Unless the government is willing to provide computers to anyone who can't afford to buy one, this will not happen. Look at the fiasco with all digital broadcasting of television in the US. It was supposed to happen years ago, but keeps getting pushed back further and further because the government doesn't want to pony up thousands or millions of free converters for the masses. Besides, bureaucracies LOVE paperwork, and by that I mean actual "paper" paperwork....
No, like GPS tracking and the condition of not going anywhere nears schools, playgrounds, kids, etc.. Or even "chemical castration" which, by using drugs to make you impotent, would take away the ability/desire to spank the monkey also.
With a tracking system, it wouldn't be as unenforceable as you think. They gave Mitnick a similar deal, and he didn't use a computer for years. The idea is no one would risk 20 years in prison to go online. If I were him, I know I wouldn't. They offer similar types of probation to sex offenders, so why not Spammers?
It is easy to say you can't enforce it, but then what are the alternatives? Jail sentences, or letting him off scott free? What would be your propoesd "fitting punishment"?? If you really can't see that their are actual monetary damages to this type of crime you need to look harder. This isn't a victimless crime just because you personally weren't bilked out of any money...
When the homeless, hare krishnas, and weirdos cost businesses millions of dollars, let me know. That to me seems a little worse than a "nuisance". Have you ever had to spend an entire day writing filters so legitimate mail can make it through and those damn SPAMs can't? I'd be willing to bet no. It's more than annoying, it prevents people from doing their REAL jobs. Which ends up costing REAL money. What you are saying is the equivalent to - "Well, he did rob you, but you can make more money, so really it's only a minor annoyance, not a real crime."
Say I fraud you out of your entire life savings. I haven't physically harmed you either, but your life is totally devastated... What should be the punishment for that - 6 months? Do you know how many millions of dollars Spammers waste every year just by doing their "relatively innocuous" crimes? I'm not saying we should hang him or anything, but to me 10 years doesn't seem excessive for a white collar crime of this magnitude. I would offer him a deal though - stay offline for 10 years and only do a year in prison. If caught online for any purpose, back to the federal prison for 20 years...
If judges keep letting Spammers get off light, without ever setting a heavy-handed precedent, why would they ever even consider stopping the SPAM?? Sometimes a little scare is good.
First, it isn't a loophole, it is the official rules. CNBC encouraged people to have multiple portfolios. Simply having more porfolios doesn't in itself make you a better chooser, but it does increase your odds of making it further. And as for saying exploiting loopholes isn't a measure of how good of trader you are, well that pretty much shows your ignorance about the stock market. Real traders get rich everyday by exploiting loopholes - it's the American Way. And lastly, it's a contest, not real portfolios so your last statement has no correlation to the contest.
Yes, the proverbial rock and a hard place, and the US is square in the middle. I agree that how we proceed from here on out is the most important, but I will continue fingr-pointing until those who have messed it up so badly are removed completely from further decisions (or at the very least will at least admit responsibility for them, and be a little more transparent in the decision making process in the future). I have absolutely ZERO faith in those short-sighted bozos who got us into this war to get us out. I believe their next guesses will be as bad or worse than their original ones. I personally don't ever think a "stable government in Iraq" (or "excuse number 23") was ever the intention for going to war. Iraq had a stable government. A dictatorship, sure but Saddam wasn't ever going to let some Islamic jihadists take any power away from him... And if it was really the human rights issue, we could have looked at any number of countries where civil rights violations occur. (The problem is economic ties with those other countries, where there is only one real business we are interested in Iraq - ancient dinosaur remains.)
The real question A is What did the US cause Iraq to look like now. The answer of course is civil war and chaos. You could argue it would have happened anyways, but that is moot now that the majority of Iraqi citizens view the US as the major contributor to this, (not to mention a percentage of the world view). The answer to B is a actually the $64,000 question. That we wouldn't need to find an answer to if we hadn't caused problem A to begin with...
Iraq was one of the few secular run governments in the midle east. Hell, in the 80s they were our allies against Iran and their theocratic government. Guess who the bigger problem has been all along?? Hint: it isn't Iraq. Guess where the bigger problem is really rearing it's head now?? Hint: it's not Iraq. Guess where all of our troops are tied up in a Vietnam-style civil war?? Hint:it is Iraq. See the problem here?? No one will argue Saddam wasn't a bad guy, but in my opinion the are more problems with the religious fanatics over there than the secular run governments. It's just too bad the war planners didn't have a plan at all for what happens in Iraq after Saddam is removed. Jesus, Rummy even went so far as to say the Iraqi citizens would be greeting us with open arms. And he was in charge of anything why??
Way to twist my words. I never said a thing about individuals in cars, or speed limits. All I said was transportation is necessary. Besides, I have driven without getting killed for 20 years. Know anyone in a war for 20 years with that kind of luck?? Look at the ratios. How many MILLIONS of people drive everyday without dying?? What are your odds of dying in a car?? Now look at how many soldiers are in Iraq compared to how many die every day. The ratio is much higher. If you want to compare numbers than you have to compare ALL the numbers, not just deaths. Of course more people will die in car accidents, there are WAY more people driving than fighting in Iraq. It has to do with probabilities, not sheer numbers. And if you want to talk about injuries in addition to plain old deaths, estimates are coming back that about 40% or more of our troops will have some sort of mental or physical medical problems. Is 40% of our troops injured an "acceptable" level to you??
Call me crazy, but to me transportation seems necessary. War doesn't. The idea behind trasportation is not to kill people. Really can't make the same statement about wars, as killing people IS the main goal.
So according to you, until we eliminate every other type of death, soldiers dying is irrelevant? That is pretty sound logic!
So what? Maybe the RIAA should sue him instead. Hey I make 6 figures too, it's just that only 5 are in front of the decimal point. I actually make 7 figures - $XX,XXX.XX!!
Ok, for thoses of you like the last AC -- not all disabled people can't work, and not all people who don't work are disabled. Oh, and also EVERYONE IS NOT THE SAME. There, does that cover it better for you?
If that is true, he should go after his own kid to the full extent of the law. THAT would show people that he really means business, and isn't to be trifled with...
New slogan - "If he would do that to his own kids, imagine what he will do to yours!"
The fact that she is disabled, and on a fixed income has nothing to do with a civil case in which she is being sued for tens of thousands of dollars that she will never be able to pay due to this fact?? You are right, how could that possibly be relevant to anything??
You need to be able to draw connections that may not be so obvious.
The case started out as Atlantic Recording Company vs Andersen, but if you look at the most current court documents [ilrweb.com], you would see that the Plaintiffs are - Atlantic Recording Company, Priority Records LLC, Capitol Records Inc, UMG Recordings Inc, and BMG Music.
Guess which organization all of those indivdual companies belong too? The Recording Industry Association of America.
So you are mistaken. It isn't just Atlantic suing her. Oh, and Atlantic is owned by Warner, who are separate from Time-Warner and AOL. If you truly believe that the RIAA has nothing to do with this case, you are as naive as they come...
The case started out as Atlantic Recording Company vs Andersen, but if you look at the most current court documents, you would see that the Plaintiffs are - Atlantic Recording Company, Priority Records LLC, Capitol Records Inc, UMG Recordings Inc, and BMG Music.
Guess which organization all of those indivdual companies belong too? The Recording Industry Association of America.
The RIAA isn't a separate group from the individual record companies, the RIAA IS those companies. So therefore, if you are being sued by a collective of recording companies who all belong to the RIAA, you ARE being sued by the RIAA. Elementary my dear Watson.
So are you trying to say that being sued for tens of thousands of dollars by individual record companies is somehow better than being sued for tens of thousands by the RIAA?
Now if someone can explain to me how the GP was insightful??
For the record, I am pretty liberal - much more than I am conservative. I just think it is funny that so-called "liberals" love to take away certain freedoms - ones they deem to be unsavory. That's not very "liberal" now, is it? I don't necessarily find the label "liberal" to be derogatory either. And besides, I call everyone who doesn't agree with me "dumbasses" or "jerk stores".
I never said the GP was equating all gun owners with "gun toting maniacs". If you re-read my post, I was only ranting about those that do, not the GP in specific. And it seems that a lot of "liberals" think that no one should own guns period. I don't find that to be a very "liberal" attitude either.
"But to be sure, the armed forces are notorious for partaking in foreign prostitution where poverty stricken women are left with almost no other choice but to cheaply sell themselves out for the pleasure of every dumb farm boy in a uniform."
Well, those prostitutues should have thought about that before they signed up, like the soldiers. After all, they did volunteer.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless the government is willing to provide computers to anyone who can't afford to buy one, this will not happen. Look at the fiasco with all digital broadcasting of television in the US. It was supposed to happen years ago, but keeps getting pushed back further and further because the government doesn't want to pony up thousands or millions of free converters for the masses. Besides, bureaucracies LOVE paperwork, and by that I mean actual "paper" paperwork....
My bad. Had my sarcasm filter set a little to aggressively and it filtered it out... I just hate all the sarcasm SPAM I get...
No, like GPS tracking and the condition of not going anywhere nears schools, playgrounds, kids, etc.. Or even "chemical castration" which, by using drugs to make you impotent, would take away the ability/desire to spank the monkey also.
With a tracking system, it wouldn't be as unenforceable as you think. They gave Mitnick a similar deal, and he didn't use a computer for years. The idea is no one would risk 20 years in prison to go online. If I were him, I know I wouldn't. They offer similar types of probation to sex offenders, so why not Spammers?
It is easy to say you can't enforce it, but then what are the alternatives? Jail sentences, or letting him off scott free? What would be your propoesd "fitting punishment"?? If you really can't see that their are actual monetary damages to this type of crime you need to look harder. This isn't a victimless crime just because you personally weren't bilked out of any money...
When the homeless, hare krishnas, and weirdos cost businesses millions of dollars, let me know. That to me seems a little worse than a "nuisance". Have you ever had to spend an entire day writing filters so legitimate mail can make it through and those damn SPAMs can't? I'd be willing to bet no. It's more than annoying, it prevents people from doing their REAL jobs. Which ends up costing REAL money. What you are saying is the equivalent to - "Well, he did rob you, but you can make more money, so really it's only a minor annoyance, not a real crime."
Say I fraud you out of your entire life savings. I haven't physically harmed you either, but your life is totally devastated... What should be the punishment for that - 6 months? Do you know how many millions of dollars Spammers waste every year just by doing their "relatively innocuous" crimes? I'm not saying we should hang him or anything, but to me 10 years doesn't seem excessive for a white collar crime of this magnitude. I would offer him a deal though - stay offline for 10 years and only do a year in prison. If caught online for any purpose, back to the federal prison for 20 years...
If judges keep letting Spammers get off light, without ever setting a heavy-handed precedent, why would they ever even consider stopping the SPAM?? Sometimes a little scare is good.
That was not informative.
"What possible side effects could there be to being a plastic based life form?"
Ocean life keeps getting stuck in you and dying?
Lets just hope they don't branch into cash machines. I'm not sure if I want to use the ASS branded ATM - ATM could have a whole new meaning here...
First, it isn't a loophole, it is the official rules. CNBC encouraged people to have multiple portfolios. Simply having more porfolios doesn't in itself make you a better chooser, but it does increase your odds of making it further. And as for saying exploiting loopholes isn't a measure of how good of trader you are, well that pretty much shows your ignorance about the stock market. Real traders get rich everyday by exploiting loopholes - it's the American Way. And lastly, it's a contest, not real portfolios so your last statement has no correlation to the contest.
Yes, the proverbial rock and a hard place, and the US is square in the middle. I agree that how we proceed from here on out is the most important, but I will continue fingr-pointing until those who have messed it up so badly are removed completely from further decisions (or at the very least will at least admit responsibility for them, and be a little more transparent in the decision making process in the future). I have absolutely ZERO faith in those short-sighted bozos who got us into this war to get us out. I believe their next guesses will be as bad or worse than their original ones. I personally don't ever think a "stable government in Iraq" (or "excuse number 23") was ever the intention for going to war. Iraq had a stable government. A dictatorship, sure but Saddam wasn't ever going to let some Islamic jihadists take any power away from him... And if it was really the human rights issue, we could have looked at any number of countries where civil rights violations occur. (The problem is economic ties with those other countries, where there is only one real business we are interested in Iraq - ancient dinosaur remains.)
The real question A is What did the US cause Iraq to look like now. The answer of course is civil war and chaos. You could argue it would have happened anyways, but that is moot now that the majority of Iraqi citizens view the US as the major contributor to this, (not to mention a percentage of the world view). The answer to B is a actually the $64,000 question. That we wouldn't need to find an answer to if we hadn't caused problem A to begin with...
Iraq was one of the few secular run governments in the midle east. Hell, in the 80s they were our allies against Iran and their theocratic government. Guess who the bigger problem has been all along?? Hint: it isn't Iraq. Guess where the bigger problem is really rearing it's head now?? Hint: it's not Iraq. Guess where all of our troops are tied up in a Vietnam-style civil war?? Hint:it is Iraq. See the problem here?? No one will argue Saddam wasn't a bad guy, but in my opinion the are more problems with the religious fanatics over there than the secular run governments. It's just too bad the war planners didn't have a plan at all for what happens in Iraq after Saddam is removed. Jesus, Rummy even went so far as to say the Iraqi citizens would be greeting us with open arms. And he was in charge of anything why??
Way to twist my words. I never said a thing about individuals in cars, or speed limits. All I said was transportation is necessary. Besides, I have driven without getting killed for 20 years. Know anyone in a war for 20 years with that kind of luck?? Look at the ratios. How many MILLIONS of people drive everyday without dying?? What are your odds of dying in a car?? Now look at how many soldiers are in Iraq compared to how many die every day. The ratio is much higher. If you want to compare numbers than you have to compare ALL the numbers, not just deaths. Of course more people will die in car accidents, there are WAY more people driving than fighting in Iraq. It has to do with probabilities, not sheer numbers. And if you want to talk about injuries in addition to plain old deaths, estimates are coming back that about 40% or more of our troops will have some sort of mental or physical medical problems. Is 40% of our troops injured an "acceptable" level to you??
Call me crazy, but to me transportation seems necessary. War doesn't. The idea behind trasportation is not to kill people. Really can't make the same statement about wars, as killing people IS the main goal.
So according to you, until we eliminate every other type of death, soldiers dying is irrelevant? That is pretty sound logic!
How many US soldiers WILL have to die to wow you??
So what? Maybe the RIAA should sue him instead. Hey I make 6 figures too, it's just that only 5 are in front of the decimal point. I actually make 7 figures - $XX,XXX.XX!!
Ok, for thoses of you like the last AC -- not all disabled people can't work, and not all people who don't work are disabled. Oh, and also EVERYONE IS NOT THE SAME. There, does that cover it better for you?
If that is true, he should go after his own kid to the full extent of the law. THAT would show people that he really means business, and isn't to be trifled with...
New slogan - "If he would do that to his own kids, imagine what he will do to yours!"
"Capone didn't die in jail"
Yeah, but it was only a scant 8 years after he was released though... So it was practically in jail...heh..
The fact that she is disabled, and on a fixed income has nothing to do with a civil case in which she is being sued for tens of thousands of dollars that she will never be able to pay due to this fact?? You are right, how could that possibly be relevant to anything??
You need to be able to draw connections that may not be so obvious.
The case started out as Atlantic Recording Company vs Andersen, but if you look at the most current court documents [ilrweb.com], you would see that the Plaintiffs are - Atlantic Recording Company, Priority Records LLC, Capitol Records Inc, UMG Recordings Inc, and BMG Music.
Guess which organization all of those indivdual companies belong too? The Recording Industry Association of America.
So you are mistaken. It isn't just Atlantic suing her. Oh, and Atlantic is owned by Warner, who are separate from Time-Warner and AOL. If you truly believe that the RIAA has nothing to do with this case, you are as naive as they come...
The case started out as Atlantic Recording Company vs Andersen, but if you look at the most current court documents, you would see that the Plaintiffs are - Atlantic Recording Company, Priority Records LLC, Capitol Records Inc, UMG Recordings Inc, and BMG Music.
Guess which organization all of those indivdual companies belong too? The Recording Industry Association of America.
The RIAA isn't a separate group from the individual record companies, the RIAA IS those companies. So therefore, if you are being sued by a collective of recording companies who all belong to the RIAA, you ARE being sued by the RIAA. Elementary my dear Watson.
So are you trying to say that being sued for tens of thousands of dollars by individual record companies is somehow better than being sued for tens of thousands by the RIAA?
Now if someone can explain to me how the GP was insightful??
"it's kinda hard to hit "terr'ists" with WMDs"
Well it's no harder than declaring an unwinnable war on an intangilbe object...
Why don't they just cut to the chase and declare the great "War on Evil"??
For the record, I am pretty liberal - much more than I am conservative. I just think it is funny that so-called "liberals" love to take away certain freedoms - ones they deem to be unsavory. That's not very "liberal" now, is it? I don't necessarily find the label "liberal" to be derogatory either. And besides, I call everyone who doesn't agree with me "dumbasses" or "jerk stores".
I never said the GP was equating all gun owners with "gun toting maniacs". If you re-read my post, I was only ranting about those that do, not the GP in specific. And it seems that a lot of "liberals" think that no one should own guns period. I don't find that to be a very "liberal" attitude either.
All over everywhere, in his mind...
I mean, obviously anyone you don't agree with politically is a murderer, pillager, and a rapist
"But to be sure, the armed forces are notorious for partaking in foreign prostitution where poverty stricken women are left with almost no other choice but to cheaply sell themselves out for the pleasure of every dumb farm boy in a uniform."
Well, those prostitutues should have thought about that before they signed up, like the soldiers. After all, they did volunteer.
See how dumb that argument looks now?