Not even close. If an equivalent of Monsanta existed for cattle then they'd only sell Bulls if they could also restrict cloning, and if they couldn't then they wouldn't sell bulls they'd simply sell the semen instead.
Really!? And there I was thinking tnk1 must have actually spoken to prehistoric man or read prehistoric man's lengthy manuscripts on the economic value of shiny axes.
I think many folks would like to be able to clone a lost dog that was a dear pet.
Is the govt going to tell us we can do that? WTF did they get the rights to tell us we can't have a clone of our pets?
If it makes sense for a pet, then surely it makes sense for a child? Also who gave them the right to tell me I can't genetically modify my children, maybe I don't want them to need glasses and why not make them smarter while I'm at it?...
The fact that many people want something doesn't mean it should automatically be permitted. Cloning certainly fits in the category of technologies that need considered thought about how and why it can be used, rather than a free for all.
That would likely allow you to send the file, but you're rather missing the point: By sending the file in that way it is in no way encrypted or protected. The file data would make it clear what kind of file it actually was, and the content of the file would remain unchanged. Security sufficient to stop casual uninterested parties isn't hard (in fact it's hardly needed), but things like this make real security (sufficient to actually be of use against someone interested) much harder.
Trying to soft-pedal it by saying that you're born into collective slavery but only for part of your day is just craven intellectual laziness that's attempting to look the other way.
If you actually believe that, and had even a little courage, you'd be doing something about it (because you sure as hell live in a place with some collectivism); but instead here you are whining on the internet trying to come across as intelligent instead.
I think he *does* believe it "as an American". The value in question is a strong veneration of the bill of rights.
He can venerate the bill of rights as much as he likes, but that doesn't mean that his being an American inherently means anything in the context of free speech. Americans as a group support plenty of views that contradict the kind of free speech the person I was responding to, and the bill of rights, support. Unfortunately it's a hard thing to have a rational debate about as there's plenty of American's so blindly patriotic that any comment that is less than flattering of their country gets modded to oblivion.
As an American, I believe that people should be able to express even the most odious opinions,
But you don't believe it "as an American". Look at typical American opinions of freedom of speech and expression; you might support unrestricted, or nearly unrestricted, freedom of speech but that isn't due to inherently common American values that you share.
I have not read the novels so I can not comment on how much of this is George's work and how much is Benioff's and Weiss's idea, but GoT does get worse while the seasons progress and I have the idea that the first series were more George's creation and the later were more Benioff's and Weiss's
The first series sticks quite close to the books, at least compared to the later ones. Theon suffers some pretty disturbing stuff in the books (having fingers flayed, and being left to suffer until the pain is so unbearable that he has to chew them off) which probably wouldn't make it onto TV, in any detail, but it never felt sensationalist or like prime-time BDSM.
Yes you really are. I'm actually inclined to agree that the experiment design wasn't ideal, clearly it was designed to test whether indicators of WIFI affect people rather than the presence of WIFI itself, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be civil or moderate when discussing it.
I fully accept the logic behind your statements. If I had one doubt about surge pricing it's that I wonder how much it works in practice. I can see why demand would fall quickly, however I think supply is pretty inelastic in short time periods. That driver you speak of would have to cancel plans, drive to the location where surge pricing was happening, and hope it would last long enough that it pays off; in practice I have doubts this happens all that much.
Surge pricing in predictable busy windows or periods announced in advance works, huge price surges at short notice for indefinite periods...
Trains everywhere in Europe I can think of have lower rates outside busy commuting windows; in the UK they are explicitly called off-peak rates. Using ownership to determine 'public transport' is pretty dumb (and incorrect); plenty of countries have buses and trains operated privately and they're still public transport.
The fact something becomes true if you change it doesn't make the initial statement any less incorrect; and no that wasn't begging the question (though the statement about all presidents wearing black trousers probably is).
Value in comparison to what, exactly? Where is your proof that Bitcoin scams cause its value to "swing wildly?"
The fact it's value swings widely compared to commodities, major currencies etc is so painfully obvious only a troll or a blind zealot would be dumb enough to argue otherwise.
I doubt it can be proved that 'scams' are why it fluctuates so violently, but that's hardly a good thing for bitcoin. At least if it's lack of stability was down to scams there might be something that could be done about it.
Not only that, but we'd jail people who we think are going to commit a crime (but haven't yet).
We've changed the law to include crimes that are preparation to do something bad, rather than something bad in and of itself: Preparing for a terrorist attack, planning an abduction, owning a restricted weapon etc...
Imprisonment can be about safety, even if in theory arresting people predicted to commit crimes isn't done for ethical or public perception reasons; not that I think the primary purpose of imprisonment in the US is public safety in the first place.
Most of the things you list would punish the stock holders, who are just as likely to be a pension plan for retired veterans.
The only individuals who are likely to be heavily exposed to a single company are not going to be pensioners (whose exposure will be much lower). Arguably the biggest negative consequence is that destroying the business would lead to lots of employees who had nothing to do with, no knowledge of etc the criminal behaviour. Personally I'd like to see a combination of more employees prosecuted when they knowingly break the law and fines being much larger, with the government potentially taking a considerable chunk of equity as part of the fine.
So if every citizen comes under threat when countries do bad things why shouldn't every share holder come under threat when corporations do bad things?
This argument is constructed on a weak bed of multiple fallacious arguments. Firstly it isn't true that most people are under threat during conflict (plenty of people have benefited from wars), nor is it true that all conflict is a bad thing on the part of the government, nor did you make any argument for why the populations risks from conflicts created by their governments should be a model for businesses and shareholders.
Shareholders are at risk when corporations do bad things: Considerable financial risk. It would take someone particularly uninformed about reality to think that putting the majority of the population of the western world under threat of arrest if any large company did anything wrong (a great deal of people own shares via pension funds). It's also unrealistic to think it would be effective in changing behaviour. Executives in China did things like contaminate baby formula even though the state has executed people for similar things in the past...
That has never been the case, even when the US has suffered bad losses because of the ROE. In Vietnam the ROE cost the US vast amounts of lives and resources, and the ROE not only didn't change, but breaking them led to severe repercussions.
Bullshit. The US couldn't even be arsed punishing soldiers for slaughtering and raping civilians in Vietnam (look at who was called a traitor after My Lai), so lets not pretend ROE violations were a big concern.
As to more recent examples, the ROE exist because of the political desire to minimise negative news stories in return for nominal decreases in combat effectiveness in circumstances with low direct threat and no severe consequences. In short, risking a few US casualties in return for avoiding civilian deaths makes sense to someone in the context of Iraq/Afghanistan.
If, for example, the Chinese tried to invade the west coast and the ROE on visual range only fire was likely to influence the result of the conflict then it'd be dropped immediately.
If no one had had a flat tyre for 50 years (about how long it has been since a US aircraft has used guns to shoot an enemy fighter down in a dog fight) then they may have a point...
Yet when it comes down to making comparisons, choose something that is more appropriate than cranks and horses.
Says someone who used the ridiculous example of cars and highways in the same post.
When was the last time a US plane engaged in a close ranged dogfight with an enemy aircraft (around 20 years ago), when was the last time it was against an aircraft with a chance in hell (40+ years). Comparing that to how often drivers may want to take a car on a highway is exactly the same logical fallacy you claimed the person you were responding to was using.
You completely ignored the fact that rules of engagement don't currently permit firing BVR.
Which is a pretty reasonable thing to ignore. There's a reason why various nations have spent large amounts of money on designing and manufacturing weapons which are only of benefit over prior weapons when firing BVR. If/when there's a war between the US and someone who can actually harm them if they limit themselves to visual range, they will change the ROE. The same is true of any advanced nation.
Public domain means you can use it as you please. One perfectly acceptable use is to sell it; though obviously you'd have to find someone willing to pay, but often people will due to ignorance, convenience or value added services.
And I doubt they'd want you if you fall for that kind of logical fallacy.
A lot of firms keep almost everything secret from most employees because they don't trust them. If a company is open and transparent then they might share things like details of customer negotiations with more employees, that doesn't mean they are hypocritical for asking those employees not to post that sensitive information online or give it to competitors.
You don't have to think encryption is wrong in all circumstances to be allowed to claim you believe in transparency, the world can't be boiled down to naive black and white extremes like that.
Can I get a job with Secret Service by penetrating them to approach within 10 feet of Obama?
Maybe, but what this guy did was the equivalent to putting out a method for getting past the secret service and near to the president on the internet for anyone to see which is far worse.
Slashdot Mirror
Not even close. If an equivalent of Monsanta existed for cattle then they'd only sell Bulls if they could also restrict cloning, and if they couldn't then they wouldn't sell bulls they'd simply sell the semen instead.
Really!? And there I was thinking tnk1 must have actually spoken to prehistoric man or read prehistoric man's lengthy manuscripts on the economic value of shiny axes.
If it makes sense for a pet, then surely it makes sense for a child? Also who gave them the right to tell me I can't genetically modify my children, maybe I don't want them to need glasses and why not make them smarter while I'm at it?...
The fact that many people want something doesn't mean it should automatically be permitted. Cloning certainly fits in the category of technologies that need considered thought about how and why it can be used, rather than a free for all.
Thanks for explaining, I hadn't considered that possibility.
That would likely allow you to send the file, but you're rather missing the point: By sending the file in that way it is in no way encrypted or protected. The file data would make it clear what kind of file it actually was, and the content of the file would remain unchanged. Security sufficient to stop casual uninterested parties isn't hard (in fact it's hardly needed), but things like this make real security (sufficient to actually be of use against someone interested) much harder.
If you actually believe that, and had even a little courage, you'd be doing something about it (because you sure as hell live in a place with some collectivism); but instead here you are whining on the internet trying to come across as intelligent instead.
He can venerate the bill of rights as much as he likes, but that doesn't mean that his being an American inherently means anything in the context of free speech. Americans as a group support plenty of views that contradict the kind of free speech the person I was responding to, and the bill of rights, support. Unfortunately it's a hard thing to have a rational debate about as there's plenty of American's so blindly patriotic that any comment that is less than flattering of their country gets modded to oblivion.
But you don't believe it "as an American". Look at typical American opinions of freedom of speech and expression; you might support unrestricted, or nearly unrestricted, freedom of speech but that isn't due to inherently common American values that you share.
The first series sticks quite close to the books, at least compared to the later ones. Theon suffers some pretty disturbing stuff in the books (having fingers flayed, and being left to suffer until the pain is so unbearable that he has to chew them off) which probably wouldn't make it onto TV, in any detail, but it never felt sensationalist or like prime-time BDSM.
Yes you really are. I'm actually inclined to agree that the experiment design wasn't ideal, clearly it was designed to test whether indicators of WIFI affect people rather than the presence of WIFI itself, but that doesn't mean you shouldn't be civil or moderate when discussing it.
I fully accept the logic behind your statements. If I had one doubt about surge pricing it's that I wonder how much it works in practice. I can see why demand would fall quickly, however I think supply is pretty inelastic in short time periods. That driver you speak of would have to cancel plans, drive to the location where surge pricing was happening, and hope it would last long enough that it pays off; in practice I have doubts this happens all that much.
Surge pricing in predictable busy windows or periods announced in advance works, huge price surges at short notice for indefinite periods...
Trains everywhere in Europe I can think of have lower rates outside busy commuting windows; in the UK they are explicitly called off-peak rates. Using ownership to determine 'public transport' is pretty dumb (and incorrect); plenty of countries have buses and trains operated privately and they're still public transport.
The fact something becomes true if you change it doesn't make the initial statement any less incorrect; and no that wasn't begging the question (though the statement about all presidents wearing black trousers probably is).
Exactly, it's still true that if you're using it then you're a socially inadequate moron.
The fact it's value swings widely compared to commodities, major currencies etc is so painfully obvious only a troll or a blind zealot would be dumb enough to argue otherwise.
I doubt it can be proved that 'scams' are why it fluctuates so violently, but that's hardly a good thing for bitcoin. At least if it's lack of stability was down to scams there might be something that could be done about it.
We've changed the law to include crimes that are preparation to do something bad, rather than something bad in and of itself: Preparing for a terrorist attack, planning an abduction, owning a restricted weapon etc...
Imprisonment can be about safety, even if in theory arresting people predicted to commit crimes isn't done for ethical or public perception reasons; not that I think the primary purpose of imprisonment in the US is public safety in the first place.
The only individuals who are likely to be heavily exposed to a single company are not going to be pensioners (whose exposure will be much lower). Arguably the biggest negative consequence is that destroying the business would lead to lots of employees who had nothing to do with, no knowledge of etc the criminal behaviour. Personally I'd like to see a combination of more employees prosecuted when they knowingly break the law and fines being much larger, with the government potentially taking a considerable chunk of equity as part of the fine.
This argument is constructed on a weak bed of multiple fallacious arguments. Firstly it isn't true that most people are under threat during conflict (plenty of people have benefited from wars), nor is it true that all conflict is a bad thing on the part of the government, nor did you make any argument for why the populations risks from conflicts created by their governments should be a model for businesses and shareholders.
Shareholders are at risk when corporations do bad things: Considerable financial risk. It would take someone particularly uninformed about reality to think that putting the majority of the population of the western world under threat of arrest if any large company did anything wrong (a great deal of people own shares via pension funds). It's also unrealistic to think it would be effective in changing behaviour. Executives in China did things like contaminate baby formula even though the state has executed people for similar things in the past...
Bullshit. The US couldn't even be arsed punishing soldiers for slaughtering and raping civilians in Vietnam (look at who was called a traitor after My Lai), so lets not pretend ROE violations were a big concern.
As to more recent examples, the ROE exist because of the political desire to minimise negative news stories in return for nominal decreases in combat effectiveness in circumstances with low direct threat and no severe consequences. In short, risking a few US casualties in return for avoiding civilian deaths makes sense to someone in the context of Iraq/Afghanistan.
If, for example, the Chinese tried to invade the west coast and the ROE on visual range only fire was likely to influence the result of the conflict then it'd be dropped immediately.
If no one had had a flat tyre for 50 years (about how long it has been since a US aircraft has used guns to shoot an enemy fighter down in a dog fight) then they may have a point...
Says someone who used the ridiculous example of cars and highways in the same post.
When was the last time a US plane engaged in a close ranged dogfight with an enemy aircraft (around 20 years ago), when was the last time it was against an aircraft with a chance in hell (40+ years). Comparing that to how often drivers may want to take a car on a highway is exactly the same logical fallacy you claimed the person you were responding to was using.
Which is a pretty reasonable thing to ignore. There's a reason why various nations have spent large amounts of money on designing and manufacturing weapons which are only of benefit over prior weapons when firing BVR. If/when there's a war between the US and someone who can actually harm them if they limit themselves to visual range, they will change the ROE. The same is true of any advanced nation.
You may be pretty sure, but you're still wrong.
Public domain means you can use it as you please. One perfectly acceptable use is to sell it; though obviously you'd have to find someone willing to pay, but often people will due to ignorance, convenience or value added services.
And I doubt they'd want you if you fall for that kind of logical fallacy.
A lot of firms keep almost everything secret from most employees because they don't trust them. If a company is open and transparent then they might share things like details of customer negotiations with more employees, that doesn't mean they are hypocritical for asking those employees not to post that sensitive information online or give it to competitors.
You don't have to think encryption is wrong in all circumstances to be allowed to claim you believe in transparency, the world can't be boiled down to naive black and white extremes like that.
Maybe, but what this guy did was the equivalent to putting out a method for getting past the secret service and near to the president on the internet for anyone to see which is far worse.