On Feb 15, 2008, at 8:53 PM, James Newton wrote:

> This brings me back to my "con artists are good" argument:
>    :
> 4. Therefore, smart people separating stupid people from their  
> money before they have a chance to influence the world with it

You know, I was trying to keep this vaguely belonging in [EE]...

What makes you think that "con artists" fall into the "smart people"  
category?  I would have rated them like crackers and spammers: the  
large majority are using tools and techniques developed by a mere  
few.  You're also equating "trusting" with "stupid", and while that  
may be the way to play your cards in the real world, I certainly  
prefer to think of it as a separate dimension.  It's not like the  
majority of the people conned are greedy jerks expecting to walk away  
with half of some Nigerian's legacy that they don't deserve.  Most  
are people accepting "reasonable" sounding deals from the wrong people.

And what makes you think that making con-men wealthy isn't  
"influencing the world" (and in an unproductive direction, at that.)

BillW

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist