 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 17/01/2011 7:42 PM, Stephen wrote:
> Got it :-D
> I'll take a bit to compare them. O_O
Did you get the file?
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Mon, 24 Jan 2011 22:27:58 +0000, Stephen wrote:
> On 17/01/2011 7:42 PM, Stephen wrote:
>> Got it :-D
>> I'll take a bit to compare them. O_O
>
> Did you get the file?
I did indeed, and listened to it last night. Wonderful stuff. :-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 24/01/2011 10:41 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Did you get the file?
> I did indeed, and listened to it last night. Wonderful stuff.:-)
>
:-D
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/24/2011 3:20 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:17:01 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> Point is, usually the "method" goes hand in hand with the failure to
>> learn the facts needed to make an effective decision. Odds are, the vast
>> majority of people with Tarot cards *do not* use them as a system to
>> work out what to do, based on knowing sufficient facts.
>
> Sure, there are bad people in the world. That's also a consequence of a
> free society - some people will take advantage of other people.
>
> The solution isn't to remove the thing that people use to be dishonest,
> it's to address the dishonesty head on. Which is what law is intended to
> do.
>
> The same argument can be made about gun control: rather than heavily
> regulate guns in the US, make the bad usages illegal and deal with those
> who break the law.
>
> Jim
The only flaw in that is you can't go back and "undo" things that
already happened. Making bad uses illegal is meaningless if the "bad
use" is something like people dying, or losing all of their money.
Ironically, there **are** laws on the books, lots of them, making doing
either to someone illegal. Oddly enough, they have no effect at all at
either preventing the misuse of a gun, when they are easily available,
or preventing people's money stolen from them for what *they* are
convinced is real, but the shop owner only gets by with even selling at
all by labeling it "entertainment" (this rule can vary from place to
place, but in most cases the law says its legal only as an amusement).
Its con artist lying about being a magician, so that they can rob people
that believe magic actually works. Or, its someone that thinks it does
work, pretending to be a magician, because its not legal to do it
otherwise, unintentionally robbing gullible people that also believe in
it out of their money. Either way, its not strictly legal for them, at
least under a lot of laws, to claim they can *actually* do any of it,
any more than it is legal for someone selling a bottle of mostly water
(i.e. homeopathy) to *actually* claim that their tap water can cure
cancer. The problem is, more than half the idiots writing the laws
either have stake in the same game/business, or believe in it, and thus
these giant loopholes exist, like being able to sell, say, Airborne,
with no evidence, fake credentials, fake creators, fake "research
institutes", outright bold face lie about all of it, then get by with it
because the only "legal" requirement is that they do not specifically
claim that it "cures" anything (though you can claim it helps, even if
the evidence is all fishy, inconsistent, and not generally accepted by
anyone but the quacks), and it says it is a "supplement". Same, as I
said, with Tarot card readers, and the like. As long as its
"entertainment", it doesn't matter if the thief charges the target 50
cents, $50 dollars, or $50,000 dollars, they paid for an
"entertainment", and can only get in trouble of the person scammed
actually sues them, and can prove the thief *actually* claimed it was real.
Thankfully, or perhaps sadly, this isn't often too hard, whether it be
the rather inconvenient corpse resulting from lax gun control, or the
fact that nearly every practitioner of bullshit, not matter how cleverly
they work the loopholes, tends to "believe" their own BS, making it hard
for them to argue they charged someone $50,000 to be "entertained".
Or, to put it another way, you can't legislate human behavior,
gullibility, or wishful thinking by making the *outcomes* illegal. You
can only do it by limiting the range of situations where those behaviors
will produce a negative outcome. And you *definitely* can't do it if the
consequences are purely post-hoc, do not address the underlying reason
why people keep doing it, like mental illness, or poor education, and
instead do nothing but increase the jail time, or otherwise fiddle with
the punishment. You either have to prevent the behavior on some level,
or you have to make sure as few people as possible see it as a viable
option.
Some things, like psychic BS is so easy to pull, and so close to the
pre-existing "wish fulfillment" people seek anyway, that the "costs" of
getting caught, never mind the likelihood of failing to find a victim
are both easily accepted. Like a pick pocket in a room full of blind
people, with bad counting skills, and no guards. The odds that most of
them will even notice you lifting a few coins is small, and you only do
get in trouble of you are stupid enough to get overly greedy. The
cost... might be fairly high, or it might be simply not being allowed
into the innumeracy club for the blind again. If its the later, its
simple enough to just find new people to pick pocket. And *that* is the
case with "psychic" gibberish (and religions, but that is another
matter). With guns, its a bit different. We know the consequences are
stupidly high for the victim, we have set the consequence about as high
as we can get it (or as high, in places with death penalties), yet... we
have lowered the bar, in some places, to the risk of it actually
happening, the availability of the tool used to do so, and all other
factors, including the "need" some people insist they have to own dozens
of those tools, to the point where its like hoping that people don't
show up at the next comic con wearing cheesy costumes. You will *always*
be disappointed, since nearly everyone will do it, and no matter how
much you legislate the consequence, there will be the one person that
tries to show up as "the nude avenger", or something else that crosses
what ever line you placed on how bad, cheesy, or questionable the costume.
In short, make it so every has a gun, anyone can carry one, and do
**nothing** to address **any** of the other issues, or what ever excuse
there is for allowing people to get by with so many other things via
loopholes, or easy access, or failure of any oversight, when the
*actual* thing they did is illegal as hell already, and can't be made
any more so... well, the value of that is highly debatable when the
people that are injured as a result of failing to address anything but
the post-hoc punishment of the shooter, or scammer, or bank baron, or
rapist, or whatever, are either dead, scarred for life, bankrupt, or
otherwise seriously/permanently injured.
In case you are not getting what I am saying, I have no problem with
people selling Tarot cards. I have a set myself, though I found them
pretty useless for "anything" at all, unlike you. But, I would lay odds
that you are the rare exception, with a fair certainty of being right,
with respect to the number that have them, and don't either believe the
stuff they are selling (which doesn't change scamming people with them
being illegal), or *intentionally* scamming them with the things. This
doesn't mean you ban the cards, it means you make frakking law so that
they can't "entertain" anyone with them either, with being very precise
what that means, and that it doesn't mean, "Charge them stupid amounts
of money for it, or less, lot and lots of times."
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/24/2011 3:18 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 21 Jan 2011 21:26:02 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>>> Yeah, there are whackos out there. There are also non-religious
>>> whackos out there.
>>>
>> True. Though, as one person once stated it, "Do you refuse to treat a
>> recognized, and maybe curable, cancer, because there are a lot of other
>> sorts of cancers your cure won't fix?" One less source of wackos is
>> still one less source.
>
> Sure, but there are also plenty of reasonable people who are religious as
> well.
>
There is nothing "reasonable" about religion. Tolerable, yes, but not
reasonable. That said, I have no more problem tolerating fools spending
insane amounts of cash on foam hands, and the like, to see a ball game,
with all the silliness of that, than I do with those you are calling
"reasonably religious". At least up to the point where one of them
decides to piss me off by insisting that I *must* where a football
jersey, or the like, because their "team" is just ever so more important
than my own *personal* choice of wardrobe. Thankfully, sports fans get
no where *near* as unreasonable as "reasonable" religious people about
that sort of thing... Oddly enough, the later can get downright crass,
if you pick the wrong subject, day, event, or shirt, with very little
seeming interest in making sure they remain all reasonable, and the like.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:24:44 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> The only flaw in that is you can't go back and "undo" things that
> already happened.
Of course, and that's why I'm for gun control and tighter regulation of
guns in the US. "Undo" is hard to do if not impossible when death is
involved.
Slightly different when it comes to someone being swindled out of money.
> Its con artist lying about being a magician, so that they can rob people
> that believe magic actually works.
Well, PT Barnum *was* right - there's a sucker born every minute. The
question is this: How far does the law have to go in protecting people
from themselves?
One could extend that question to indicate varying degrees, too -
protecting people from being swindled out of their life savings (or from
something that would actually kill them) is one degree. Swindling
someone out of $20 for a fake "reading" that's entertainment (even if not
perceived as such by the recipient)? That's a long ways down the scale
of things to be overly concerned about.
> Or, to put it another way, you can't legislate human behavior,
> gullibility, or wishful thinking by making the *outcomes* illegal.
Depends on whether you're talking about criminal liability (ie, the
"beyond a reasonable doubt" kind of liability) or civil liability. Don't
forget that OJ was found criminally not guilty in the deaths he was
charged with, but he was found to be liable in civil court. (Maybe not
the best example). Different standards of proof for different
circumstances is my point.
> pretty useless for "anything" at all, unlike you. But, I would lay odds
> that you are the rare exception, with a fair certainty of being right,
> with respect to the number that have them, and don't either believe the
> stuff they are selling (which doesn't change scamming people with them
> being illegal), or *intentionally* scamming them with the things. This
> doesn't mean you ban the cards, it means you make frakking law so that
> they can't "entertain" anyone with them either, with being very precise
> what that means, and that it doesn't mean, "Charge them stupid amounts
> of money for it, or less, lot and lots of times."
That gets a bit too far into the "nanny state" for my tastes.
BTW, I did note you spelt "frakking" right. ;-)
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:30:27 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Sure, but there are also plenty of reasonable people who are religious
>> as well.
>>
> There is nothing "reasonable" about religion.
That's your opinion, and you are entitled to it. But I'll note that
you're conflating "reasonable people" with "reasonable about religion"
and the two are different.
> than my own *personal* choice of wardrobe. Thankfully, sports fans get
> no where *near* as unreasonable as "reasonable" religious people about
> that sort of thing...
Maybe you don't hang out with a crowd that does that. Try hanging out
with die-hard Utah Jazz fans and tell me there's a difference. I find
many of those hard-core sports fans to be much more obnoxious than people
who practice a religion, or who claim to.
You think I'm wrong, try wearing a Chicago Bulls jersey near the Energy
Solutions Arena here in SLC on game day. Or, for a real treat, try
wearing a Mets jersey in Boston (or for that matter, to a Yankees game).
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Jan 2011 14:24:44 -0700, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>
>> The only flaw in that is you can't go back and "undo" things that
>> already happened.
>
> Of course, and that's why I'm for gun control and tighter regulation of
> guns in the US. "Undo" is hard to do if not impossible when death is
> involved.
The problem is that it works both ways. You're just arguing that defenders
should die instead of attackers. If there's tight regulation on gun control,
you're letting those who ignore those regulations kill those who obey them,
without that same "undo" you're trying to control.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"How did he die?" "He got shot in the hand."
"That was fatal?"
"He was holding a live grenade at the time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 1/26/2011 3:34 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> pretty useless for "anything" at all, unlike you. But, I would lay odds
>> that you are the rare exception, with a fair certainty of being right,
>> with respect to the number that have them, and don't either believe the
>> stuff they are selling (which doesn't change scamming people with them
>> being illegal), or *intentionally* scamming them with the things. This
>> doesn't mean you ban the cards, it means you make frakking law so that
>> they can't "entertain" anyone with them either, with being very precise
>> what that means, and that it doesn't mean, "Charge them stupid amounts
>> of money for it, or less, lot and lots of times."
>
> That gets a bit too far into the "nanny state" for my tastes.
>
> BTW, I did note you spelt "frakking" right. ;-)
>
> Jim
We do this on a regular basis for "companies" that are even as small as
a mom and pop outfit, where they have to be actually *selling* what they
claim, and it has to work as advertised. Oddly, the law says that we not
only don't, but, thanks to some morons, and congressmen, though as Mark
Twain stated, "I repeat myself", you can have a multi-billion dollar
"company" that advertises one thing, sells someone else (most of the
stuff from "psychic networks", to homeopathy), and the law *can't* do
anything about it. Apparently, if you are MGM, you can be sued for
delivering a blank screen, while promising a movie, and badly enough
that you may lose your business, but if you are selling "energy
balancing" bracelets, or the like, you may only lose a few thousand, and
have the change the logo.
Its not about nanny stating. Its about getting rid of the damn loopholes
that let them do what *is* illegal otherwise, but, due to some stupid
idiocy, is either not prosecutable, not *really* illegal, in that
context, or is somehow specially privileged, so untouchable. Its about
honesty in advertising, and honesty in delivery. Neither of which means
jack, if all the person has to do is jab on a label that says, "I really
didn't mean everything I just said in 50 TV commercials, the 8 hours I
spent selling it at the convention, or implied with 800 testimonials,
mostly from people I paid to make them.", and get off scott free from
being called a liar, let alone jail time, or a sufficient punishment to
stop it happening again.
And you know the really insane thing about it? Most of this crap is made
and shipped from places like China, Taiwan, and everyone *but* the US.
So you have con artists, or just nuts, selling this stuff, basically
untouchable, as long as they put the proper legerdemain on it, and its
not even benefiting anyone *here*, but some bozo in another country, who
is laughing their asses off at both the buyer, and the seller.
--
void main () {
If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 27/01/2011 1:36 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> And you know the really insane thing about it? Most of this crap is made
> and shipped from places like China, Taiwan, and everyone *but* the US.
> So you have con artists, or just nuts, selling this stuff, basically
> untouchable, as long as they put the proper legerdemain on it, and its
> not even benefiting anyone *here*, but some bozo in another country, who
> is laughing their asses off at both the buyer, and the seller.
Another way of looking at it is, someone at home is shipping it from
China, Taiwan etc. to make a profit. But that is the free market for you.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
