Which is why the rich can break the law with impunity since the fine has no real impact on them. So what if you get a $200 fine when you make more than that in an hour? That's not a punishment. Making the punishment actually mean something to everyone would make the punishment equal between everyone. Points on your license which lead to suspension are more meaningful, especially if you get jail time and extended suspension for driving on a suspended license. I don't like the idea of community service because the value of people's time is different. The guy working 3 jobs just to keep his head above water would be impacted more by community service than someone who is comfortable in a 9-5 job. The idea of targeting a fine based on daily spending money works well. Figuring out a fine that would be a noticeable inconvenience seems fair. A lot more fair than being devastating to some while barely noticeable to others.

So what about a fine that devastates a poor person while at the same time being not a measurable punishment to a rich person makes it truly equal under the law? If a fine applied the same level of hardship to both rich and poor, that tells me it's treating all people equally.

There's nothing in our DNA that drives us to avoid killing each other. If anything, our evolution causes us to want to kill "them" (of us vs them) over any number of reasons that are nothing more than clever disguises covering up that we're only try to gain control of limited resources.

Hell, many cultures let the old out to die long before they die of natural causes. If anything, that's the natural path that many species follow and we as a species used to share that model in our culture. It's only when you apply religious conservatism to the discussion that it all goes out of whack. Somehow, people got it in their heads that life is some "precious gift" and everyone must be forced to hang on as long as possible despite the suffering that you have to endure simply because that's what some preacher pushed into your head when you were a kid. It's an artificial construct that goes against the natural order of life.

It's time to let go of primitive superstition. It's time to stop forcing religious beliefs on people who don't want them. It's time to give people the real freedom of choice. If you believe and want to go through the suffering because of your beliefs, fine. Go right ahead. But don't take the choice away from others. If they want to end their life before the suffering really kicks in, that should be their choice, not yours. (Disclaimer: the "you" and "yours" is not directed at a specific individual but at those who are fighting right-to-die laws.)

I've never heard of that. All of the opposition I see comes from the right wing f'tards who want to shove their religion down everyone's throat. You can't kill anyone (whether they're a person yet or not) unless they've been convicted by our second rate "justice" system that seems to convict far too many innocent people. They don't give a flying rip about you while you're alive but they'll fight tooth and nail to make sure you suffer all the way up until the bitter end because "life is a gift from 'God'".

Absolutely. We should force people to go through years of endless suffering only to die anyway rather than let them make their own choice to keep their dignity. /sarcasm

Ain't that the truth...

That would be relevant to me if I wasn't living over 1000 miles from any coast.

I'm not sure what they're really trying to accomplish. They're shoving their political opinion in everyone's face. Quite often, however, people like this end up generating a fair amount of animosity towards their cause and bring together opponents trying to stop them who otherwise wouldn't have enough ambition to do so. Their actions end up being counterproductive. I'm not sure why they insist on hurting their own cause but they're hell bent on doing it.

Many of us who enjoy responsible recreational and sport shooting really wish these idiots would shut up and go away because they bring unwanted attention to the subject and end up making it more difficult for the rest of us.

In all likelihood, yes. Setting up something to scour for email addresses and sending bulk mail costs pennies. If they get even a 0.01% return on their emails (i.e. 1 out of 10,000 people falling for it) they still pull in tons of money.

That's the trouble with very successful attacks that end up having unanticipated consequences. They leave behind enough evidence that the attack vector is now known and steps are taken to reduce vulnerability (to varying degrees of success). It works the first time but often not ever again, or at least not until people forget about it and get sloppy again.

Well, they fully expected to follow their traditional approach to the evolving marketplace and have it work. That is, fart around with a bunch of crap no one wants for a while until the market takes off. Then buy out one of the competitors. After that, leverage their monopoly power to force everyone to use their product. Trouble is, the market got away from them and they have no real monopoly power to leverage against in this market and what they did has backfired against them in a big way. This has left them floundering without direction and trying to catch up as a 3rd contestant in a 2 person race. But they have deep pockets still so they'll keep flogging away at it for quite some time. Who knows. Maybe they'll stumble on something that works out for them. They certainly won't be lead to success. If it comes, it will be entirely accidental.

I know that I'm holding out on getting a smartphone until I get one that lets me work on my documents and spreadsheets... /sarcasm

To take that a step further, attacking the people who have direct access to the network is harder. Instead, targeting the companies that supply the equipment is an easier vector. I may be wrong (and please correct me if I am) but wasn't Stuxnet infiltrated at the supplier of the computer equipment rather than by a successful compromising of an individual working directly on the system?

And you can guarantee that that fiber can't be tapped between the end points? Just because a network is isolated from the Internet doesn't mean it's completely secure.

They were good in the early years but haven't put out a good album since 1984.