How is this modded insightful?
If it's too expensive for them to connect to the internet to update their anti-virus, it's too expensive for them to connect to the internet and contract malware. That's where the majority of it is coming from. I don't doubt expense might be part of the reason (running unlicensed/unpatched windows machines or trying to find free software that comes riddled with spyware) but I don't see the connection you are making being the primary reason...
Hey, numbnuts - How would the American government fund a war against Americans, if it caused us to stop paying taxes? Where do you think the U.S. Military's funding comes from, anyway? Magical unicorn farts?
Logistics - they ain't yer strong suit.
With debt? Something that our government is well acquainted with?
I'm for gun rights but it's pointless to cite these stories because you're 22 TIMES more likely to use a gun against someone you know. Throwing more guns into the mix will definitely stop crimes, but you're going to create FAR more inicidents than you stop.
[BEGIN NRA LOGIC] Well, the solution for this is even more guns! Every person should have at least three guns on them at all times. Every child over three should have a handgun also. Babies can use our new "shotgun pacifier." What? Now there's even more gun violence? Ok, let's try ten guns per adult, seven guns per child, and turning every baby stroller into an armored tank. That should keep us safe. [END NRA LOGIC]
Correlation does not indicate causation.
What's the statistics for murder without a gun with regard to people you know and strangers.
Drunk driving is not a "mistake". You chose to get drunk. You chose to drive. You know it's wrong. You know it's dangerous. You know you may kill someone. You choose to do it anyway. That's not a "mistake", that's wilful culpable recklessness.
"mistake: an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc."
Seems pretty cut and dry that drunk driving is a mistake.
The Consultation Paper, at page 48, briefly discusses the issue of linking and goes on to provide for a proposed amendment to existing copyright legislation to provide that the offering of a link on a page on the internet is not an infringement of copyright law. The underlying rationale set out by the Consultation Paper in this section is misconceived and we do not accept as being based on fact.
Section 6.3 of the Consultation Paper provides that Courts, (although it does not specify which Courts) are increasingly concluding that a link, by itself, should never be seen as a publication, reproduction or communication of the content to which it refers, even where that content is an infringement of copyright. The NNI takes serious exception to the statement included in the Consultation Paper that “the fact that links make access to that content straightforward does not change the reality that a link, by itself, is content neutral.” "
It is the view of NNI that a link to copyright material does constitute infringement of copyright, and would be so found by the Courts.
Just when you thought people couldn't get any stupider...
Is there anything about the Olympics that isn't corrupt and disgusting?
I think the Olympics committee did a good job revamping their appeals process to appear more legit and transparent.
Counting in binary is just like counting in decimal -- if you are all thumbs. -- Glaser and Way