Seriously, your stuffed-full-of-mail strawman is still a strawman, and a rather absurd one at that. Do you think that the NYSE has a little mailslot out in the front door, so that if you send a letter, the postman just tosses it in, and if 9,999,999 others send a letter, they keep piling them in the little slot until they're piling up so much in the hallway that no one can push the front door open with all the mail? Is that really the image that you have in your head?
I have no idea how NYSE handles its mail. I've never been there. I'm making an analogy for the purpose of applying physical intuitions to the problem; the actual physical layout and mail handling procedures of NYSE are irrelevant for that.
I'm surprised you're apparently unaware of the concept - but perhaps I shouldn't be, since you also seem to not know what a strawman is.
The basis of the criminal law is intent: they presumably intended to cause damage to Paypal, and had no legitimate reason for their action. Note that I say *presumably* -- their intent must still be proven to a jury, beyond a reasonable doubt.
Not being a court, we can take malicious intent as given, at least for the purposes of this conversation.
This bears no relation to sending a letter of complaint.
"What if I knew those 9,999,999 other people were going to be sending their letters at the same time, and the combined effect would take the exchange down?"
So yes, it does. DDOS is basically several people mailing the victim simultaneously, so that the final volume grows large enough to jam their mailbox.
For most crimes (homicide generally excepted) the attempt or conspiracy to commit a crime is subject to the same penalties as the completed offense.
Right. So sending a few IP packets constitutes as a conspiracy, then? And the crime of taking down a website should be punished by 15 years in jail and half a million dollar fine?
What's the point of enforcing crime if not to protect the potential victims? It seems perfectly reasonable to me to use this as justification. Perhaps this is a logical fallacy of some kind on my part?
Fantasizing about being a supreme dictator and torturing people to death has nothing to do with law enforcement. Go ahead and daydream about it if that's your thing, but if you post such fantasies publicly, expect your issues to be commented on. Get help.
By being wealthier, or more politically connected, than his opponent.
And if she buys a second ticket, and she's refused flight again? She probably doesn't have enough money to go on that merry-go-round several times. She's already out the cost of one plane ticket without recompense.
Thank you. That is clear. Now I can check what you said.
No. You are overestimating how unfree the populace (outside prisons) is in the US. The number of people in the "least free" (non-prison) population has increased, but they are freer now that the "least free" (non-prison) population was in the past.
It's more like one end of the curve has contracted towards the mean.
The '60s and '70s were in many ways freer than now. But there's a distinction between free and freer. That was also the period when the border with Mexico became, essentially, militarized, and when the border with Canada became more difficult to cross. This process has increased. That was the period when the government increased domestic spying. That was the period when the federal governent increased its control over the state governments. Etc.
*I* was relatively free during that period. Partially because I was inelgible to be drafted. Many friends weren't. Some of them died from it. Note that the "civil rights movement" worked because it was assisting the federal government in increasing it's control over the states. This increased the freedom for many citizens, at the cost of decreasing the freedom of the intermediate level governments that the citizenry can more easily affect.
Things aren't as simple as you are seeing. During that period an "underground railway" developed to ferry people North who didn't want to go to VietNam. (And why were we even there? That was never explained to my satisfaction. Vietnam as a whole elected the guy that we divided the country to fight against. Stupid. And for WHAT? This was never explained to me.)
Freedom has multiple dimensions. And it's not just a matter of individual rights, but of the social structures that support those rights.
P.S.: Another factor in the 1960's and 1970's being freer is that the bulge of the population age was at that point in the late teens to 20's. People in that age group don't count the cost of their actions the way older people do. And older people tend to be more conservative. (Tend isn't deterministic, but it's close. Populations tend to have "resonant" modes of behavior, where certain activities are reinforced, and what is reinforced depends on the medium through which it passes. A younger population tends to have a more active resonance. So when the bulk of the population is at an active point, expect social activity to increase. War is one of the traditional ways to release this, and I have long felt that that was the reason for the Vietnam war. If so, it didn't work out as intended. Do note, however, that shortly after this period large and powerful interests began buying up new media. And they weren't, and aren't, very profitable. But they are dandy for shaping social movements.)
Right now it doesn't happen because people with actual resources other than two-bit botnets are quite visible and have to obey the law, much as I think everybody else should. And on that same token anonymous should never be above the law.
Hey, they're trying. But until we come up with a way to waterboard people over the Internet, Anonymous simply can't reach the standards of "people with actual resources". And off-country prison camps to keep their kidnap victims out of legal help's reach don't come cheap, you know.
The implementation is clearly more straightforwards, and the argument about the distribution being monthly rather than yearly is good. I do, however, find that it feels more like a kludge. (OTOH, given the current tax law, that's not much of an argument.)
Here's a clear example of someone demanding compliance with a specific way of thinking, and all else being "stupidity" and demanding moderation to comply with their own willfully ignorant perspective. You are the detestable groupthink that no one likes here.
That's not the same thing at all. I'm not even sure that it's related.
The negative income tax could be implemented by having the tax be a simple:
tax = income * rate + intercept
By adjusting the intercept so that the tax is negative whenever the income is below some value. The relationship of this to the "Earned Income Tax Credit" is not obvious. Do note that this is not a special bonus to low income workers, or some other subset of citizens.
Yep, you're never going to stop criminals by having no empathy for them. When you understand why they do the things they do, you can take away that why.
Let's posit that this was a civil action not a criminal action. at what point do actions like this become criminal? For this they took a payment system offline. what if they took the NYSE stock exchange offline? what if they took a powerplant offline? (this may require other tools not just DDOS, but let's assume it was also accomplished by a large group of people as a form of protest).
Let's say I send a strongly worded letter of protest to the NYSE stock exchange. Is this illegal? Now suppose 9,999,999 other people also send similar letters, and the stock exchange is so full of them the personnel can't get in, taking it offline. Am I now a criminal? What if I knew those 9,999,999 other people were going to be sending their letters at the same time, and the combined effect would take the exchange down. Does that make me a criminal, and if it does, should I bear the full responsibility of the combined effect?
In other words: is it just to blame a single snowlake for the entire avalanche?
For that matter, does that matter? Sending someone to jail for 15 years for causing a minor inconvenience is an absurd overreaction. I suspect this is not about justice or even the law but power: someone is feeling theirs threatened and is breaking out the jackboot.
I've now read that article, and to me it implies NOTHING about the lives of factory workers prior to, at minimum 1790, and more plausibly 1800. That's plenty of time to kill off a generation of people who used to have a source of income.
Also it talks largely in terms of averages. When the low extreme is 0 already, the mean is highly sensitive to outliers in the higher extreme, and relatively not much affected by an increase in the number of people moving to the lower extreme. Now they COULD have meant median when they said average, but that would be an unusual use of the term. When it's not otherwise defined, average usually means mean. In this kind of curve, however, the median is a much more useful number, and the second most important measure of central tendency is the mode. The mean is a somewhat distant third in importance. (Common phrases of a from that might have helped would have been "an average worker in a garment factory", and other similar forms.)
I realize that the information that I'm requesting is probably not available, but that's the kind of information that is needed to definitively answer this question. Either that or death rate by year by kind of employment, which is also generally not available.