That's about all there is to it.
That's about all there is to it.
In the case of a casino, it's kind of a crook if they throw you out for winning. It's their game, it's their fucking rules, if they can't handle them, maybe they are in the wrong business.
In the case of the stock market, it's very bad for the entire market if exploiting the rules leads to an imbalance that causes a major meltdown. That's not good for anyone except the totally amoral. It's demonstrably bad for nations as a whole. So enforcement is necessary. With no rules, you exchange an engine for prosperity for a back-alley game of loaded dice.
Then pay your fucking taxes next time.
You didn't make money without the existence of tax-built roads, taxpayer-sponsored police and fire departments.
So pay your damn taxes and they won't confiscate it all.
In general, I find that government employees - not politicians, or any kind of elected official, mind you - tend to be lazy, rule-bound, and HONEST. This is in the US where low-level corruption and bribery is not very common. And certainly in comparison to people who have the opportunity to get a buck out of me. Business transactions of all kinds - Circuit City warranties, car mechanics, mortgage loans, the price of a donut at a local deli - all these things are subject to manipulation due to simple greed. When I go to register my car, the clerk may be surly and unhelpful, but they have no opportunity or reason to screw me.
Qui bono, follow the money, etc, etc. Don't be so gullible about de gubmint and all that.
No, it's an argument for the limitations against government intrusion into private, God-given rights. And that hasn't been a topic of conservatives for 45 years.
The founders understood that it was authority that needed limits - that's not the same as the scope of government. Conservatives seem to have a blind spot to the difference.
But changing the TOS in a small-type on a flimsy insert sent with the bill that takes a law degree, additional experience, and hours of careful reading to comprehend constitutes a "meeting of the minds"? Bullshit.
The fact that this sort of thing is legally accepted shows only that common sense in the application of the law was thrown out the window long ago in order to accommodate the existence of mega-corporations.
It may be a necessary evil, but that's no reason to dissemble about what's actually happening.
Racial purity always ends in incest.
The scariest words in the English language are "I'm just doing my job." That doesn't sound so good in German either.
Besides, immigration officials aren't there to help anyone. Just ask the tourists who don't come to the US anymore.
Science requires communicating clearly with your peers.
This should be modded up to 5.
In most small businesses I think you are wrong. The BSA threat is insignificant - like getting caught speeding on FDR Drive in NYC.
The threat of viruses is very real. I've seen it repeatedly, and clueless users installing dodgy software (usually to get access to porn) is the main reason.
In my experience it's far more common than drive-by exploits, etc.
Unless the root access is restricted to a single command - e.g. rsync for backups, scripts to generate checksums on bin and lib dirs, etc.
Needless to say, this should be run only from a secure host that has no inbound services except, if necessary, ssh.
"chmod 777" = justifiable homicide
Sadly, this instructor is actually preparing you for most web shops. Not good ones, mind you, but most of them.
Never mind that Linux wants you to use j for bzip2 in tar.
And I can hardly forget years of bitching from nslookup to use dig instead. Good lord. Sometimes I use nslookup, sometimes dig, sometimes host, depends what I'm doing. I don't need a fucking lecture.
UNIX enhancements aren't.