There is no way in hell we are going to be able to entirely stop attacks on schools, so we might as well focus on limiting the damage they might cause rather then put all the eggs in one basket.
That's not what I said. I said "reduce" not "entirely stop".
And, while we're at it, why not? Why can't we stop attacks on schools this way, or some similar vein? Is there vector of attack being missed? Is there some arms race involved in which the attacker is always ahead? Either of these aren't sufficient on their own to prove the method is useless, but they would at least be some evidence.
Basically, it's a fairly extraordinary statement to claim outright that this method is completely useless, and extraordinary statements require extraordinary proofs.
Really? You don't think cutting the number of entrances/exits and the placement of the metal detectors and cameras at all reduces the chance of a successful attack?
Y'know, just because you disagree with someone's methodology, doesn't mean the methodology is completely useless. And the act of acknowledging said usefulness strengthens your argument, rather than weakening it, since it indicates a reasonable and rational view of the situation.
Restore copyright to 17 years renewable only by the author of the work, remove patent protection for software, and let's get back to creating and away from lining CEO's pockets.
What's the point? You have irrefutable proof that no amount of trying will stop information from being free (or people being greedy, apparently).
What? No, what I'm saying is that a government that has the size for absolute power, including giving people what they want, or taking it away, is doomed to be frustrated thanks to all the opposing agendas of so many people competing for power.
These spectacular failures happen all the time, when a person enters politics with a particular goal in mind, and is worn down through compromise and political blockading.
Taxation ("they have your stuff" I presume) is one of the few things that a government can actually perform, partially because the government knows it needs it, and the people (by and large) acknowledge the reason for it. However, trying to raise or lower taxes, well, that's very difficult to do.
How much does the government own of me? Can I buy it back?
This isn't the government we're talking about here, it's the general population. Yeah, and like it or not, they own a small piece of you. And you own a small piece of them.
You live in a society that has to work together, and your actions and choices have consequences to people beyond yourself. Sometimes, your choices may feel good to you, but they come at the expense of others.
Sometimes those consequences are so bad that the original choice is banned. Some other times, the choice is not so bad to be banned, but it hardly becomes fair that everyone is forced to pick up your slack.
Vice taxes don't tend to have much of an effect on the addicted (the addiction outweighs long-term financial concerns), but they tend to drive down usage of those not addicted, but using regularly. It can help prevent another addiction case.
It doesn't always work (especially if not carefully considered), and rarely if ever does it work perfectly, but it can have positive effects.
Only if the people who aren't useless decide to support the people who are.
Yes, that's true. So, we can either neutralise this effect by heavily taxing humanitarian acts, or by taxing vices. I know which I prefer (in general).
Well, when a significant portion of your population is becoming temporarily and/or permanently useless thanks to vice-related illnesses, the decision not to tax certain vices can become an anti-subsidy of its own.
Their error messages might as well say, "Our program fucked up, we're dipshits, we don't know what the fuck is going on. In fact, we couldn't have put together a crappier piece of software if we were drunk, or high."
Yeah, but then how would it be an unexpected error?
It doesn't work, unless your girlfriend works at Google, and has the opportunity to look through your search history. Otherwise, you should have nothing to hide from Google.
We hear this all the time. By that logic, Microsoft doesn't force you to use Windows, therefore they are not evil.
Well, actually, the most evil thing that microsoft does is force their software on people, either through exclusive contracts with OEMs, or through the bundling of their software. So, yeah, by the same logic, Microsoft is actually evil and Google is not.
Google's money that they pay into GSoC pales in comparison to their revenue. It wouldn't even be a rounding error. Furthermore, it's a tax break (they set up a charitable fund for this purpose) and the money put into it is considered marketing expenses. It's not altruism, it's just creative marketing.
Wait. Isn't that all altruism? If we weeded out every philanthropist who gave for the positive attention, how many people would we have left?
Google hasn't been a friendly garage company for years now, they are a Big Nasty Megacorp looking to squeeze every ounce of value from us they can
That's what every megacorp does, and everyone, including the fanboys, knows it. The question is, can a Megacorp squeeze every ounce of value from us by not doing evil? It's a valid strategy; if you make a promise not to do evil, and you keep it, then you get fans, word of mouth, etc, which in theory, in the long term, can be more profitable than constantly screwing people over.
It's not like being a fan requires you to take Google's motto as law. You can judge for yourself just as well as any sceptic whether or not Google does evil. What's wrong with praising Google for doing a good job so far?
Disclaimer: I wouldn't consider myself a fan, unless you call using their search and their maps service as being a fan.
Attention, my friends! Don't listen to the parent poster! This innocent-sounding WESU, is nothing but a mask, a sock puppet, a misdirection, for the Warner, EMI, Sony, and Universal, the people behind the notorious RIAA and CRIA! Notice their transparent attempt to change their name to something as innocuous as WESU.
I say we should refer to them, in full, as Adorable Puppy Murderers and Crippled Child Rapists International from now on.
So in other words, no part of the system works, no person involved does what they're supposed to do, and if they do, it violates the spirit of the system.
Perhaps, empirically speaking, clear cut violations basically don't happen. Maybe the targets are easy because they're the ones that can be ruled definitively against the alleged offender. Maybe the tabloid press loves a story about crooked cops.
Slashdot Mirror
That depends on the answer to the following question:
Will the general public be fine with subscription fees to their favourite free online services?
If the answer is no, then the internet won't be be here without adverts. At least not in any meaningful, useful form.
That's not what I said. I said "reduce" not "entirely stop".
And, while we're at it, why not? Why can't we stop attacks on schools this way, or some similar vein? Is there vector of attack being missed? Is there some arms race involved in which the attacker is always ahead? Either of these aren't sufficient on their own to prove the method is useless, but they would at least be some evidence.
Basically, it's a fairly extraordinary statement to claim outright that this method is completely useless, and extraordinary statements require extraordinary proofs.
Am I not being real enough for you?
Really? You don't think cutting the number of entrances/exits and the placement of the metal detectors and cameras at all reduces the chance of a successful attack?
Y'know, just because you disagree with someone's methodology, doesn't mean the methodology is completely useless. And the act of acknowledging said usefulness strengthens your argument, rather than weakening it, since it indicates a reasonable and rational view of the situation.
This woman is realising she needs to grow up and realise that her posting threatening messages in public may well get her into trouble.
Sorta like how the internet is growing up itself, and people are starting to taking what it says seriously.
Just because someone doesn't grow up, doesn't mean they perpetually get treated with kiddie gloves.
What's the point? You have irrefutable proof that no amount of trying will stop information from being free (or people being greedy, apparently).
What? No, what I'm saying is that a government that has the size for absolute power, including giving people what they want, or taking it away, is doomed to be frustrated thanks to all the opposing agendas of so many people competing for power.
These spectacular failures happen all the time, when a person enters politics with a particular goal in mind, and is worn down through compromise and political blockading.
Taxation ("they have your stuff" I presume) is one of the few things that a government can actually perform, partially because the government knows it needs it, and the people (by and large) acknowledge the reason for it. However, trying to raise or lower taxes, well, that's very difficult to do.
This isn't the government we're talking about here, it's the general population. Yeah, and like it or not, they own a small piece of you. And you own a small piece of them.
You live in a society that has to work together, and your actions and choices have consequences to people beyond yourself. Sometimes, your choices may feel good to you, but they come at the expense of others.
Sometimes those consequences are so bad that the original choice is banned. Some other times, the choice is not so bad to be banned, but it hardly becomes fair that everyone is forced to pick up your slack.
Deal with it.
Vice taxes don't tend to have much of an effect on the addicted (the addiction outweighs long-term financial concerns), but they tend to drive down usage of those not addicted, but using regularly. It can help prevent another addiction case.
It doesn't always work (especially if not carefully considered), and rarely if ever does it work perfectly, but it can have positive effects.
Yes, that's true. So, we can either neutralise this effect by heavily taxing humanitarian acts, or by taxing vices. I know which I prefer (in general).
Well, when a significant portion of your population is becoming temporarily and/or permanently useless thanks to vice-related illnesses, the decision not to tax certain vices can become an anti-subsidy of its own.
... and unwieldy enough to fail spectacularly should it attempt to do either.
Are there no circumstance in which their use would be acceptable? ;)
Yeah, but then how would it be an unexpected error?
Hey! I'm on such a network and I'm hosed, you insensitive clod!
My lord, take one of thy mighty infinite mod points and mod parent -1 smote! Amen!
Yep. On the other hand, if you've bought a PS3 from the beginning, you're probably only software update away from 3D capabilities.
On the other other hand, if you own a PS3, you're only one software update away from DRM hell, so I guess it evens out.
The prefixes "True", "Ultra", "Pure", or "360" come to the dark corner of my mind devoted to generating Marketspeak.
(Yes, and I realise that 360 degrees are a product of a plane, not a 3D space.)
How much does it cost to recruit new soldiers via other methods? How about weighted by efficiency?
Just because it costs $33 million, doesn't mean it isn't a good deal.
Well, from now on, consider the act of using google services as your expressed consent.
It doesn't work, unless your girlfriend works at Google, and has the opportunity to look through your search history. Otherwise, you should have nothing to hide from Google.
Well, actually, the most evil thing that microsoft does is force their software on people, either through exclusive contracts with OEMs, or through the bundling of their software. So, yeah, by the same logic, Microsoft is actually evil and Google is not.
Wait. Isn't that all altruism? If we weeded out every philanthropist who gave for the positive attention, how many people would we have left?
That's what every megacorp does, and everyone, including the fanboys, knows it. The question is, can a Megacorp squeeze every ounce of value from us by not doing evil? It's a valid strategy; if you make a promise not to do evil, and you keep it, then you get fans, word of mouth, etc, which in theory, in the long term, can be more profitable than constantly screwing people over.
It's not like being a fan requires you to take Google's motto as law. You can judge for yourself just as well as any sceptic whether or not Google does evil. What's wrong with praising Google for doing a good job so far?
Disclaimer: I wouldn't consider myself a fan, unless you call using their search and their maps service as being a fan.
Attention, my friends! Don't listen to the parent poster! This innocent-sounding WESU, is nothing but a mask, a sock puppet, a misdirection, for the Warner, EMI, Sony, and Universal, the people behind the notorious RIAA and CRIA! Notice their transparent attempt to change their name to something as innocuous as WESU.
I say we should refer to them, in full, as Adorable Puppy Murderers and Crippled Child Rapists International from now on.
So in other words, no part of the system works, no person involved does what they're supposed to do, and if they do, it violates the spirit of the system.
Perhaps, empirically speaking, clear cut violations basically don't happen. Maybe the targets are easy because they're the ones that can be ruled definitively against the alleged offender. Maybe the tabloid press loves a story about crooked cops.