is cheating while playing an online game should be illegal?
Nope. What I'm saying is that cheating in some online games that specifically forbid it as part of the user agreement for using the service is illegal in many places. The only thing making logging into their server legal is your agreement with them, otherwise it is often classified as unauthorized access to a computer system and punishable under laws designed to stop hackers. This is hacking about on par with changing the URL to hack frontpage systems, but still illegal. Worse yet, this particular case was done for monetary gain, which makes it a more severe crime in many locations. Japan most likely has laws on the books to this affect (I know my state in the U.S. does) although I'm not familiar with their criminal justice system. Seeing as this was a foreign national he will likely be deported and never allowed to return to Japan at the minimum.
You forgot about the bears. They're thriving over in the northeast, in record numbers in some places.
I guess you could count a bear as a predator as they do eat fish and bugs. I guess I was mostly thinking about animals that are useful for controlling the overpopulation problems with other animals.
If I were to Kill a player who had worked so hard to get rare and valuable items. Then sold those items on eBay, should I be convicted in real life of theft.
Nope. That is not "hacking" the system, thus it was a legal and authorized transaction. You had every legal right to be on the system and do what you were doing. It's perfectly legal to go to an online gambling site and make money playing poker too. It's illegal to log into an online poker site, hack the system so you can see other players hands, and make money doing that. Killing players in the game is fine, robbing them in the game is fine, using a bot to hack the system and transfer funds or valuables to yourself is not.
If you eliminated immigration altogether American population growth would come to a halt.
First you're wrong immigrants only account for about half of the population growth and second eliminating immigrants is a non starter for practical reasons as well as philosophical. Immigrants bring different cultures and new ideas and ways of doing things. Remember the phrase "melting pot" for grade schools?
Try to remember that in all of the United States there are only 285 million people. For the land area in question that isn't very many folks.
That's more than 80 people per square mile, even assuming all of it was suitable for humans to live on. Do you really think 80 people and reasonable amount of animals can all be supported by a single square mile of land, including food production, waste disposal, manufacturing, workspace, and infrastructure? That's a lot more crowded than I want to live in and it's only getting worse.
The problem isn't immigrants, it's that the average person who does have kids has more than it takes to replace them and their significant other. The average number of children per woman in this country is about 2.1, but the average number of children a woman has who does reproduce is 4.1. That is to say four children per family. Given the greatly decreased death rate due to medical advances and better living conditions that adds up very quickly. The solution is to stop having so many babies. We're reproducing almost twice as fast as Canada or other well educated countries. The problem is trying to provide incentives to people to do this before the trend is so far along that we all suffer as a result. Nature has a way of dealing with huge populations of species, I'd rather we deal with it first in an intelligent and managed fashion.
I would be far more concerned if people like you were to breed.
I'll make you a deal, I'll refrain from having children if you do likewise (and remove any you might already have). Deal?
So if a guy busts into your house and grabs the pieces of your antique chess set and sells them he should not be convicted of theft? He took virtual items by "hacking" the system and fenced them for cash. How is it any different? The only thing I can see is there is a technologic remedy for getting them back. So in this case the chess pieces can be made to fly home to you, but the guy who bought them at the antique store is still out a bunch of cash, the thief still has money and he is not going to go do this again because?
Since there are no members to legally vote on the board before the foundation exists, they MUST be appointed. After they are appointed, and you have a means to join the foundation and be a member, you can hold a new election to put people in that the community HAS voted on.
In this particular case I think part of the problem is that the appointed members were all from Miro and none from the community and none of the developers (you know the people that matter to users) were given any say in choosing the board. Thus from a users point of view or a developers point of view this is the corporate guy who trademarked the name has decided to create a foundation that will manage the developers. He appointed a bunch of people from his company, but no developers or users outside his company. He did not consult anyone about this.
the core devs want to go off and create yet another lawless community
Sorry but the core devs and the code they create are the project. They do the work, it's all their baby. Going into this project that was the understanding which is why it is GPL. If they want to create a foundation with the help of a corporation or some lawyer friends, well great. If they don't, well it's their ball game. Maybe they do need a governing body, but if so it should be one they design and want, not one imposed by others.
If they are savvy enough to use a bot, I imagine they can get a dynamic IP and if they are making real money they can probably make enough to buy a new account every time.
I still personally believe that this should be delt with virtually though.
The fact that this person made real money doing this takes it outside of the virtual world. Besides, this user is not guilty of mugging, they are guilty of illegally accessing a computer system and "hacking" it to transfer virtual property for profit. They had no legal right to be on the system the second they used a bot, and if they knew that and did it anyway for profit, well I imagine they will get what is coming to them.
Money paid for items = "IDIOT" Do not buy this crap for real money!
First, the value of an item is not what you are willing to pay for it, it is what the market is willing to pay for it. If someone steals manure are they any less guilty because you personally would not pay money for it?
Should the person not be punished in either criminal court or civil court (depending upon the law) for agreeing to a contract and then breaking it? How about accessing a computer system without authorization from the owner of that computer? Sorry, I just don't agree with you.
You have to define wether the crime is real, or simulated. If it's a real crime (I.E. Credit Card harvesting, hacking into private servers, DDOS attacks, and other general naughty thing that cause monetary damage)then it should be delt with as such in our current legal system.
In the article it is stated that the person took virtual items which were sold for real money. When there is a real (financial) link between online virtual items and real items where does that leave your definition? Online punishments in a game are meaningless to someone who is not a player in the traditional sense. If all they want is cash, they don't care if you lock up their favorite player. They make a new one, hook up a bot, and continue making money. Anything people value can be transformed into cash one way or another. I don't see any way to prevent this sort of link.
But.. it's a game. They didn't get mugged, their characters did. I can see how the company could, say, return the items to the original owners.. but charged?
You're missing a piece of this puzzle. He also sold the virtual items for real money. This means he used unauthorized technology breaking his user license (the only thing legally allowing him to log onto the server) to "hack" the game and transfer virtual property from one person to another. That virtual property (sort of like intellectual property) has a real dollar value. So aside from one degree of complexity this is no different from a computer user hacking an online bank account and transferring money to themselves or perhaps hacking an online auction site to send items to them, which they then fence for cash.
This was (at least) unauthorized access to a computer system. That is a crime in most places, especially when done for profit. Obviously this was not a mugging, but it is a crime.
So the only loss is from customers who would have bought Apple hardware, but now will buy generic and run OS X on it.
Now compare this to the size of the market they gain; the number of people who buy after market OS's, and want OS X, and aren't locked into Windows, and are willing to pay for it. Sorry, but that is a tiny market. All but a handful of OS sales are pre-installed OS's. The majority of the rest are upgrades, or alternative OS's for business offices. MS already has that market pretty well locked down with dozens of proprietary formats and protocols. Also, their sales staff is very good at making sales in that space and is as well connected as anyone. Apple is terrible at selling into that space. It really is a pretty weak proposition.
It is not illegal (nor should it be) to document crime, even by telling exactly how it can be done and showing the crime being comitted.
It is in many states (including California) illegal to release information that you know, or should reasonably know is a trade secret, even if you have received that information from a third party. The OSx86 project admits on their site they know the origins of the information (from a broken NDA). That makes it illegal.
The human unwillingness to fulful the role of the missing predators is.
This is partially true, but it is coupled with the fact that we are removing more and more habitat suitable for them and they are being forced to live in the burbs. One of the reasons humans are unwilling to fulfill that role is because it is illegal (and dangerous to other humans) to hunt in the areas where many of these animals live. City parks are holding special goose hunting days in an effort to stem part of the problem. People illegally shoot rabbits in the suburbs every day as they increasingly overpopulate and cause problems. Those are both examples of animals people traditionally eat. How many people will start eating skunks, cormorants, ground hogs, and possum. More importantly, how many people will start eating primarily the weak and sick ones so that disease epidemics are prevented and the species does not breed in non-productive ways?
Your anecdote about the diseased deer just proves the point...
I didn't say it was a deer. I said I have taken many game animals that are diseased. I've seen deer, rabbits, ducks, and geese. It may be beneficial for hunters to thin these populations, but we will likely never be as efficient at weeding out the sick and weak as wild predators would be. Even with perfect population control of animals, the human population is growing and taking more land every day. That means the animals will either be overcrowded, living among as (which causes a lot of problems), or need to grow smaller and smaller.
What we really need is some human population control. Maybe we should institute a population tax on any individual with more than two children. That is, more or less, what China does. Too bad the poor are the most likely to breed (possibly related to educational deficiencies or the propensity of the Catholic church to target the poor).
You're right....South Korea has the US beat in corporate ownership of the government hands down. Ever been there? Hyundai, KIA, Samsung, and L.G. pretty much run the whole country.
That's just South Korean propaganda! The U.S. government is owned by thousands more corporations than S. Korea can ever hope to be.
Seems the continent has had 13,000 years for it's ecosystems to adapt to the current state of things, why screw it up with sudden introduction of species that weren't actually here in the first place?
Maybe because in most places the ecosystem has not adapted very well at all. For the last several hundred years pretty much every large predator in North America has been brought to the brink of extinction except one, humans. Sure there are some mountain lions here or there, and a few wolves (that are mostly wolf coyote hybrids now), but they are all endangered species. The life of the typical wild herd animal, like deer, usually ends with being killed by a human or by dying slowly of disease or starvation. I can't tell you how many game animals I've disposed of because half their face was rotted away by some disease and there are no predators left to kill the sick ones.
With decreasing space for animals to live, the overcrowding and resultant disease and starvation is getting much worse. Now this proposal to introduce large foreign species may or may not help the situation. What really needs to happen is a reduction in human overpopulation, but I don't see that happening anytime soon either.
My point was that the OP was comparing the suffering of an animal slaughtered in a slaughterhouse as somehow being more than the suffering of an animal taken in the field.
Hmm, I don't see that anywhere. The OP was something along the lines of "I'm a vegetarian." The only person who mentioned the killing of animals in this thread before you did (that I see) is me. I mentioned it in the context of what varying types of "ethical vegetarians" find acceptable and unacceptable and I never compared the killing of wild and farm animals. I did speak to "ethical treatment" of animals, but that encompasses a great deal more than just the manner in which they are killed. I mentioned killing in that context only because it is the only aspect of a game animal's treatment that is under the control of a human. (in general)
I can't stand the sound of a wounded rabbit.
You must be doing something wrong then. I've taken my share of rabbits and heard nary a peep (.22 or shotgun). The only time I've ever heard them scream is when caught by predators.
Our cattle btw, (and chickens for that matter) spent most of their days roaming around our pastures (or in the case of the chickens, the farmyard). This is, and was, true of all the farms/farmers I know.
Non corporate owned farms account for about 30% of all the animals that reach market. The other 70% is often raised in some pretty terrible conditions. Since it is often difficult to determine the source of any given meat, many people turn to vegetarianism to avoid contributing to what they find to be repulsive. Others, like myself, tend to harvest wild game or shop at specialty stores that have humane sources for all their meat (which usually runs anywhere from 10% to 300% more expensive).
Now I admittedly know plenty of city bred hippies who know basically nothing about animals and believe that eating meat is wrong, for one reason or another. Many of their reasons are complete bunk. That does not mean that there is no valid reason for ethical vegetarianism. Plenty of workers on farms and meat packing plants become vegetarian for a reason.
the repairperson, at least when the computer is at his or her place of business, has the right to alert the police to investigate something suspicious on his or her property.
They need a search warrant to search your home because the fourth amendment says you have the right to be secure in your home. They need a search warrant to look through your personal files because the fourth amendment says you have the right to be secure in your papers. The location is irrelevant.
has anyone here actually been to a farm or been hunting in their life?
I hunt regularly, and have visited both traditional farms and corporate mega-farms.
Most slaughterhouses that I'm aware of use a quick and effective method to kill the cattle that's similar to getting a bullet in the brain.
True, most traditional meat cattle are killed fairly quickly. That is not true for all of them though, like cattle raised for veal that are locked in spaces so small that they can never take more than one or two steps in their entire lives. Occasionally their feet are actually attached to the ground with nails. They are purposely fed foods deficient in certain nutrients to induce anemia to keep the meat a pale color. Chickens are routinely crowded into tiny boxed and often have their beaks cut or seared off. Pigs are also often confined to very small cages, and breeding sows are often kept constantly pregnant and are covered with sores from rubbing against the confines of their cages.
Compare that to the taking of wild game, deer for instance.
OK, a deer lives its entire life more or less free to wander where it will, is not kept confined, nor constantly impregnated, nor nailed to the floor, nor is its nose cut off. When killed by a skilled hunter it dies in moments, and only rarely suffers for any extended length of time. Most smaller game animals tend to die even more quickly and painlessly.
The third alternative is not really very nice either. Given the near extinction of nearly all large predators in the U.S., larger animals dying in the wild tend to do so from starvation or disease. Neither is quick or pleasant.
So there are the options; a lifetime of suffering and a quick end, a lifetime of reasonable quality with a fairly quick end, or a lifetime of reasonable quality with a slow painful ending. Of course there are humane farms where animals live quality lives and are killed mercifully, but if you shop at a normal grocery store you're almost certain to find meat that does not fall into that category.
Seems to be contradictory to me.
That is probably because the people who give up meat for real ethical reasons are usually more informed than you are.
Once reported, though, I would bet you'll find the police were operating under probable cause.
That remains to be seen. You see, they did not seize the computer and copy the files reported to them as evidence. (We don't know if the Gateway employee looked at files and reported them, or just filenames.) What they did was search through all the files on the computer looking for other evidence.
Basically if someone calls the police and says they saw a kiddie porn picture in your desk in your office, do the police then have the right to go through all your file cabinets in your home without obtaining a warrant? I think the 4th amendment clearly implies that they do not have that right without a warrant. Case law also supports this view. If you don't grant permission they must wait for a warrant from the courts (although they can remain to make sure you do not destroy any evidence).
Ignoring the constitution and looking at this from a completely fresh perspective, what is the harm in the police having to acquire a warrant to search your personal files? What benefit does society gain by the police not having to get a warrant, state their reasons, inform you, and state what they are looking for before looking through your files? How does that benefit weigh in against the danger of the police looking through your private files, without a warrant, and the danger to free speech, freedom from religious persecution, freedom from political persecution, and all the other hazards to your freedom that come along with unregulated fishing expeditions into any and all citizens personal files?
The question here is: which category is your computer in? The EFF says it's on the house side of the equation.
It's not the computer per se, it's the files on it that are important. The things protected are specifically described by the fourth amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." I'd say your computer files are your papers wouldn't you?
What happens when the car gets dropped off for an oil change? If the mechanic sees blood dripping out from under the car, would he be allowed to call the cops?
Sure he would, but they' should still need a search warrant to open the trunk. This case is actually quite a bit beyond that. We're not talking about bodies in a trunk, we're talking about files on a computer. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." Are you telling me computer files are not a persons papers and government agents should not have to get a warrant to browse through them all?
It's hard to stick to principals in this case because the defendant was doing the wrong thing. At the same time that does not excuse the police from also doing the wrong thing. What if a Gateway employee called the police because he saw a picture of a young looking porn star and the police then seized your computer without a warrant and searched through it all? They could then determine that the picture was not illegal, but still bust you for tax evasion based upon your receipts and tax records stored on your computer.
The police need warrants, signed by a judge to look at your personal papers, even if they are on a computer instead of in a file cabinet and even if that computer or file cabinet is not in your home. The warrant must specify the reason the police think you have something illegal and what specifically they are looking for.
In this particular case the police could easily have obtained a warrant. If a child pornographer goes free it is their fault. And we should not all sacrifice our civil liberties and legal protections against an unreasonable or oppressive government and set a legal precedent just so one person can be convicted.
Slashdot Mirror
More often than not the programs simply make life slightly more bearable instead of actually improving their lives.
Making someone's life more bearable is not improving it?
According to the U.S. Census Bureau's Current Population Survey
I've read through much of that report and don't see the numbers you mention. Give me a link if one really exists. The numbers I've read within that very report (the report is very diverse and many thousands of pages written by many different people) contradict your statement.
According to the latest FATUS report put out by the Department of Agriculture the country is still exporting more food than it imports.
While you're at it, show me a link for this too. Perhaps you're mistaking the fact that we make more money selling food than we spend importing it for an indication that we export more food?
A trade deficit is unsustainable over the long-term, but this has no bearing on the population numbers or the square mileage of the country. I can't even begin to imagine how you make the connection between these two unrelated items.
It was a rebuttal to your previous statement claiming that we currently do produce enough food, manufactured goods, living space, and infrastructure with our current amount of land. You were ignoring imports/exports which invalidate your proof.
No, it's a representative republic.
OK then. And what is a representative republic? It's also known as a indirect or representative democracy. It is, of course, true that we don't have a direct or classic democracy, maybe that's why I added "of sorts" to the end of it? The point is that our system theoretically serves the will of the people as represented by a significant majority. That is how the system was designed.
The guy pointing out that the Constitution grants no such power to the government, that's who.
Actually, the constitution does empower the government to collect taxes, and taxes are collected in plenty of ways to encourage particular behaviors. These range from "sin" taxes on tobacco and alcohol, to tax breaks for those who invest money in the stock market. What country do you live in?
Most of the people in this country are adamantly against any form of population control
That is a completely unsubstantiated opinion. Historically the people have voted for population controls and likely will again. In fact (as sickening as it is) abortion was legalized largely because it was advertised as a way to keep minorities from breeding. I won't go into the other population controls that have been enacted by our government because they were almost entirely the work of racists and are rather sickening.
Europe is far more crowded than the U.S. ever will be and I don't hear about reports of mass die-offs in France or Hungary on CNN.
You must have missed your history lessons then. Ever hear of the black plague? Maybe that pre-dated CNN a bit. Just because there have not been any huge epidemics lately does not mean they will not happen. However, if you do believe that I have a rock that repels tigers to sell you. Some of us passed our logic classes.
No, it isn't. Try brushing up on some Constitutional law before you open your mouth and make a fool of yourself.
OK Mr. constitutional expert. Find me some constitutional grounds that would prevent both a federal and state tax upon individuals with more than two offspring. I'm waiting.
Just because you think there are too many people in the country doesn't mean there's a problem.
Well, that is your opinion. Mine differs. A lot of people, including scientists with a good handle on population growth seem to agree with me. Did you even look at the population projections for the next 20 years? They are fairly prominent on may of the reports in the population survey you mention.
You're the one who claimed the constitution, due to some clause you did not reference or explain would stop laws from being passed and enforced. I was just disabusing you of th
Because we disable anonymous connections (RestrictAnonymous registry key), which has been a recommended practice for YEARS.
Yeah, but MS also recommend you copy and paste all link URLs rather than clicking links in IE. They recommend about a hundred thousand other things too. Why not just make the system secure by default instead of relying on administrators to work around and reconfigure boxes to deal with all these problems? Alternately you could just buy a different OS that is relatively secure by default.
That's a simple fact. Eliminate immigration, and within a generation the higher immigrant birth rate will decline to conform to that of any other American family. Eliminate immigration altogether and population growth will actually become negative.
I don't believe you. Based upon the numbers I saw it is just barely possible, but given the percentage of the population made up by first generation families they would need excessively high marriage and birth rates. I challenge you to back up your assertion with a link to hard facts. You claim it is a fact, fine, prove it.
I don't need to speculate *because it's being done right now*
Ever hear of imports genius? Right now the U.S. imports a whole lot more food and manufactured goods than it exports, but that is not a long-term sustainable situation.
You can always move to the Northern Territory if people oppress you so.
Not really, I'm not Canadian, there is no work there, and it is likely not livable for a person who can't afford to import goods. Remember that talk about land that can sustain human life?
If you try to get legislation passed forcing others to conform to your views of what the 'right' population of America should be, I'll be one of the members of the lynch mob who hangs you from the nearest flagpole.
This is America, remember? People who try to hang me get a bullet in the head. Besides this is a democracy of sorts. If the majority of the people feel that overpopulation is a problem and want to ameliorate that problem with tax incentives then who are you to tell them they can't? No one said anything about "forcing others to conform to your[my] views" and there is no need. People can believe whatever the hell they want, but if the majority of the country does not want overcrowding then it is perfectly legitimate for them to pass laws restricting it.
Just don't do it with my tax dollars.
We might have a lot more of your tax dollars if you have too many children and there does not seem to be a better way to solve the problem.
Not that I would have to, since the courts would strike it down as unconstitutional anyway.
First, since when has unconstitutionality stopped laws from being passed an enforced? Second, I don't see anything that makes it any more unconstitutional than tax breaks for people who get married or tax breaks for clergy.
And it's rather clear that you belong to a tiny minority who thinks that the current population is something which can't be sustained, or isn't desirable.
Perhaps that is so, perhaps not. I know plenty of organizations and scientists support my position and speak on the matter publicly. There is even a lobbying group. It is mob rule around here, and it's entirely possible that the mob will agree with you, at least right up until it gets really bad and it is too late to do much about it. Large groups are not well known for their ability to make good decisions regarding the future. I guess time will tell.
So what your saying is cheating while playing an online game should be illegal?
Nope. What I'm saying is that cheating in some online games that specifically forbid it as part of the user agreement for using the service is illegal in many places. The only thing making logging into their server legal is your agreement with them, otherwise it is often classified as unauthorized access to a computer system and punishable under laws designed to stop hackers. This is hacking about on par with changing the URL to hack frontpage systems, but still illegal. Worse yet, this particular case was done for monetary gain, which makes it a more severe crime in many locations. Japan most likely has laws on the books to this affect (I know my state in the U.S. does) although I'm not familiar with their criminal justice system. Seeing as this was a foreign national he will likely be deported and never allowed to return to Japan at the minimum.
You forgot about the bears. They're thriving over in the northeast, in record numbers in some places.
I guess you could count a bear as a predator as they do eat fish and bugs. I guess I was mostly thinking about animals that are useful for controlling the overpopulation problems with other animals.
If I were to Kill a player who had worked so hard to get rare and valuable items. Then sold those items on eBay, should I be convicted in real life of theft.
Nope. That is not "hacking" the system, thus it was a legal and authorized transaction. You had every legal right to be on the system and do what you were doing. It's perfectly legal to go to an online gambling site and make money playing poker too. It's illegal to log into an online poker site, hack the system so you can see other players hands, and make money doing that. Killing players in the game is fine, robbing them in the game is fine, using a bot to hack the system and transfer funds or valuables to yourself is not.
If you eliminated immigration altogether American population growth would come to a halt.
First you're wrong immigrants only account for about half of the population growth and second eliminating immigrants is a non starter for practical reasons as well as philosophical. Immigrants bring different cultures and new ideas and ways of doing things. Remember the phrase "melting pot" for grade schools?
Try to remember that in all of the United States there are only 285 million people. For the land area in question that isn't very many folks.
That's more than 80 people per square mile, even assuming all of it was suitable for humans to live on. Do you really think 80 people and reasonable amount of animals can all be supported by a single square mile of land, including food production, waste disposal, manufacturing, workspace, and infrastructure? That's a lot more crowded than I want to live in and it's only getting worse.
The problem isn't immigrants, it's that the average person who does have kids has more than it takes to replace them and their significant other. The average number of children per woman in this country is about 2.1, but the average number of children a woman has who does reproduce is 4.1. That is to say four children per family. Given the greatly decreased death rate due to medical advances and better living conditions that adds up very quickly. The solution is to stop having so many babies. We're reproducing almost twice as fast as Canada or other well educated countries. The problem is trying to provide incentives to people to do this before the trend is so far along that we all suffer as a result. Nature has a way of dealing with huge populations of species, I'd rather we deal with it first in an intelligent and managed fashion.
I would be far more concerned if people like you were to breed.
I'll make you a deal, I'll refrain from having children if you do likewise (and remove any you might already have). Deal?
This is a game, not real life.
So if a guy busts into your house and grabs the pieces of your antique chess set and sells them he should not be convicted of theft? He took virtual items by "hacking" the system and fenced them for cash. How is it any different? The only thing I can see is there is a technologic remedy for getting them back. So in this case the chess pieces can be made to fly home to you, but the guy who bought them at the antique store is still out a bunch of cash, the thief still has money and he is not going to go do this again because?
Since there are no members to legally vote on the board before the foundation exists, they MUST be appointed. After they are appointed, and you have a means to join the foundation and be a member, you can hold a new election to put people in that the community HAS voted on.
In this particular case I think part of the problem is that the appointed members were all from Miro and none from the community and none of the developers (you know the people that matter to users) were given any say in choosing the board. Thus from a users point of view or a developers point of view this is the corporate guy who trademarked the name has decided to create a foundation that will manage the developers. He appointed a bunch of people from his company, but no developers or users outside his company. He did not consult anyone about this.
the core devs want to go off and create yet another lawless community
Sorry but the core devs and the code they create are the project. They do the work, it's all their baby. Going into this project that was the understanding which is why it is GPL. If they want to create a foundation with the help of a corporation or some lawyer friends, well great. If they don't, well it's their ball game. Maybe they do need a governing body, but if so it should be one they design and want, not one imposed by others.
They could easilly block the offenders IP address
If they are savvy enough to use a bot, I imagine they can get a dynamic IP and if they are making real money they can probably make enough to buy a new account every time.
I still personally believe that this should be delt with virtually though.
The fact that this person made real money doing this takes it outside of the virtual world. Besides, this user is not guilty of mugging, they are guilty of illegally accessing a computer system and "hacking" it to transfer virtual property for profit. They had no legal right to be on the system the second they used a bot, and if they knew that and did it anyway for profit, well I imagine they will get what is coming to them.
Money paid for items = "IDIOT" Do not buy this crap for real money!
First, the value of an item is not what you are willing to pay for it, it is what the market is willing to pay for it. If someone steals manure are they any less guilty because you personally would not pay money for it?
Should the person not be punished in either criminal court or civil court (depending upon the law) for agreeing to a contract and then breaking it? How about accessing a computer system without authorization from the owner of that computer? Sorry, I just don't agree with you.
You have to define wether the crime is real, or simulated. If it's a real crime (I.E. Credit Card harvesting, hacking into private servers, DDOS attacks, and other general naughty thing that cause monetary damage)then it should be delt with as such in our current legal system.
In the article it is stated that the person took virtual items which were sold for real money. When there is a real (financial) link between online virtual items and real items where does that leave your definition? Online punishments in a game are meaningless to someone who is not a player in the traditional sense. If all they want is cash, they don't care if you lock up their favorite player. They make a new one, hook up a bot, and continue making money. Anything people value can be transformed into cash one way or another. I don't see any way to prevent this sort of link.
But.. it's a game. They didn't get mugged, their characters did. I can see how the company could, say, return the items to the original owners.. but charged?
You're missing a piece of this puzzle. He also sold the virtual items for real money. This means he used unauthorized technology breaking his user license (the only thing legally allowing him to log onto the server) to "hack" the game and transfer virtual property from one person to another. That virtual property (sort of like intellectual property) has a real dollar value. So aside from one degree of complexity this is no different from a computer user hacking an online bank account and transferring money to themselves or perhaps hacking an online auction site to send items to them, which they then fence for cash.
This was (at least) unauthorized access to a computer system. That is a crime in most places, especially when done for profit. Obviously this was not a mugging, but it is a crime.
So the only loss is from customers who would have bought Apple hardware, but now will buy generic and run OS X on it.
Now compare this to the size of the market they gain; the number of people who buy after market OS's, and want OS X, and aren't locked into Windows, and are willing to pay for it. Sorry, but that is a tiny market. All but a handful of OS sales are pre-installed OS's. The majority of the rest are upgrades, or alternative OS's for business offices. MS already has that market pretty well locked down with dozens of proprietary formats and protocols. Also, their sales staff is very good at making sales in that space and is as well connected as anyone. Apple is terrible at selling into that space. It really is a pretty weak proposition.
It is not illegal (nor should it be) to document crime, even by telling exactly how it can be done and showing the crime being comitted.
It is in many states (including California) illegal to release information that you know, or should reasonably know is a trade secret, even if you have received that information from a third party. The OSx86 project admits on their site they know the origins of the information (from a broken NDA). That makes it illegal.
The human unwillingness to fulful the role of the missing predators is.
This is partially true, but it is coupled with the fact that we are removing more and more habitat suitable for them and they are being forced to live in the burbs. One of the reasons humans are unwilling to fulfill that role is because it is illegal (and dangerous to other humans) to hunt in the areas where many of these animals live. City parks are holding special goose hunting days in an effort to stem part of the problem. People illegally shoot rabbits in the suburbs every day as they increasingly overpopulate and cause problems. Those are both examples of animals people traditionally eat. How many people will start eating skunks, cormorants, ground hogs, and possum. More importantly, how many people will start eating primarily the weak and sick ones so that disease epidemics are prevented and the species does not breed in non-productive ways?
Your anecdote about the diseased deer just proves the point...
I didn't say it was a deer. I said I have taken many game animals that are diseased. I've seen deer, rabbits, ducks, and geese. It may be beneficial for hunters to thin these populations, but we will likely never be as efficient at weeding out the sick and weak as wild predators would be. Even with perfect population control of animals, the human population is growing and taking more land every day. That means the animals will either be overcrowded, living among as (which causes a lot of problems), or need to grow smaller and smaller.
What we really need is some human population control. Maybe we should institute a population tax on any individual with more than two children. That is, more or less, what China does. Too bad the poor are the most likely to breed (possibly related to educational deficiencies or the propensity of the Catholic church to target the poor).
You're right....South Korea has the US beat in corporate ownership of the government hands down. Ever been there? Hyundai, KIA, Samsung, and L.G. pretty much run the whole country.
That's just South Korean propaganda! The U.S. government is owned by thousands more corporations than S. Korea can ever hope to be.
Seems the continent has had 13,000 years for it's ecosystems to adapt to the current state of things, why screw it up with sudden introduction of species that weren't actually here in the first place?
Maybe because in most places the ecosystem has not adapted very well at all. For the last several hundred years pretty much every large predator in North America has been brought to the brink of extinction except one, humans. Sure there are some mountain lions here or there, and a few wolves (that are mostly wolf coyote hybrids now), but they are all endangered species. The life of the typical wild herd animal, like deer, usually ends with being killed by a human or by dying slowly of disease or starvation. I can't tell you how many game animals I've disposed of because half their face was rotted away by some disease and there are no predators left to kill the sick ones.
With decreasing space for animals to live, the overcrowding and resultant disease and starvation is getting much worse. Now this proposal to introduce large foreign species may or may not help the situation. What really needs to happen is a reduction in human overpopulation, but I don't see that happening anytime soon either.
My point was that the OP was comparing the suffering of an animal slaughtered in a slaughterhouse as somehow being more than the suffering of an animal taken in the field.
Hmm, I don't see that anywhere. The OP was something along the lines of "I'm a vegetarian." The only person who mentioned the killing of animals in this thread before you did (that I see) is me. I mentioned it in the context of what varying types of "ethical vegetarians" find acceptable and unacceptable and I never compared the killing of wild and farm animals. I did speak to "ethical treatment" of animals, but that encompasses a great deal more than just the manner in which they are killed. I mentioned killing in that context only because it is the only aspect of a game animal's treatment that is under the control of a human. (in general)
I can't stand the sound of a wounded rabbit.
You must be doing something wrong then. I've taken my share of rabbits and heard nary a peep (.22 or shotgun). The only time I've ever heard them scream is when caught by predators.
Our cattle btw, (and chickens for that matter) spent most of their days roaming around our pastures (or in the case of the chickens, the farmyard). This is, and was, true of all the farms/farmers I know.
Non corporate owned farms account for about 30% of all the animals that reach market. The other 70% is often raised in some pretty terrible conditions. Since it is often difficult to determine the source of any given meat, many people turn to vegetarianism to avoid contributing to what they find to be repulsive. Others, like myself, tend to harvest wild game or shop at specialty stores that have humane sources for all their meat (which usually runs anywhere from 10% to 300% more expensive).
Now I admittedly know plenty of city bred hippies who know basically nothing about animals and believe that eating meat is wrong, for one reason or another. Many of their reasons are complete bunk. That does not mean that there is no valid reason for ethical vegetarianism. Plenty of workers on farms and meat packing plants become vegetarian for a reason.
the repairperson, at least when the computer is at his or her place of business, has the right to alert the police to investigate something suspicious on his or her property.
They need a search warrant to search your home because the fourth amendment says you have the right to be secure in your home. They need a search warrant to look through your personal files because the fourth amendment says you have the right to be secure in your papers. The location is irrelevant.
has anyone here actually been to a farm or been hunting in their life?
I hunt regularly, and have visited both traditional farms and corporate mega-farms.
Most slaughterhouses that I'm aware of use a quick and effective method to kill the cattle that's similar to getting a bullet in the brain.
True, most traditional meat cattle are killed fairly quickly. That is not true for all of them though, like cattle raised for veal that are locked in spaces so small that they can never take more than one or two steps in their entire lives. Occasionally their feet are actually attached to the ground with nails. They are purposely fed foods deficient in certain nutrients to induce anemia to keep the meat a pale color. Chickens are routinely crowded into tiny boxed and often have their beaks cut or seared off. Pigs are also often confined to very small cages, and breeding sows are often kept constantly pregnant and are covered with sores from rubbing against the confines of their cages.
Compare that to the taking of wild game, deer for instance.
OK, a deer lives its entire life more or less free to wander where it will, is not kept confined, nor constantly impregnated, nor nailed to the floor, nor is its nose cut off. When killed by a skilled hunter it dies in moments, and only rarely suffers for any extended length of time. Most smaller game animals tend to die even more quickly and painlessly.
The third alternative is not really very nice either. Given the near extinction of nearly all large predators in the U.S., larger animals dying in the wild tend to do so from starvation or disease. Neither is quick or pleasant.
So there are the options; a lifetime of suffering and a quick end, a lifetime of reasonable quality with a fairly quick end, or a lifetime of reasonable quality with a slow painful ending. Of course there are humane farms where animals live quality lives and are killed mercifully, but if you shop at a normal grocery store you're almost certain to find meat that does not fall into that category.
Seems to be contradictory to me.
That is probably because the people who give up meat for real ethical reasons are usually more informed than you are.
Once reported, though, I would bet you'll find the police were operating under probable cause.
That remains to be seen. You see, they did not seize the computer and copy the files reported to them as evidence. (We don't know if the Gateway employee looked at files and reported them, or just filenames.) What they did was search through all the files on the computer looking for other evidence.
Basically if someone calls the police and says they saw a kiddie porn picture in your desk in your office, do the police then have the right to go through all your file cabinets in your home without obtaining a warrant? I think the 4th amendment clearly implies that they do not have that right without a warrant. Case law also supports this view. If you don't grant permission they must wait for a warrant from the courts (although they can remain to make sure you do not destroy any evidence).
Ignoring the constitution and looking at this from a completely fresh perspective, what is the harm in the police having to acquire a warrant to search your personal files? What benefit does society gain by the police not having to get a warrant, state their reasons, inform you, and state what they are looking for before looking through your files? How does that benefit weigh in against the danger of the police looking through your private files, without a warrant, and the danger to free speech, freedom from religious persecution, freedom from political persecution, and all the other hazards to your freedom that come along with unregulated fishing expeditions into any and all citizens personal files?
The question here is: which category is your computer in? The EFF says it's on the house side of the equation.
It's not the computer per se, it's the files on it that are important. The things protected are specifically described by the fourth amendment. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." I'd say your computer files are your papers wouldn't you?
What happens when the car gets dropped off for an oil change? If the mechanic sees blood dripping out from under the car, would he be allowed to call the cops?
Sure he would, but they' should still need a search warrant to open the trunk. This case is actually quite a bit beyond that. We're not talking about bodies in a trunk, we're talking about files on a computer. "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..." Are you telling me computer files are not a persons papers and government agents should not have to get a warrant to browse through them all?
It's hard to stick to principals in this case because the defendant was doing the wrong thing. At the same time that does not excuse the police from also doing the wrong thing. What if a Gateway employee called the police because he saw a picture of a young looking porn star and the police then seized your computer without a warrant and searched through it all? They could then determine that the picture was not illegal, but still bust you for tax evasion based upon your receipts and tax records stored on your computer.
The police need warrants, signed by a judge to look at your personal papers, even if they are on a computer instead of in a file cabinet and even if that computer or file cabinet is not in your home. The warrant must specify the reason the police think you have something illegal and what specifically they are looking for.
In this particular case the police could easily have obtained a warrant. If a child pornographer goes free it is their fault. And we should not all sacrifice our civil liberties and legal protections against an unreasonable or oppressive government and set a legal precedent just so one person can be convicted.