Slashdot Mirror


Orkut Linked To Drug Ring Bust

Dynamoo writes "Google's Orkut service has been allegedly used to sell drugs by a Brazilian outfit, according to a BBC news report. According to the report, the dealers offered pot and ecstasy for sale via the system to Brazil's large Orkut user community. Google is reported to be investigating. One interesting issue that springs to mind is: how can you monitor and moderate such a large, multilingual community such as Orkut? And what are the limits of criminal liability in a case like this?"

269 comments

  1. To confirm you're not a script, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    please type the word in this image:

    [shaving<<<</\/\/\]

  2. Legal Liability by netruner · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What is Cingular, T-Mobile and Verizon's legal liability for illegal activity ranging from petty drug dealing all the way up to terrorism when their products and network are used to perpetrate those crimes?

    --



    DISCLAIMER: This post was not checked for speling and grammar- if you complain- you're a whiner
    1. Re:Legal Liability by xiando · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What you need to know about using a Mobile Telephone in most parts of the world: They use something called GSM technology. Every GSM phone has a unique number. And every GSM customer in (almost all parts of the world) are required to be registered with the provider. It is illegal to provide anonymous cellphone subscriptions in this country and most others. Furthermore, cell phone providers must comply when police and other authorities require a real-time tap of your calls, a printout of all your text-messages and most importantly a mapped feed on your location at all times based on your phones distance from the GSM masts all over. This is how these cell phone companies are liable for criminal activity: They MUST assist fully to uncover and prove crime when asked to do so. They ARE HELD LIABLE if they are asked to comply in any criminal investigation and fail to comply.

    2. Re:Legal Liability by Com2Kid · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Three words: Cash, prepaid cellular.

    3. Re:Legal Liability by xiando · · Score: 1

      "Cash, prepaid cellular." is now Illegal in this country. Seriously. You can still put cash on a pay-phone, though..

    4. Re:Legal Liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a similar vein:

      What is the United States Postal Service's liability for drug trade within the borders of the USA?

      What is UPS's liability for international drug trade?

      It's simply the medium used to conduct business. Providing they make reasonable efforts (e.g., posted policies at the checkout) they're covered.

      Likewise, I'd presume that Google's AUP would cover them - and this is coming from someone who hates Google's current status (e.g., not doing anything significant about search engine spammers using cloaking, doorway pages, etc. which are diluting search results)

    5. Re:Legal Liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is it? Last time I checked in a shopping arcade in this country there were lots of shops selling "pay as you go" mobile phones - and you don't have to register them.

    6. Re:Legal Liability by SquadBoy · · Score: 1

      I've paid nothing but cash for my t-mobile account? What country are you in? Cause it ain't .us.

      --

      Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
    7. Re:Legal Liability by xiando · · Score: 1

      Your information is correct. This is not the US. And it is not legal to sell cell-phones without regsteringing who buys them in this country. But apart from that, it's just like any other "free" EU country.

    8. Re:Legal Liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > What is Cingular, T-Mobile and Verizon's legal liability for illegal activity

      None. Manufacturers are not liable for criminal use of their products as long as the products aren't _intended_ to be used by criminals and there are significantly more legitimate uses than illegitimate uses. Handguns come to mind. Of course, those who want to ban handguns would say they have no legitimate purposes, but YMMV. This is part of the "risk-utility" theory of products liability.

    9. Re:Legal Liability by DA-MAN · · Score: 1

      Your information is correct. This is not the US. And it is not legal to sell cell-phones without regsteringing who buys them in this country. But apart from that, it's just like any other "free" EU country.

      How about pointing to some proof of this? As far as i know there is no law that says providers must have accurate registered information.

      There are providers who won't even ask you for an address, unless you pay extra for a paper bill (MetroPCS.com).

      --
      Can I get an eye poke?
      Dog House Forum
    10. Re:Legal Liability by krunk4ever · · Score: 1

      i think it's different in this case. anyone can access orkut, because google's provided it as a public service. however, cell phones and other network mediums are private transactions, meaning i'm not allowed to listen into another person's conversation and they system won't allow me unless i deliberately hack into it. (sorta like kevin mitnick in hackers 2).

      it's the same as someone posting an ad on a newspaper selling drugs. by law, i think the newspaper is responsible for not letting that happen.

    11. Re:Legal Liability by halo1982 · · Score: 1
      "Cash, prepaid cellular." is now Illegal in this country. Seriously. You can still put cash on a pay-phone, though..

      Both times I've bought prepaid in Canada and the one time in the US I was just asked for my info, never asked to see an ID. When I signed up for Fido prepaid in Canada I gave them my home address (which was not in Canada) and the salesman just put the a made up phone number and the stores address. When I got back to the US, I then sold the activated SIM on eBay and then changed the name on the account over the phone. For all I know that SIM is still in use. As for the US, get on eBay and look for Cingular and T-Mobile prepaid SIM cards. You can get them for a few dollars and they almost always come activated with $10 or $20 in air time on it.
      Where was I going with this? With prepaid its increadibly easy to remain anonymous.

    12. Re:Legal Liability by E_elven · · Score: 1

      How in the fuck do handguns have 'more legitimate' uses than illegitimate?

      They are intended to _kill_ people.

      --
      Marxist evolution is just N generations away!
    13. Re:Legal Liability by FLEB · · Score: 1

      There are legitimate times to kill (or wound) people.

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    14. Re:Legal Liability by uncqual · · Score: 1

      - Sport target shooting.

      - Protection from animals.

      - Offensive and defensive use in warfare.

      - Self defense from evil humanoids.

      ...every one of them legal and legitimate...

      - Commission of crime.

      ...and one that isn't...

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    15. Re:Legal Liability by jim_v2000 · · Score: 1

      And every GSM customer in (almost all parts of the world) are required to be registered with the provider. It is illegal to provide anonymous cellphone subscriptions in this country and most others.

      What about "pay as you go" phone where you just buy minutes...they sell those at every Wal-Mart and 7/11 in the nation. Doesn't look illegal to me...

      --
      Don't take life so seriously. No one makes it out alive.
    16. Re:Legal Liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      It is illegal to provide anonymous cellphone subscriptions in this country and most others.

      Ever heard of Kevin Mitnick?

      OHHH I'm just sure when he calls you the number comes up as "Kevin Mitnick 555-555-5555". Give me a break.

      If you tell these idiots you're willing to sign up for a 6 month plan with a bogus credit card and the right info, you're in. It's all about the plan. Not the phone. The plan.

      Name
      Address
      SSN
      Phone NBR
      Mothers Maiden Name
      DOB

      You're in Dog! You're in!

    17. Re:Legal Liability by Luke-Jr · · Score: 1

      Correction: They are intended to fire a/many metal bullets with high pressure.

      Legit uses:
      - Killing animals for food
      - Injuring someone attempting to assault you
      - Deterring an attempt to assault you
      - Breaking a hard material (there are even specialised guns designed for this)
      - Defending your rights against a tyrannical government
      I'm sure you could find more...

      --
      Luke-Jr
    18. Re:Legal Liability by Luke-Jr · · Score: 1

      Doctors have more accidental deaths than guns do. Can anyone seriously consider banning guns without first banning doctors?

      --
      Luke-Jr
    19. Re:Legal Liability by Luke-Jr · · Score: 1

      The interesting thing about Orkut is that it is not public nor can anyone access it. You need to be invited by an existing member (no, not hard, but still necessary)-- this makes it private to some extent.

      --
      Luke-Jr
    20. Re:Legal Liability by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      handguns are not used for food. That is to say, some backwards freak in arkansas might be doing it, but 99.999999% of all food shot by a gun is shot by a rifle, not a handgun.

      Handguns are inaccurate, and don't have good range at all. Most things worth eating won't let you get close enough for a handgun to be even mildly accurate...except maybe a cow.

    21. Re:Legal Liability by KitesWorld · · Score: 1

      Umm, I can walk into a local Tesco's and buy a cellphone without having to register anything. They provide a card with the phone that you use to place credit on it (it swipes through the till like a loyalty card, they ask how much you want, and you pay, simple as that). As long as you pay cash, they can't link that phone to you without having someone chase down your signal and see who's holding the phone. It's not anonymous, in that the phone has a unique ID number, but at the same time it's not exactly traceable.

    22. Re:Legal Liability by JohnyDog · · Score: 1

      And every GSM customer in (almost all parts of the world) are required to be registered with the provider. It is illegal to provide anonymous cellphone subscriptions in this country and most others.

      Is this another 'world==USA' post ? I live in middle of europe and in every european country i've been in, there is NO such restriction. You can buy prepaid kits and recharging coupons for them in normal stores and be totally anonymous if you wish (of course the phone provided still have unique IMEI code but it can't be linked to you, and even then you can just buy other phone). I am not aware of any EU or local laws which would ban anonymous cellphone service. If you live in country which requires you to ID and register with you GSM provider, well, you're screwed, but please don't assume that rest of the world is the same.

      --
      People who like this sort of sig will find this the sort of sig they like.
    23. Re:Legal Liability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are you talking about? People hunt large game with bows. I can fire a handgun accurately at the same range that most bow hunters shoot deer.

      Also, what about shotguns? Turkeys, ducks, pheasants...all hunted with shotguns. It's even required that you use a shotgun with a slug to hunt deer in many counties in the midwestern US.

      Pull head from ass, then talk.

    24. Re:Legal Liability by droptone · · Score: 1

      It was unnecessary to list multiple instances of legitimate reasons to have/use a handgun and then to compare that to "Commission of crime". Couldn't you have used "Commission of no crime" to "Commission of crime"? Or did you just want to make it seem like there are so many more legitimate uses than illegitimate uses?

      --
      Every post I make begins with the assumption P=~P.
    25. Re:Legal Liability by xFallenAngel · · Score: 1
      And every GSM customer in (almost all parts of the world) are required to be registered with the provider. It is illegal to provide anonymous cellphone subscriptions in this country and most others.

      What about "pay as you go" phone where you just buy minutes...they sell those at every Wal-Mart and 7/11 in the nation. Doesn't look illegal to me...

      I don't know how this is handled in "other parts of the world" or even other parts of europe, but in germany you are required to identify yourself with a legal document if you want to buy a prepaid ("pay as you go") SIM card. You dont have to show your documents when you recharge your card, but still your data is saved with the provider at the moment you buy the initial card and/or phone.

    26. Re:Legal Liability by uncqual · · Score: 1
      The post asked (in such an elegant way) "How in the fuck do handguns have 'more legitimate' uses than illegitimate?".

      Perhaps you figured out what the highly sophisticated question was - and perhaps I guessed incorrectly that the poster was counting the number of roles that handguns play and comparing the number of legitimate vs. illegitimate roles.

      I could have of course listed each type of crime (holding up convenience stores, car jackings, bank robberies and so on) but then I would also have to include each type of sport shooting. You want to define the question to insure there are only two uses (illegitimate and legitimate) - in which case the answer to the original question would be that 50% of the uses are illegitimate and 50% are illegitimate - making the question meaningless.

      If one examines the the primary reason that each handgun is acquired, a taxonomy such as I provided is reasonable (although, incomplete). I could be mistaken, but I doubt that most handguns used for illegitimate uses are acquired for a specific type of crime (i.e., when a gang member acquires a gun, I doubt that s/he knows which type of crime it will be used to commit, but does anticipate that it will be used primarily for criminal use) however, many guns are acquired just for sport uses - and in most cases are not even a good choice for other uses (for example, a Ruger Government Target Model .22 is a pretty bad choice for any other use but sport shooting).

      If one counts instances of usage, obviously there are more legitimate usages per year than illegitimate. This is true if you compare the number of handguns involved each year in illegitimate uses to legitimate uses OR if you compare number of rounds fired for legitimate uses vs. illegitimate uses. So, what DO you want to count? The reality is that far more shots are fired for legitimate reasons and far more guns are used for legitimate purposes than for illegitimate purposes.

      --
      Why is there an "insightful" mod and why isn't it "-1"? If I wanted insight, I wouldn't be reading /.
    27. Re:Legal Liability by quinto2000 · · Score: 1

      believe it or not, shooting to wound is generally less legal than shooting to kill (in defensive situations).

      --
      Ceci n'est pas un post
    28. Re:Legal Liability by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      first: bows have better accuracy than handguns. A good archer can adjust for things. An expert marksman can't adjust for the fact that a handgun doesn't fix imperfect bullets.

      Second, shotguns aren't handguns.

    29. Re:Legal Liability by coopex · · Score: 1

      A blanket statement that bows aren't more accurate than handguns? Proof please, or I call BS. (And an expert bowhunter can't adjust for the fact that a bow doesn't fix imperfect arrows).

      Second, do you even know what a shotgun is? It requires you to get close (relative to, say, rifle distance) to your target, the same reason you gave that handguns can't be used for hunting. Since shotguns can't be used for hunting, I'm wondering what *really* was in that quail stew my uncle made.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    30. Re:Legal Liability by FLEB · · Score: 1

      Really? Explain. (I don't disbelieve you, I'm just curious.)

      --
      Information wants to be free.
      Entertainment wants to be paid.
      You just want to be cheap.
    31. Re:Legal Liability by rjshields · · Score: 1

      Doctors are trying to cure people, guns are not.

      --
      In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
    32. Re:Legal Liability by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      do YOU know what a shotgun is? Shotguns don't need to be accurate - they spray hundreds of small pellets.

      A rifle is called a rifle because it has rifling - the barrel is designed to spin the bullet, and to be long enough to straighten out it's path.

      A handgun doesn't have that, nor does it have the benefit of spray.

      600 years ago, longbowmen were accurately hitting targets at 250 yards. Why? The feathers on an arrow are designed to give that same rifling effect.

      In the Olympics, archery is done at 70 meters. The longest range for pistols is 50 meters. Contests for archery generally are done at longer ranges than handguns. Why? A bullet from a pistol will certainly travel much, much further than an arrow. The problem is simply that handguns are *inaccurate*. The distances used in archery are simply because of the actual *range* of the weapon, not it's accuracy.

      Try to get a little informed before you attempt to correct someone.

    33. Re:Legal Liability by rjshields · · Score: 1
      Correction: They are intended to fire a/many metal bullets with high pressure.
      What's the point of having a gun if it's not to kill or maim or threaten? Is it for recreational use? Part of the interest has to do with the feeling of power possessing and firing a deadly weapon. I don't really see shooting an assailant as being a legitimate use for guns when there are other non-lethal ways to incapacitate a person. Who needs to shoot food nowadays? Is your local supermarket very poorly stocked? Defending yourself against a tyrannical government - that's a good one if you want to get yourself shot and killed by police. Breaking a hard material - oh yes, I'm sure many people use their guns for this. It would be fitting that the bullet ricochets and hits them in the head.
      --
      In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
    34. Re:Legal Liability by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      oh and note that I never said shotguns aren't used for hunting - I said handguns aren't. Shotguns are great for hitting birds, who are genetically trained from countless millenia of experience that once they are in the air, they are safe. Shoot a cloud of bb's at a bird, know how to overshoot for the rapid deceleration of the cloud, and tada! Dead bird. No need for accuracy with a shotgun. You might want to go down and shoot a shotgun at a target at some point, and see what happens. It might be pretty informative, since you seem to think accuracy matters a hill of beans with shotguns.

    35. Re:Legal Liability by coopex · · Score: 1

      Never been quail hunting before eh? Dispersion isn't some magic factor that corrects for the inherent inaccuracy of a shotgun, you need to use a small size shot, and get quite a few into a bird to guarantee a kill, I don't know exact numbers since my uncle was kind enough to pick the shot out himself - maybe some actual hunter can reply. Furthermore, you use a shotgun hunting moving birds - I would assume that hunting with a hundgun would be for small stationary game, as a rifle or bow is used with large stationary game.

      Additionally, modern handgun barrels are rifled, which causes the bullet to spin, giving it more stability in flight.

      I'm still waiting for quantative evidence of the accuracy of arrows vs hanguns, not stuff you pulled out of your ass.

      Might wanna take your own advice about being informed.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    36. Re:Legal Liability by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      the fact that longbow competitions have further ranges than those for pistols doesn't matter to you, does it.

      You don't even know what ammunition you've used. I, on the other hand, was an 0311 infantry grunt in the United States Marine Corps. I've been trained to use more different types of weapons than you've probably even seen.

    37. Re:Legal Liability by coopex · · Score: 1

      I'm still waiting for proof, and ad homiem attacks make me think you're just mad you just kicked out for making a pass at your CO.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    38. Re:Legal Liability by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      how much more proof do you need than archery competitions are at a longer range than pistol competitions?

    39. Re:Legal Liability by xiando · · Score: 1

      "How about pointing to some proof of this?"

      You are required to understand a gibberish language called Norwegian to understand these links. If you do, however, you will find absolute proof that it is in fact not legal to allow anyone to use a cell-phone network without having a record of their real name and address in Norway.

      http://odin.dep.no/sd/norsk/dok/regpubl/stmeld/028 001-040008/hov005-bn.html
      http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/nett/article9078 03.ece
      http://www.jus.no/?id=21324
      http://amobil.no/art.php?artikkelid=17260

    40. Re:Legal Liability by coopex · · Score: 1

      How about actual proof, in say, references to tests of pistols used for hunting vs bows used for hunting?

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    41. Re:Legal Liability by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      tell you what - for every "pistol hunting" magazine you can find (where the targets aren't human) I'll find 20 bow hunting magazines. Why? Because people hunt with bows, but they don't with pistols...within the standard deviation, at least. There are people that masturbate with sandpaper too, which would be just as intelligent. As such, in a world of 8 billion people, I can't really say "no one hunts with pistols" because, well, there's plenty of #'s to account for people doing stupid things.

      It's simply common knowledge. Maybe not for you, but that's just because you don't know much about the subject. It would be like asking me to find sites comparing speeds of 18 wheelers to speeds of motorcycles - why would someone dedicate a site to that? It should be apparent to anyone who knows anything about both vehicles.

      Why don't you go target practice with an arrangement of both weapons, and get back to me.

    42. Re:Legal Liability by coopex · · Score: 1

      I didn't ask for if people hunted with pistol, I asked for comparison of the accuracy of pistol vs bow. Since you have claimed that pistols are to inaccurate for hunting, and have failed to provide said data, I take it that you withdraw your claim and admit that pistols are accurate enough to be used for hunting.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
    43. Re:Legal Liability by dAzED1 · · Score: 1

      are you this much of a stubborn idiot in person?

      GO USE BOTH YOURSELF.

      It is *obvious* to anyone who has.

      Are there pistol hunting magazines? No. Why? Because pistols are inaccurate. Why are archery competitions always at longer ranges than pistol competitions? Because pistols are LESS FARKING ACCURATE.

      Again - you're effectively asking me to find someone who has dedicated a sight to races between 18wheelers and motorcycles. Anyone that knows much about both knows there's not a point in wondering about the race, because the motorcycle will win. The pistol has it's own utility though - it can be put in a pocket, and pulled out and used against someone (ie - a person) that didn't know you were armed.

      Pistols are not useful for *anything* other than short-range, and most of that is against people. Some is against snakes or rabid dogs, but for the most part...people. Do cops carry bows and arrows? No, because they don't need to shoot someone 200 yards away, they need to shoot someone up close that is attacking them.

      I just tried to find anything comparing the two (since hey, like I said and you ignored, people masturbate with sandpaper) and the only thing that came up that made comments along these lines was this site, with the quote "Accuracy. 50 yards is a looooong way with a pistol" and "Only the internet have people shooting handguns and killing deer and such at 100yrds plus." Note that these people are pistol lovers! Also note that 400 year old bows were accurately used at 250 yards!

      Will you freakin get a grip, and actually go USE goth types of weapons before continuing to talk out of your ass? The only reason it isn't overwhelmingly obvious to you that bows are considerably more accurate than handguns, is because you don't have experience with both (or hell, you probably don't have any experience with either weapon).

      Just go to a range somewhere. Do it *yourself*. You're trying to race a motorcycle and an 18 wheeler. While people who don't know anything about either vehicle might not know better (geeks on /.? say it isn't so!) go tell someone who knows jack about either that you think the 18-wheeler will win the race. That's what you're saying. There won't be sites dedicated to it, because it's OBVIOUS to anyone who would have the data to compile into a site in the first place.

    44. Re:Legal Liability by coopex · · Score: 1

      If it's such an obvious fact, then there should be mounds of evidence that pistols aren't useful for hunting because of accuracy. Since all you have provided are petty insults and "it's obvious", I take it you have no evidence, and therefore concede that pistols are accurate enough for hunting.

      --
      The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
  3. uh oh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Begin shameless advertising for MSN Spaces in 5...4...3...

  4. What is wrong with Marijuana? by linzeal · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I'm sure such services facilitate the transaction between brewers of beer and makers of wine. Why does marijuana which is less damaging than both when injested instead of inhaled deserve any attention from police? MDMA is different and has been linked to brain damage by multiple studies I believe.

    1. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It makes you spell things like injested! Is that like injecting and jesting at the same time?

    2. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by DrHanser · · Score: 2, Informative

      This has been refuted in recent times. In the 80s during the Reagan administration quite a few flawed and slanted studies were done on ecstasy that showed that it was dangerous. The reality of it is that long-term use of MDMA does not put "holes" in your brain or anything like it.

      People who trust everything the government says are fools, particularly when there's an agenda involved, like the "Just say no to drugs" campaign.

      --
      What is humor if not pain tempered by time?
    3. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by DigiShaman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Simple. The "War on Drugs" made pot the poster child in front of the public. In order to not back down and lose governmental credit to its citizens, it must always make pot "evil" as to save face.

      In other words, regardless of medical evidence now days, the "war on drugs" mantra is past the point of no return in regards to its immage. As such, the lie must continue for the "greater good" of the war.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    4. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by JonN · · Score: 2

      The point of this topic is not if Marijuana should be legalized, but how can this type of illict transaction be stopped in the future? Regardless of the hazards of Marijuana and Ecstasy, the fact remains that they are illegal, and as such, the laws should be enforced. The drug trade is such a problem in the common parents head, that enforcing the laws against trafficing is much more important to the police then other laws that they may choose to put lesser importance on.

      --
      do.what.promptcmds
    5. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by Nefarious420 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The problem is that the War On Drugs is pure propaganda completely based in slanted studies. Let the true facts be damned! If the war on drugs were to be stopped and only opiates, cocaine and illegal behind the counter related drugs were consider illegal we could end starvatation in this country as well as repair our defunct medical system and cure many other ills.

    6. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Beg your pardon?
      Just legalize them and the problem of illicit transactions is gone. Simple. Effective.

    7. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by 0x0000 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The Reagan administration also told us catsup is a vegetable. Now the same idiots think they can convince teenagers to stop having sex.

      People who trust everything the government says are fools

      While that was once true, times have changed. Nowadays people who trust anything the government says are fools.

      --
      "The Internet is made of cats."
    8. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by xiando · · Score: 1

      The fact that marijuana is completely harmless and far less dangerous than alcohol is totally irrelevant for Orkuts involvement in the distribution of illegal substances. Orkut, and any other public service for that matter, can not condone or assist in the breaking of any (local) law regardless of their personal view on the matter. Orkuts view on the legal status of cannabis, if they for some strange reason have one, is irrelevant for their obligation to assist authorities in striking down on criminal activity with bolts of lightning and furious anger.

    9. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is the duty of all patriots to violate unjust laws.

    10. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      In areas where we have real crime, and real problems facing our communities, we spoke slowly and clearly at the ballot box, again, so we could have our voices heard and understood in the elections this past November.

      - OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA (WIN): An MPP-funded measure to make personal marijuana offenses the lowest priority for local law enforcement and direct the city to tax and regulate marijuana as soon as state law permits it passed by 64%.

    11. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by runderwo · · Score: 1
      No, MDMA has never been shown to cause brain damage, only an excess of serotonin when it is abused. This excess can lead to the depression and burnout that heavy MDMA users tend to experience. The most risky aspect of MDMA is that of dehydration and irresponsible sexual behavior, and of not being able to obtain medical treatment for an overdose without the consequence of going to jail.

      IMO, neither of these substances deserve attention from police besides to regulate their purity and ensure that they are not sold to persons under the age of 21.

    12. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by runderwo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      To elaborate on your statement against the inevitable rebuttal, saying that it is foolish to trust the government does *NOT* mean that none of the propaganda the government puts out is true. (Some of it *is* true.) It just means that so much of it is demonstrably false that now a statement being made by the government is an extremely weak predictor of whether or not the statement is actually true. Or in other words, even a broken clock is right twice a day.

    13. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is so dumb. Opiates shouldn't be illegal. They should be cheap, clean, and plentiful.

    14. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by rjshields · · Score: 0
      Why does marijuana which is less damaging than both when injested instead of inhaled deserve any attention from police?

      Long term cannabis use can lead to psychosis. Two of my friends suffered from drug psychosis when I was younger, it's not pretty. Alcohol of course can be equally as damaging.
      --
      In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
    15. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      IIRC, it can only cause psychosis in people that already have a predisposition to it. In that same vein, it's not the cannabis that causes the psychosis, it simply brings it to the surface.

    16. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by Koiu+Lpoi · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with it? I'll tell you what's wrong with it - once the people hand their right to do something over to the government, the government almost never gives it back.

    17. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What I think is funny is that Orkut is a network of "trusted friends."

      So if you can trust your orkut neighbors, who's the snitch?

    18. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by mav[LAG] · · Score: 1

      No, MDMA has never been shown to cause brain damage, only an excess of serotonin when it is abused.

      I would call the results of blasting the neuron filters in the brain through artificially induced excess serotonin "brain damage" myself but that's just me. Oh, and maybe also a friend who overdosed because he kept wanting that first high and didn't realise that he could never get it back since his neurons were permanently damaged. He might call it brain damage but he's past speech now. Past anything in fact.

      --
      --- Hot Shot City is particularly good.
    19. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by BewireNomali · · Score: 1

      I worked as a research associate on a pharmaceutical study for benzodiazepines and their effect on movement disorders such as Tourette's.

      Our subjects had to honestly disclose drug use as we did extensive testing. We did imaging on our subjects at the end of the study. EVERY user of ecstacy in our study had some form of (visible to the naked eye) brain lesions. Every one. We had a large pool of participants.

      The reality of my experience is that I would not recommend the recreational use of MDMA.

      --
      un burrito me trampeó.
    20. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by runderwo · · Score: 1
      I'm sorry about your friend, but overdose due to tolerance and inaccurate dosage is not a phenomenon unique to MDMA. We see it every day with alcohol and prescription drugs as well as various other illegal drugs. I was not claiming that it is impossible to overdose on MDMA. I was claiming that abuse (or use) within the range of dosage required for recreational effect carries little risk of harm with it.

      The brain damage that is associated with MDMA overdose occurs at levels far beyond where additional dosage would have any additional recreational effect. Perhaps if we were not so irrationally paranoid about adult drug use, he would have known that certain antidepressants can prevent any potential perma-fry in the case of an overdose - that is, if he would continue overdosing in the first place given knowledge of *that* potential harm.

    21. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by ShieldW0lf · · Score: 1

      The answer is abundantly clear. This type of illicit transaction CANNOT be stopped. It has never been successfully stopped, it can never be successfully stopped, and if it ever somehow became possible to control people so totally as to be able to stop it, it would be well past time to overthrow the government. The answer to how to stop all this organized crime is the same as it was during prohibition days: let the people enjoy themselves, and give them the ability to purchase the things they enjoy with some degree of confidence in it's safety.

      --
      -1 Uncomfortable Truth
    22. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "Or in other words, even a broken clock is right twice a day."

      Not necessarily. A stopped clock is right twice a day, but a "broken" clock that randomly gains and/or loses time, may only be right once in a while.

    23. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by foreverdisillusioned · · Score: 2, Informative

      Actually, MDMA may not be all that bad. It is linked to brain damage in rats, but the same study also proved that you could prevent 100% of the damage by administering an SSRI (Prozac, Zoloft, St. John's Wort, etc.)

    24. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by mangu · · Score: 1
      The fact that marijuana is completely harmless and far less dangerous than alcohol


      Do you care to elaborate about that? I find it hard to believe that any kind of smoking could be considered "harmless". Smoke contains the products of combustion, many of which have been proved beyond any reasonable doubt to be harmful.


      Perhaps one could argue for chewing hashish, but smoking anything, be it marijuana, opium, or tobacco, is harmful from the effects of the smoke alone, no matter which is the substance being smoked.

    25. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by runderwo · · Score: 1
      There are several problems with the research supposedly showing that cannabis use causes psychosis. The most glaring is that many people appear to self-medicate with cannabis. Your friends may have been headed down that road already. Keep in mind that people also develop psychosis without the help of cannabis, and even heavy cannabis users rarely develop mental problems (in fair studies where the normal short-term effects of cannabis are not counted), so cannabis use or non-use is a very poor predictor for psychosis.

      Alcohol carries the risk of permanent brain and liver damage and overdose death, which is far from "equally" as cannabis.

    26. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by 01000011011101000111 · · Score: 1

      Brilliant... That's the best description of gov't propaganda I've read for a long time :D

      --
      Programming is an Art. I am an Artist. Does that mean I get to wear a daft hat?
    27. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by 01000011011101000111 · · Score: 1

      As someone who has "gotten better" after (almost certainly drug induced) wide ranging paranoia & hypochondria (not to mention the full blown panic attacks), I'm left wondering if a fair chunk of drug related psychosis are due the the drugs illegal nature... I mean, a percentage of users are constantly (even if only subconciously) paranoid about getting busted - add to this anti-drugs propaganda causing health fears and you have people living with near-constant paranioa... And given that afaik most cannaboid-based psychosis is commonly viewed as some paranoia derivative (hypochondria, paranoid schitzophrenia, etc.), it does seem possible that there's some link. (Especially when you consider that psychadelics - marijuana, coke, LSD, 'shrooms & Mescaline derivatives - tend to put the user in a rather programmable state anyway...)

      Just my perspective on this...

      --
      Programming is an Art. I am an Artist. Does that mean I get to wear a daft hat?
    28. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by Luke-Jr · · Score: 1

      Um.... "irresponsible sexual behavior" can only really be caused by either stupidity (in which case MDMA would make no difference) or brain damage (be it temporary or permenant).

      --
      Luke-Jr
    29. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by Kremmy · · Score: 1

      So I have one small question:
      Out of your entire pool of participants, how many had some form of (visible to the naked eye) brain lesions?
      Also, can you link me to the results of your studies so that I can review them for myself?
      Statistics are meaningless, it's how you present them.

    30. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by John+Betonschaar · · Score: 1

      I'm left wondering if a fair chunk of drug related psychosis are due the the drugs illegal nature...

      I don't think so. I live in The Netherlands, and here it is legal to use Marijuana (and no: not any other drugs as some people think). I can confirm from my own experience that even then you can get pretty paranoid from smoking weed, to the point that you'd rather stay in then go out where other people are. Also you can get symptoms of hypochondria, I've experienced that myself as well, but I attribute that more to stress than drugs.

      That said, this is all *only* when you're already not feeling at ease when you smoke, or when you are under heavy stress. The drug just *enhances* your mood, it does not really change it. That's why I don't use drugs when I'm feeling uncomfortable anymore, and in this case I think Marijuana is completely harmless.

      Compared to alcohol: I've done pretty stupid things when I was drunk, even dangerous and irresponsible things, and the day after I was always completely wasted. Alcohol is definitely not healthy. It can induce aggression, irresponsible actions, and make you do things you'll regret later. Marijuana does not have these side effects in my experience, and I don't believe it induces psychosis. I have many friends who use it, but the only one suffering from psychosis has never in her life used Marijuana, so that seems a pretty strong indication that the two are not that closely linked...

    31. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by droptone · · Score: 1
      I've done pretty stupid things when I was drunk, even dangerous and irresponsible things, and the day after I was always completely wasted. Alcohol is definitely not healthy. It can induce aggression, irresponsible actions, and make you do things you'll regret later.
      This is a matter of personal control I believe. You can drink alcohol and remain relatively in control of your actions. You need not get drunk every time you drink. How many times have you been aggressive, done irresponsible actions, or done things you'll later regret while sober? I doubt the answer is zero. Messing up is a symptom of life, not alcohol. Alcohol may allow you to disregard your inhibitions, but that needed "force" you to do anything that you don't want to do.

      To be truthful, and entirely irrelevant, I've done stupid, dangerous, and irresponsible things while sober. I believe we all have. So what?
      --
      Every post I make begins with the assumption P=~P.
    32. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by DigitalCrackPipe · · Score: 1

      The police are intended to resolve issues with people not obeying the law. Ideally, it's not up to them to judge which laws to enforce. If you don't like the police giving attention to marijuana dealers and users, you should be asking why it's illegal, not "why are the police doing their job".

      The laws, of course are either the will of society, or the will of legislators (depending on how you look at things).

    33. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by John+Betonschaar · · Score: 1

      This is a matter of personal control I believe. You can drink alcohol and remain relatively in control of your actions.

      True, but my point is that alcohol *increases the likelyhood* that you will not stay in control of your actions. It makes you cross or forget about borders you'd normally stay within.

      You need not get drunk every time you drink.

      Also true, but I suggest you take a look at the people going home at 4am when the bars close here, and see how many of them had one or two to many (I can tell you it's around half of them). People tend to do thinks 'they do not need to do' all the time...

      How many times have you been aggressive, done irresponsible actions, or done things you'll later regret while sober? I doubt the answer is zero. Messing up is a symptom of life, not alcohol.

      I've never been aggressive myself, not when drunk, not when sober. But I know enough people that do change significantly when drunk, for the worst most of the time. I friend of mine even spent a night in jail after insulting a police officer when he was under the influence alcohol. He has never been in any sort of problems when he was sober.

      Alcohol may allow you to disregard your inhibitions, but that needed "force" you to do anything that you don't want to do.

      That might be true for you and me, but unfortunately lots of people are not that responsible and forget their limits when drunk. There's just no denying that..

    34. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by linzeal · · Score: 1

      That is why there is 10 million people committing civil disobedience in regards to the herb every day.

    35. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by rjshields · · Score: 1
      I'm left wondering if a fair chunk of drug related psychosis are due the the drugs illegal nature...
      It's barely illegal to smoke cannabis here in the UK, if you get caught you get relieved of your cannabis and a slap on the wrist, that's if the police don't decide to turn a blind eye. To say people are overly concerned about the legality of cannabis smoking here is probably an untruth.
      --
      In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
    36. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by rjshields · · Score: 1
      There are several problems with the research supposedly showing that cannabis use causes psychosis. The most glaring is that many people appear to self-medicate with cannabis. Your friends may have been headed down that road already. Keep in mind that people also develop psychosis without the help of cannabis, and even heavy cannabis users rarely develop mental problems (in fair studies where the normal short-term effects of cannabis are not counted), so cannabis use or non-use is a very poor predictor for psychosis.
      No, you're confusing psychosis with a psychotic illness such as schizophrenia. Anyone can suffer from drug-induced psychosis but a predisposition is required to develop a psychotic illness.
      --
      In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
    37. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by rjshields · · Score: 1
      Alcohol carries the risk of permanent brain and liver damage and overdose death, which is far from "equally" as cannabis.
      My exact words were "alcohol of course can be equally as damaging". You are implying that I said alcohol cannot be more damaging than cannabis, which I didn't.
      --
      In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
    38. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by 01000011011101000111 · · Score: 1

      Please keep in mind the fact that I was thinking of the period when I was smoking heavily - at which time, getting caught with more than about a quarter meant being charged with intent to supply... (not that anyone ever got caught, but the threat was real enough)... Oh, and it depends *where* in the uk you smoke - if I'd got busted at my old house (about two doors down from a school) I'd be looking at porridge, w/o a shadow of a doubt - personal use be damned...

      --
      Programming is an Art. I am an Artist. Does that mean I get to wear a daft hat?
    39. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by rjshields · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure which period you are referring to, but I hardly think possesion of a quarter could be interpreted as intent to supply, you can smoke that in a few days without trying too hard. I've never actually been caught with cannabis so I don't know what would happen, but IME dealers usually have more than a couple of ounces.

      --
      In this world nothing is certain but death, taxes and flawed car analogies.
    40. Re:What is wrong with Marijuana? by 01000011011101000111 · · Score: 1

      Heh... true, but the question is, what do the police see as reasonable... I've known people before now with a half or full 9-bar for personal use only... and that's not exactly regarded as such (the guys in question *were* going through about an ounce or two a week, so it's only a month's stash, but still...) Also depends where in the country you are - the Devon police for example used to take a very strict line (the good side being there were hardly any coppers around...)

      --
      Programming is an Art. I am an Artist. Does that mean I get to wear a daft hat?
  5. Multilingual? by the_rev_matt · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Since when is Orkut multilingual? I gave up on the site many many months ago when posting something in english in any of the dozens of forums I was in resulted in 20-30 abusive responses in portuguese.

    The Brazilians took over Orkut long ago, it's useless to anyone else.

    --
    this is getting old and so are you

    blog

    1. Re:Multilingual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think that's a pretty damn RACIST thing to say. By the way, do you mind if I post all my trolls to Slashdot in leet?

    2. Re:Multilingual? by wronski · · Score: 3, Funny

      You should welcome your new Brazilian overlords!

    3. Re:Multilingual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Dude... I'm actually Portuguese and I left Orkut almost a year ago due to Brazilian portuguese abuse (not that I had that much use for it. I never "got" social networking in the first place).
      Most Brazilians (like most French, Spanish, and... Americans) are terrible at other languages, and they just don't care. (French and Americans, especially, are totally obnoxious when it comes to languages: many of them refuse to speak any other language unless they REALLY have to).

    4. Re:Multilingual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It turns out the forums have a "language"
      setting. So, if you continue to ignore the
      language preference of the people who created the
      forum, I don't wonder at the abuse.

      I also don't doubt that you'll encounter random
      abuse in English forums. You should grow
      thicker skin if this bothers you. You should
      also investigate some of the ignore options
      as well.

      Before you reply, answer this: Are you aware
      of *ANY* place on the Internetw here every
      post is loving and kind, the community is
      nothing but friends, and everyone's shit
      smells like roses? Such a thing does not
      exist. People post because they have a
      reaction strong enough to prompt them to
      type. This, by design, is going to get
      many negative reactions.

      Realize this, and you're on your way to having
      thicker skin.

    5. Re:Multilingual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Todas as suas bases estão pertencendo a nós!!!

    6. Re:Multilingual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You
      should
      not
      use
      so
      many
      fucking
      line
      br eaks
      asshat

    7. Re:Multilingual? by mesach · · Score: 2, Funny

      I was kinda getting used to all the responses in Dutch, now I have to worry about Brazilian?

      --
      moo.
    8. Re:Multilingual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHAHAHAA I wish I had modpoints...

    9. Re:Multilingual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $uur d00d! Gho r8 @hed.

    10. Re:Multilingual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you should worry about Portuguese.

    11. Re:Multilingual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK, how about calling it a culture thing? (I'm not the grandparent)

      Back in the day I ran an irc server and a few chans. We had a HUGE problem with brazillians. Abusive and no tollerence of anybody not from Brazil. So how's this:

      People from Brazil TEND to be assholes who have no patience for anybody else and no desire to try to understand that not everybody speaks their language.

      Heck, how about:

      People from Brazil TEND to be RACIST themselves.

      I would assert those statements to be very true. It's sad to see that it's still that way, but it looks to me more like Brazilians have the problem and not the rest of the planet.

    12. Re:Multilingual? by Wonko · · Score: 4, Funny

      Americans, especially, are totally obnoxious when it comes to languages: many of them refuse to speak any other language unless they REALLY have to

      That is a completely FALSE statement. I am an American, and I absolutely REFUSE to put myself in a situation where I would be required to speak any other language.

      :)

    13. Re:Multilingual? by Nasarius · · Score: 2, Interesting
      (French and Americans, especially, are totally obnoxious when it comes to languages: many of them refuse to speak any other language unless they REALLY have to).

      You have it slightly wrong. Most French people at least know a couple other languages. The vast, vast majority of Americans simply do not have any ability in any language other than English. Blame the crappy setup of the school system.

      --
      LOAD "SIG",8,1
    14. Re:Multilingual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I gave up on the site many many months ago when posting something in english in any of the dozens of forums I was in resulted in 20-30 abusive responses in portuguese.

      Were these ENGLISH forums that you were posting to? I have a feeling that they weren't. Who's the jerk now?

    15. Re:Multilingual? by cameldrv · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Blame the lack of necessity. I can travel in the U.S. and Canada, an area about the size of Europe, and except for small enclaves, everyone will know English. On the other hand, a French person is unlikely to be able to travel more than a few hundred miles before he needs to speak another language to blend in with the culture.

    16. Re:Multilingual? by pyrrhonist · · Score: 1
      Before you reply, answer this: Are you aware of *ANY* place on the Internetw here every post is loving and kind, the community is nothing but friends, and everyone's shit smells like roses?

      OMG, you just described alt.flame!

      --
      Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
    17. Re:Multilingual? by IronChef · · Score: 5, Funny

      How do you know the replies were abusive if you don't speak Portuguese? Maybe they were inviting you over to meet their sisters.

    18. Re:Multilingual? by clem · · Score: 1

      This is exactly why I'm learning Esperanto -- so I can effectively troll everyone on the Orkut forums at once.

      Now how do you say, "Score me some?" in Esperanto?

      --
      Your courageous and selfless spelling corrections have made me a better person.
    19. Re:Multilingual? by Whyte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You have it slightly wrong. Most French people at least know a couple other languages. The vast, vast majority of Americans simply do not have any ability in any language other than English. Blame the crappy setup of the school system.

      That isn't all that true. I would imagine if you counted the numbers of both legal and illegal immigrants, and the numbers of college educated individuals in the U.S. you would have a fairly sizable portion of the U.S. that speaks two or more languages.

      One of the main reasons why you don't find high levels of foreign language capacity in the U.S. is due to relatively successful economic integration. By the third generation, 97% of immigrants to the U.S. are speaking (americanized) English as their primary language.

      Singling out a specific country as an example would denegrate the analysis, but a number of countries in Europe have large 2nd and 3rd generation cultural enclaves which have not integrated economically. The result of which is an economic need to support multiple languages within their society. Basic economic utility dictates that the language of commerce will become your most common language. When you have segmented economic markets within your society you will naturally have segmented language markets as well.

      --
      -- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
    20. Re:Multilingual? by NanoGator · · Score: 1

      "Blame the crappy setup of the school system."

      That's part of the problem. The other part of the problem is that in the USA, you can't drive for a day and wind up in another country that speaks a different language. Shake your head if you like, but it's hard to remember a language if you don't get much chance to use it. This country's pretty fucking big.

      --
      "Derp de derp."
    21. Re:Multilingual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Back in the day I ran an irc...

      That's where I usually stop reading...

    22. Re:Multilingual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to be a grammar nazi in portuguese.. but it's :
      Toda a sua base nos pertence!

    23. Re:Multilingual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Err. You want to be a grammar nazi with a translation from "All your base are belong to us"? You sure don't know English enough to understand the original then!

    24. Re:Multilingual? by bergwitz · · Score: 1

      Except that the foreign languages we speak are other European languages, not that of immigrants. Usually it's mother tongue + English and for those with more education one or two additional languages (French, German or Spanish).

      Your theory has no hold in reality.

      Secondly, many immigrants in US speaks only Spanish, even in 2nd and 3rd generation.

      --
      Evolution is just a scientific theory. Creationism is not.
    25. Re:Multilingual? by mangu · · Score: 1
      Most Brazilians (like most French, Spanish, and... Americans) are terrible at other languages, and they just don't care.


      Well, at least Brazilians and Americans are somewhat justified in doing so. In many parts of Brazil and the USA you have to drive for at least a couple of days in the same direction before you find any people who speak a different language. Can't say the same about the French and Spanish, though...

    26. Re:Multilingual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Na verdade seria "Toda sua base são pertencentes a nós"

    27. Re:Multilingual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Dude. The original phrase is broken, too. The fun stems from the very bad English they used on it.

      Pare de gastar seu tempo tentando consertar esta frase!

      E lembre-se: é nóis na fita do Slashdot! Só diretoria! :) Vamo tomá conta, como fizemo com o tal do Iorgúrtio! ahuheuhauhe

    28. Re:Multilingual? by HermanAB · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the US appears to be a polylingual country. There are multiple groups of monolingual people, who never talk to each other and very few multilingual people. The US is just a smaller version of Europe after all.

      --
      Oh well, what the hell...
    29. Re:Multilingual? by syylk · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The vast, vast majority of Americans simply do not have any ability in any language other than English.

      More often than not, many of them lack also the ability in proper english. :)

      Its/it's, your/you're, there/their, then/than, etc. anyone?

    30. Re:Multilingual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most of them don't even understand or write decent portuguese either.

      I mean, they translate books from Portuguese authors (from Portugal) into Brazilian Portuguese, and even dub the few tv programs from Portugal that they show there...

      But they sure as hell know how to play soccer :-)

    31. Re:Multilingual? by droptone · · Score: 1

      And the most high babelfish translator says: "All its bases are belonging we!" ;)

      --
      Every post I make begins with the assumption P=~P.
    32. Re:Multilingual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Heh, there's a huge difference between not knowing Portuguese and knowing a culturally different Portuguese. I have no absolute measuring method, but I'd say there are more differences between the languages spoken in Brazil and Portugal (in pretty much every aspect, from grammar to pronounciation to colloquial forms) than in British and American English. And that does not make any of these languages "wrong", just unique due to historical reasons.

      That just shows ignorance on your part.

    33. Re:Multilingual? by edunbar93 · · Score: 1

      Americans, especially, are totally obnoxious when it comes to languages: many of them refuse to speak any other language unless they REALLY have to

      No, actually Americans completely refuse to speak anything but English EVEN IF they really have to. Like when they're in foreign countries where English is not spoken. And then they wonder why people get all pissy when they're visiting.

      --
      "No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
    34. Re:Multilingual? by dangil · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ta Dominado, Ta TUDO dominado ! ....

  6. Whoa! This is heavy.. by PDXNerd · · Score: 2, Interesting

    In other news, a new device called a "cellphone" was recently used in the bust of three columbian druglords. Apparently they were using the address book feature to store phone numbers of other drug lords and were using the "voice" features to network and make deals. How does one go about "wiretapping" and busting such a multi-lingual and diverse group of folk who use "cellphones?"

    1. Re:Whoa! This is heavy.. by ewg · · Score: 1

      "Colombian" with an 'o'.

      --
      org.slashdot.post.SignatureNotFoundException: ewg
    2. Re:Whoa! This is heavy.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I modded you redundant due to this comment: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=156756&cid =13140230.

      Maybe you didn't see it due to the times, but still, this is common knowledge: your post was redundant.

  7. Liability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Liability? You mean like the way Cingular gets sued every time I use my cell phone to call up an escort service to order a hooker and a kilo of coke?

    1. Re:Liability? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what they use to justify the war on drugs... interstate commerce

    2. Re:Liability? by Gentlewhisper · · Score: 1

      Liability? You mean like the way Cingular gets sued every time I use my cell phone to call up an escort service to order a hooker and a kilo of coke?

      You order coke by the kilo? We'll be right there shortly for a little visit.

      Signed
      Your friendly neighbourhood narc

    3. Re:Liability? by zorander · · Score: 1

      Wait, wait...that's logic.

      We're talking about criminal liability law.

  8. Duh! by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    And what are the limits of criminal liability in a case like this? Gee, I don't know... what are the limits of liability for the phone companies, postal server, or the package delivery companies if they are used by drug distributors? I beleive the answer is "no liability whatsoever". Why do people think that everything is different if it's done on a computer?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Why do people think that everything is different if it's done on a computer?

      Because the **AA have spent large sums to convince congress, judges, and the public that mp3.com should be held liable. They got their way. Now that precedent is established. It must be applied the same everywhere or the everyone who bought into the idea will have to admit they were wrong.

    2. Re:Duh! by pete6677 · · Score: 1

      The reason the courts decided that some music download services were illegal, such as Napster, is because the plantiffs argued the primary purpose was to infringe copyrights and that the service even promoted themselves that way. Orkut, on the other hand, is primarily used for legal activities and I'd say the percentage of traffic that goes towards directing illegal activities is in the single digits. Therefore, the same argument would not hold. No court has said that a communications provider bears full responsibility for anything that anyone uses the service for. If that were ever found to be the case, the internet and the phone networks would just have to shut down.

    3. Re:Duh! by lagerbottom · · Score: 1

      here here. Thank god...a voice of reason in this din

      --
      "He was a wise man who invented beer." - Plato
    4. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He didn't say Napster. He said MP3.com. The fact you confused the two demonstrates the point he is trying to make.

    5. Re:Duh! by line.at.infinity · · Score: 1

      I really miss mp3.com's service where you could insert a CD that you own and mp3.com's software will remember it so that you can get it streamed to your computer at a later time. That service was found illegal unfortunately.

    6. Re:Duh! by guilhermesa · · Score: 1
      [what are the limits of liability for the phone companies, postal server, or the package delivery companies if they are used by drug distributors? I beleive the answer is "no liability whatsoever". Why do people think that everything is different if it's done on a computer?]

      You're half right, we all tend to assume everything is indeed different when it's done on a computer. Unfortunately, it is. The reason is that communication through machines (1's and 0's) is within clear and visible reach for regulation, unlike a physical package in the mail, or a telephone conversation that ULTIMATELY is a lot more private and is voice data. 1's and 0's are far easier to be modified, manipulated and filtered - thus you arrive at the thought of regulation. Many use this data illicitly, and this as you all are aware, has caused much disturbance in the past few years.

      The exchange of computer data certainly differs widely from mailing a package or making a telephone call. What often goes by unnoticed is particularly the speed at which the communication is taking place at. In the end, this is the difference. If the regulation is possible, then you bet you ass it's coming.

      This Age has presented us two strong issues that are beginning to emerge: information vs. regulation - it's definitely a topic we're all aware of, so this incident varies no bit. Google is liable.

    7. Re:Duh! by Burning1 · · Score: 1

      Does the Phone company, postal service, or package delivery company allow you to: publically post data, orginize groups, or store information for you?

      Don't pretend that people are stupid, or that these issues are cut and dried. I respect Google and don't consider them to be liable, however this is not the same as what you describe.

    8. Re:Duh! by bXTr · · Score: 1

      Why do people think that everything is different if it's done on a computer?
      Because we don't hold the automobile industry liable for automobile accidents. We don't hold the alcoholic beverage industry liable for drunk drivers. We don't hold the firearms industry liable for shootings where people are injured or killed. I personally think we ought to do all the above, but right now we just don't.
      --
      It's a very dark ride.
    9. Re:Duh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Phone companies, postal servers and package delivery companies do not own the content of what you write/say.

      orkut does.

    10. Re:Duh! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      The reason is that communication through machines (1's and 0's) is within clear and visible reach for regulation, unlike ... a telephone conversation that ULTIMATELY is a lot more private and is voice data. You are aware, aren't you, that almost every telephone conversation is converted by a switch into digital (1's and 0's) for routing through most of the network, then converted back into analog at the other end? Sorry, but telephone conversations are 1's and 0's too, for the most part.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  9. Same as the streets by JonN · · Score: 1

    Monitoring this type of community is the same as monitoring the streets, as you cannot be watching everything at once. The best you can do is continually monitor, and browse through the community, the same way cops patrol the streets. If something looks suspicious, you follow up on it.

    --
    do.what.promptcmds
  10. So......? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where's the URL? Would be nice to test out the service :)

  11. GoogleDrugs by Lord+Marlborough · · Score: 5, Funny

    332 dime bags jamacain hashish to kilos ::search:: 332 dime bags = 0.71548362344 kilos

    1. Re:GoogleDrugs by TopSpin · · Score: 1

      Thanks. That made my Friday afternoon.

      --
      Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
    2. Re:GoogleDrugs by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Google response:
      "Did you mean: 332 dime bags jamaican hashish to kilos "

      --
      ^_^
    3. Re:GoogleDrugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hilarious. Doubly hilarious because I've actually used Google calculator to do unit conversions for quantities of drugs.

    4. Re:GoogleDrugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  12. Legal basis in brick and mortar law by sterno · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How would Orkut be any different than having a coffee shop where some people were dealing drugs without your knowledge? Yes you provided a gathering place, but it's not like you really did anything other than that to facillitate it.

    Obviously if you knew about it and didn't make some effort to stop it, that would be a different scenario but there's no indication that's the case here.

    --
    This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
    1. Re:Legal basis in brick and mortar law by JoeSmack · · Score: 1

      Organizations are liable for illegal activities that happen on their infrastructure. Owners of a coffee shop where customers are selling drugs are not clear of liablity, especially in the cases where they turn a blind eye to the activities and indirectly benefit from it.

    2. Re:Legal basis in brick and mortar law by Forbman · · Score: 1

      And yet, if they try and "do something about it", they are even MORE open for all sorts of nasty legal things.

      All it takes is for someone to hold a press conference and say, "this place 'racially profiles' its customers, wrongfully assumes that ALL people who 'appear' to be [fill in the blank] are up to no good, and deserves no patronage. Why the city lets them hold onto their business license should be investigated".

      Yes, I support that guy in the Bronx who wired his backdoor after getting robbed some N>1 times, and some dork got stuck on it and electrocuted. The store owner should at least been able to sue the NYPD for not offering enough police coverage for an obviously recurring criminal site.

      How many merchants are willing to put up with that kind of risk unless they are pretty well established and connected?

      I went to Disneyland last week, and had completely forgotten that the Southern Baptists had been boycotting it for over 8 years until sometime this week they gave up on it, but I'm sure they declared 'victory' over the whole issue, etc. Had I remembered, perhaps I would have worn a button or something scoffing the SBC.

  13. How exactly would one police such a thing? by Tink2000 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    These guys seem to have gotten caught after being found out on a telephone conversation - leading to the authorities to get access at their internet connection. First rule of traffic is to keep a low profile, and apparently someone broke that rule (and got phonetapped in the process, which blew the rest of this open).

    I honestly don't see how Google (or anyone else for that matter) could manage policing this type of environment. Instead of saying "Hey I have $SUBSTANCE", smart dealers will say things like, "Free kittens to good home" or whatnot.

    Of course, I could springboard from here to legalization arguments, but that would bring me way OT...

    1. Re:How exactly would one police such a thing? by justforaday · · Score: 1

      I can provide a loving home to one of your kittens.

      --
      I'll turn into a supernova and burn up everything. Well I'll turn into a black little hole and you'll turn into string.
    2. Re:How exactly would one police such a thing? by Tink2000 · · Score: 1

      Would you prefer the $50 1/8th ounce kitten, or the super fine, super rare $300 an ounce kitten, or perhaps you'd be interested in our mixed breed for $250 a half ounce?

      *grin*

    3. Re:How exactly would one police such a thing? by Larry+Lightbulb · · Score: 1

      A kitten bred for research use in labs will cost about $200 a pound.

    4. Re:How exactly would one police such a thing? by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      Of course, I could springboard from here to legalization arguments, but that would bring me way OT...

      I'm all for legalizing online communication, even if it has been proven to be addictive. Sites like PubMed have been proven to have real thereputic value.

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
    5. Re:How exactly would one police such a thing? by fabiopetz · · Score: 1

      Ok ... so the dealers used the site to make business. I bet the investigators used it to get the dealer's network of friends. orkut ... making it easier for both sides

  14. try IRC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    i've seen drug offers/deals on IRC before.
    go shut them down.
    oh wait, u can't.. haha.

    why can't u be a man and go out, stand on the corner, and sell your drugs, instead of trying to be bill gates and use a computer.

    1. Re:try IRC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its business. Using the computer you can reach a much wider market, make bigger deals, and thus make more money. Why even waste your time on a street corner, when you can do it from the comforts of your luxurious waterfront home?

    2. Re:try IRC by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      why can't u be a man and go out, stand on the corner, and sell your drugs, instead of trying to be bill gates and use a computer.

      Ah.. So THAT'S how he got so rich..

  15. Think of the implications... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ok, this is a clear cut case. Somebody was selling drugs, nothing to see here...

    BUT...

    Certainly it is most interesting for the police to see the social network that these people had over Orkut. You have it spelled out that two people are friends. Now the police might be able to argue for wiretaps saying "this guy is a friend of a friend of the suspect" which can be good or bad in making the right decission. How close in a social network does one have to be in order to be a suspect? This whole guilt by association is kinda creepy...

    PS: Have you ever noticed that gmail-invites form a social network (to an extent)?

    1. Re:Think of the implications... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      this is the result of the misguided idea that law enforcemtn is to prevent crime rather than punish it. Like you just said, openness of the internet is a 2 way street!! reading a public page and "worming" your way into a social circle "old school" is the best way to go! What it means in the USA is we have to become more "amoral" like the europeans and less reactionary and prudish. We need to reduce the number of silly laws officers must enforce... things like public swearing, blow-jobs, some low end drugs, and the host of silly laws designed to give officers a reason to "harrass" you. We need to rid ourselves of the prudish, "bible belt" rules that have everybody checking themselves in fear at the sight of and officer... that's not how a free society should live! Banning nailclippers at the airport checkpoint is no substitute for 100 citizens paying attention to the people around them... i.e. the creepy guy acting stupid planting a bomb!!

      back on track, used properly, they could net a lot of good intel in the drug trade keeping quite instead of playing cowboy... there's no reason Google wouldn't cooperate with investigations by providing logs or even fake accounts if the police just asked rather than made a heavy-handed power grab out of everything they don't understand.

    2. Re:Think of the implications... by Forbman · · Score: 1

      Banning nailclippers at the airport checkpoint is no substitute for 100 citizens paying attention to the people around them... i.e. the creepy guy acting stupid planting a bomb!!

      especially when a simple Bic pen is FAR more dangerous (or a mechanical drafting pencil, where the lead has been replaced with a nail...).

  16. And in other news... by nettdata · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...the phone companies were charged with conspiracy to sell narcotics after it was discovered that people were using the phone to help sell drugs. Not.

    Seriously, I don't see any legal implications for Google, as they didn't set up the system to sell drugs... it was just an avenue of communication that drug dealers/users took advantage of to sell and buy drugs.

    Any form of communication can be used for that purpose... photocopiers, phones, carrier pigeons.... Actually, that's not a bad idea... hmmm...

    --



    $0.02 (CDN)
    1. Re:And in other news... by RyuuzakiTetsuya · · Score: 1

      Same here. The only thing I can see screwing Google is if they don't comply with cooperating.

      Assuming that the Brazillian and American authorities play nice, which, typically they do.

      --
      Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
    2. Re:And in other news... by nettdata · · Score: 1

      Exactly... and even then I tend to think that it wouldn't be any kind of drug charges, it would be some sort of obstruction charge... assuming the international issues weren't actually issues.

      Jurisdiction and enforcement could be a bitch.

      --



      $0.02 (CDN)
  17. Liability? No... by kmanq · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't think there should be any liability for providing a service like this. Thats like saying the US government is responsible for drugs that someone sold using the US mail. Or UPS being responsible for the same thing. However this begs the question should a more dangerous item such as a bomb be the shippers responsibiliy? Personally I think it should not be. However in a good free market I think you should see some competition in this area, "our service is better because we scan your packege before you get it" which of course spawns services that are completly scan free and so everyone ends up buying home scanners. Or not ;)

  18. Chances are Orkut IS already being monitored by Reverend528 · · Score: 1

    Well, communicating about illegal activity on a public forum is a pretty stupid idea. Especially considering evidence that Orkut may be involved with the CIA and NSA. Chances are those organizations were involved in this drug bust.

    1. Re:Chances are Orkut IS already being monitored by kevcol · · Score: 1

      Product you may be interested in.

      PS: Re the article you are referencing- that network information is, ahem, old hat. Orkut.com infrastructure moved to the Googleplex almost a year ago.

    2. Re:Chances are Orkut IS already being monitored by 0x0000 · · Score: 1
      ....considering evidence that Orkut may be involved with the CIA and NSA.

      Well, I guess if the CIA is involved in Orkut, they would naturally want to limit any trade their to their own products - crack cocaine, last I heard. Apparently LSD didn't have a high enough percentage of repeat customers.

      So yeah - this is probably a turf war. Those nasty, lazy stoners treading on the turf of the big bad coke nazis.

      --
      "The Internet is made of cats."
  19. What I'd like to know is.. by riflemann · · Score: 2, Interesting

    what has made Orkut such a popular site for Brazilians? (aside from drugs!)

    1. Re:What I'd like to know is.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      hot babes !!

    2. Re:What I'd like to know is.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      what has made Orkut such a popular site for Brazilians?

      Brazilians.

      That's how social networks function ^_^

    3. Re:What I'd like to know is.. by bogie · · Score: 1

      Maybe because its the only place they can go and be sure that they'll be safe from the crazy monkeys that roam their streets?

      --
      If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
    4. Re:What I'd like to know is.. by SamSim · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The fact that there's a lot of Brazilian people on it already. I know, I know, but it's a positive feedback loop thingy.

    5. Re:What I'd like to know is.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they plague everything that becomes popular. Go look at fotolog.net.

      Sometimes I'm ashamed to live amongst such dumbasses (not that I don't like drugs, but.. :-p)

      Well, fuck them. Orkut is stupid anyway (both the service and the person who it's named after).

      I like to deal my drugs with my cell phone. ;-)

    6. Re:What I'd like to know is.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe its because brazilians HAVE friends...?

  20. This explains... by drewcaster · · Score: 2, Funny

    I guess this explains how Google beat forecaster's predictions on profitability.

    Gates won't take this sitting down. Maybe we need to take another look at that recently discovered drug tunnel on the Canadian border. I wonder if it was meant to go all the way to Redmond?

  21. So where's the surprise here? by oddfox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    People are using a communications medium for drugs and it's something newsworthy? I would think the proper response would be duh. Careful guys, next thing you know they'll start using IRC networks even, or maybe IM services like AIM and ICQ! Criminal liability? What a joke. What next, holding telephone service providers accountable when a drug deal goes down on their network? Give me a break.

    --
    "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
    1. Re:So where's the surprise here? by oddfox · · Score: 1

      No I had not heard of that, I guess because I was probably still in the lower grades when that happened? That and pagers have never really been popular anywhere I've lived with any age group.

      --
      "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
  22. The limit fir liability by xiando · · Score: 1

    What should be the limit of criminal liabilit is obvious: If you are aware something criminal is going on, then you should be held liable. If you know nothing then obviously you are not liable. This is the simple bulletin board v.s. the street corner cafe thing. The cafe owner is not responsible if a drug dealer stops by while in possession of drugs, but if the cafe owner knows someone is dealing drugs at his cafe and approves of it, then that is something completely different.

    1. Re:The limit fir liability by mythosaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So, take a quick look at craigslist.org - I'd say one in 5 personal ads includes the dollar-sign refernce for "will pay" or "for pay" and a similar ratio of them includes a "420" reference for pot smokers.

      Is craigslist responsible too? Or are they just a "common carrier" of information? [As a voting libertarian, you know my feelings, but, it is an interesting question anyway.]

    2. Re:The limit fir liability by Forbman · · Score: 1

      then you should be held liable

      No, you shouldn't, unless you are materially involved in the criminal activity.

      We've all lived in areas at one time or another, or known people who partake in illegal activities, but we don't in general rat them out unless compelled to.

      Nor do we like being around those who partake some amount of enjoyment in pointing out every civil, criminal and other misdeeds that others may be doing. "I heard this moaning going on. They MUST have been having sex in their house. What about the children?" obviously ignoring that sounds came from a Sr Citizen home, well after visiting hours, etc.

      Every bar probably has its share of illicit activities that are planned or carried out in it. They're dark, usually noisy, and full of people who are disinterested in what other people may be doing as they are in what they might be there for.

      This isn't the same as a bartender serving an obviously drunk person one more drink for the road (obvious == can barely stand on own two feet, can barely speak legibly, etc), who later drives into a minivan killing a family of 8 'good, Christian people'. See? there is that materially involved in a criminal activity.

      Yet the bartender is expected to intervene at some point, and is legally supported if they do.

      If you or I get involved in a criminal activity, it's likely that at the very least we will be facing some sort of civil lawsuit, as in, even though it is at some level or another our duty to get involved to stop criminal activity, there is little to no coverage or support by the legal system for people to do this, because at some level it acknowledges how weak, ineffective and powerless the police can be at times, whether through their own negligence or pure happenstance.

      If it had been anyone other than Jeffrey Dahmer that got killed in prison the way he did, there would probably be a wrongful death civil lawsuit against the prison, the governor, the guards, etc, even if it happens eventually to Charls Manson. And the suit would either settle out of court or the litigants would actually win in open court.

  23. in denial ? by Adult+film+producer · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why do the authorities even bother looking/searching for drug crimes? They lost this war decades ago, didn't anybody tell them it's time to surrender? Or maybe it's time to adopt a new approach to dealing with drugs.. What a waste of fucking resources this whole god damn thing is. Let me go back to smoking my Canadian hash, thank you.

  24. The authorities will love this by lanner · · Score: 1

    This isn't bad -- this is GREAT! This is an investigators dream; documented evidence of the social structure of a drug ring. They know who's friends with who and have leads galore.

  25. Re:Drugs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, does anyone want an inviataion for orkut?

    If so, post here.

  26. Legalize It! by 0x0000 · · Score: 0, Troll
    MDMA is different and has been linked to brain damage by multiple studies I believe.


    Yeah. And a leading researcher smoked pot in the lab - after which he turned into a bird, flew into an inkwell, and became trapped, flying around and around for hours until he passed out from exhaustion.



    It was a government funded study. It must be true. I saw photostats of his lab notes....



    Ever watched Reefer Madness? It should give you a clue about where these "studies" are coming from ...


    --
    "The Internet is made of cats."
    1. Re:Legalize It! by mpaon · · Score: 0



      Yeah. And a leading researcher smoked pot in the lab - after which he turned into a bird, flew into an inkwell, and became trapped, flying around and around for hours until he passed out from exhaustion.


      Wow, where can I get some of what HE's smoking??

  27. Who's Fault Was It? by greymond · · Score: 4, Funny

    So since Ortuk is an "Invite Only" community who invited thier Law Enforcement friend? Guess they don't have to worry about getting "wacked" since on the internet everyone is anonymous...oh wait...shit...

  28. who cares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    how can you monitor and moderate such a large, multilingual community such as Orkut? And what are the limits of criminal liability in a case like this?"

    Who cares, let the people some some god damn weed for the love of god.

    1. Re:who cares by WilliamSChips · · Score: 1
      Who cares, let the people some some god damn weed for the love of god.
      I presume that first "some" is supposed to be "smoke".
      Although I agree with you about the legalization of marijuana, I think that those concerns could be raised in general, especially the first one. "How can you monitor and moderate such a large, multilingual community such as Orkut?" Interesting question.
      --
      Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
  29. Liability? by recoiledsnake · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What's the liability of the government for building the roads on which the drug transport takes place?

    --
    This space for rent.
  30. Thank God they were caught! by hotspotbloc · · Score: 3, Funny

    And that will put an end to illegal drug sales. The War on Drugs has been won!

    --
    "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
    1. Re:Thank God they were caught! by xiando · · Score: 1

      The War On Drugs is just a marketing term. It is really A War On The People. It can not be won and it is not even meant to be won, the war is meant to be continues in order to ensure that the very structure of society remain intact. Light drugs are not illegal because they are in any way dangerous, they are illegal because it makes huge portions of the population criminals, thereby giving the automatizes greater control over them. The people demand supply and supply, or the people, is who the war is really waged against.

  31. Google is reported to be investigating... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...>

    >>Who is it?

    >I'm constable Google of the search police.

    >>The church police?

    >No ma'am. The search police.

    >>Is there another dead bishop on the landing?

    >No ma'am. Oi'm investigating rumors of a dru....

    >>Wot's 'is IP?

    >Ow should I know?

    >>It's tattooed on the back of 'is neck!

    >Shouldn't it be on 'is modem or something?

    >>'ere! Wot's a MO-DEM when it's at 'ome?

    >Well ma'am, it's an electronic device that's used to modulate and demodulate a carrier waveform ...

    >>Burma!

    >'ere - why'd you say Burma?

    >>Sorry, I panicked.

    >Is that where the stuff came from?

    >>It's a fair cop, but society's to blame.

  32. any publicity by serano · · Score: 1

    Despite the criminal connection, it's a net gain for Google in the publicity department.

  33. And in yet another "In nother news"... by Pizaz · · Score: 1

    ...mother nature has been charged with a conspiracy to sell narcotics after it was discovered that people were using air to transmit verbal sound waves to help sell drugs.

    1. Re:And in yet another "In nother news"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not just to sell it - She's in charge of the largest grow op in the universe!!

      http://www.mapinc.org/drugnews/v05/n931/a05.html

  34. Orkut is a danger place for Brazilians by gbitten · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm brazilian and I canceled my Orkurt's account because criminals are using Orkut information to extort people.

    It is a shame.

  35. Next to appear in google: by Spy+der+Mann · · Score: 1

    Google Tattler: Pay money to druglord assistants to get hints on who to bust. All thru the internet!

    Transactions and info will be private, and encrypted.

  36. how can you monitor by Threni · · Score: 2, Interesting

    > how can you monitor and moderate such a large, multilingual community

    Within a few years ISPs will be required to store *everything* they transfer so peoples internet usage can be scanned for copyright materials, evidence of drug dealing etc. The government will spend a lot of money developing code to track social networks (quite apart from just taking the data from Orkut and similar), AI to locate people using codes etc. It'll be an offence to operate as an ISP without such storage (perhaps you'll have to get a license from ICANN, which will be run by the UN).

  37. Next headline... by dasdrewid · · Score: 1

    TheFacebook.com site 'used by Stoners'

    Ten thousand people have been arrested at every college campus in the United States after authorities discovered them allegedly using the online community site thefacebook.com to promote, sell, and entertain themselves while using drugs.

    Authorities report having shut down the online community site "thefacebook.com". Authorities claim the popular site was being used to advocate and facilitate the use of drugs on college campuses by groups of students. The groups were uncovered by careful monitoring of "Facebook Groups" like "I The site, used for gathering "friends" and building showing off how popular students virtually are, is popular on American and international college and university campuses.

    "We discovered the drug rings by careful monitoring of their message boards, which mostly consisted of random thoughts posted while users were high and requests if anyone knew where to 'get some'," an agent with the Drug Enforcement Agency told the Obvious News news agency.

    "We are aware of the situation and will look investigate it thoroughly, later. Right now, we're fuckin' wasted, man," thefacebook.com said in a statement.

    Authorites said the druggies used a few features of the facebook.com to get information on where to find drugs such as marijuana and ecstasy. However, more advanced features, such as "poking", were not generally employed until after the students had acquired and used the drugs.

    --
    No trespassing. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
    1. Re:Next headline... by dasdrewid · · Score: 1

      damned html tags...

      That paragraph should read "Authorities report having shut down the online community site "thefacebook.com". Authorities claim the popular site was being used to advocate and facilitate the use of drugs on college campuses by groups of students. The groups were uncovered by careful monitoring of "Facebook Groups" like "I <3 pot", "I'm high right now", and "Half Baked is my favorite movie, EVER". The site, used for gathering "friends" and building showing off how popular students virtually are, is popular on American and international college and university campuses.

      --
      No trespassing. Violators will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
  38. Complicity of the electorate by jfengel · · Score: 1

    I like your thesis, but I think you're missing the part where it's not just "people", it's "the sort of people who use drugs", which are intended to be separate from "the good, honest, moral, God-fearing people who make the laws" and "the good, honest, moral, God-fearing people who elected them". Never forget the complicity of the electorate, who keep sending tough-on-drugs candidates back, and who spaz when a candidate admits to using drugs.

    So it's not just a "war on people"; that's a little too Orwellian. It's a reflection of a moralistic, judgmental, and often hypocritical aspect of American society. I don't need to hypothesize a shadowy keep-the-people-down figure when all I need is the prudes and Puritans to know why we're pursuing this foolish policy.

    1. Re:Complicity of the electorate by Hatta · · Score: 1

      So it's not just a "war on people"; that's a little too Orwellian. It's a reflection of a moralistic, judgmental, and often hypocritical aspect of American society. I don't need to hypothesize a shadowy keep-the-people-down figure when all I need is the prudes and Puritans to know why we're pursuing this foolish policy.

      I like to call it the War on Drug Users. But still, the war on drugs is a tool of class warfare. Just look at conviction rates for rich white people and poor black people.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  39. Got 420? by value_added · · Score: 2, Funny

    This just in:

    "The popular Craigslist bulletin board service has been allegedly used to offer sex and drugs. According to the report, members are using the system to conspire with other members, offering companionship, massage, and sex in conjunction with variety of controlled substances for fun and possibly profit.

    One official was quoted as saying, "It took some time, but the guys in our Cybersecurity Department finally cracked the secret codes"

  40. A BRAZILIAN drug bust? by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Wow....this happened in Brazil, and through Orkut? Who would have ever imagined. This post is not a troll or a flame, but I have to say...as the owner of the Japanese Food/Sushi Lovers community which has 88.7 THOUSAND members right now (the vast majority of which are Brazilian), it is the Brazilians that have ruined Orkut for everybody else.

    Don't get me wrong, most of them are extremely nice people who are eager to learn about other cultures, however there are some who are incredibly racist, and think that just because they have the largest population on Orkut, that they don't have to follow the rules when it says English Only in a community.

    I've since enforced a rule that drew a LOT of hostility whereby I deleted every post that did not contain an English translation, and banned people for disruptive behavior (you have no idea how many attacks there were on the community).

    I've grown a little lax due to work lately, but I can easily say they ruined it for the rest of us. Too bad, with a bit more work, Orkut could have been quite cool.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    1. Re:A BRAZILIAN drug bust? by TheNarrator · · Score: 1

      I think now that the world is getting a little smaller, thanks to ye' old Internet, people are starting to realize something about other cultures. That is that people who speak multiple languages well, especially YOUR language, are usually more likely to be well educated and mannered and like YOUR culture.

      What people don't realize is that people who don't care about YOUR culture and don't speak YOUR language are usually less likely to be appreciative and understanding of YOUR culture and you personally. People who only speak one language from any country are usually likely to look down on people who don't speak their language. People who only speak one language are usually a bit less culturally sensitive to other cultures and native language speakers. When one learns to speak multiple languages it can be easier to realize that someone who is not a native english speaker who doesn't have perfect english grammar is not of below average intelligence.

      This is why people always come back from vacation talking about how wonderful a specific country was and how all people from that culture are so wonderful. It's because they only talked to people who learned their language, and therefore were more likely to have a positive feelings toward their culture.

    2. Re:A BRAZILIAN drug bust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Orkut should have mod points just like slashdot...

    3. Re:A BRAZILIAN drug bust? by Forbman · · Score: 1

      People who only speak one language from any country are usually likely to look down on people who don't speak their language.

      That pretty much sums up most of the antipathy between "Southerners" and "Yanks" in the US (it's mostly a one-sided affair, actually. Bring up the Civil War to most Americans, and it usually invokes great moments of oblivity, like, "what's a civil war?". Yet to a Southerner, it's like getting Howard Stern to talk about the FCC...

    4. Re:A BRAZILIAN drug bust? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is the stupidest fucking thing I have read all day.

    5. Re:A BRAZILIAN drug bust? by PsiPsiStar · · Score: 1

      Don't get me wrong, most of them are extremely nice people who are eager to learn about other cultures, however there are some who are incredibly racist, and think that just because they have the largest population on Orkut, that they don't have to follow the rules when it says English Only in a community.

      There are Brazillians coming to our chat site? There goes the neighborhood!

      --

      ___
      It's the end of my comment as I know it and I feel fine.
  41. BoingBoing - Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
  42. You may borrow my tinfoil hat... by dark-br · · Score: 1

    ... as I also live in Brazil, so it would be easy to mail it to you.

    Jokes aside being a victim of extortion is not a result of your data being online or not, is a result you you being dumb enough to let them do it to you.

    I've recieved phone calls from ppl that "would kidnap my kid" if I don't pay them off. What I did? Plain and simple: Fuck off, I aint paying you nothing dude! Those calls are oftem made from inside prisions and the only power they have is to anoy you. If you are firm and say no they will go anoying someone else.

    Orkut is not to blame but the brazilian authorities that do NOTHING if someone keeps calling you and making threats.

    Just my 2c.

    1. Re:You may borrow my tinfoil hat... by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      Sorry mods, this is off topic, but...

      Can prisoners really make free phone calls like that? Here, (The US), they all have to make collect calls or BUY a phone card (and even then your call list has to be approved)... in the case of the collect call, you can permenantly block calls from that prison. Who the HELL thought up the idea of letting the incarcerated call anyone they want?! Seems crazy to me. Shit, jail would be like a vacation for a mob man.

    2. Re:You may borrow my tinfoil hat... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What Brazilian prisioners usually do is have a friend steal a cell phone, and then sneak it to them either trough mail or visiting and personally delivering.

  43. Action Alert: AT&T network used to sell drugs by Qrlx · · Score: 1

    There's this new technological innovation which is pretty complicated but it's apparently some sort of "switched network." Some miscreant abused this innovation to set up an appointment with a drug dealer!

    America's children are at risk! Why hasn't Congress acted!!?? Write your representative TODAY!

  44. So, where do YOU go to score pot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An open question to slashdotters. On the internet, or elsewhere?

    Note: This is NOT a solicitation (really).

    I'm just a curious anonymous coward.

    1. Re:So, where do YOU go to score pot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To J.K.Rowling of course!

      Uh? what do you mean all the Harry Potter books weren't about pot??!!

      Oh Noes!!11

  45. This is wonderful by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks be to all. They finally got that horrible devil's weed off the streets of Brazil.

    So when is Microsoft's Vista coming out again? There's more moving colours and sound effects in that than anything you can find on Google.

  46. I started the Ecstasy community!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I swear I did! I started it and walked away. I see today that there are over 11,000 Porteguese people in it now!!
    I'm sorta kinda anonymously famous!

  47. I've heard rumors that drug dealers... by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...sometimes talk with their customers using speech. Speech provides a means for organising meeting times, discussing drug quality, and negotiating with customers. All of these play an important part in drug dealing. I propose that we outlaw human speech and instead insist that people communicate only by electronics means so that automatic filtering techniques can be used to track down evil people.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  48. Will they even bother? by EvilStein · · Score: 2, Interesting

    There are DOZENS of drug deals happening on Craigslist all the time.

    Check it out.. look for the names like "Crystal," "Tina," "Mary Jane," and any post that says "party tonight."

    They're all dealing with drugs. People flag them, but more just pop up.

    1. Re:Will they even bother? by FooGoo · · Score: 1

      Thanks for the tip...now I can score

      --
      People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
  49. Multilingual? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    ...How can you monitor and moderate such a large, multilingual community such as Orkut?

    What do you mean? It's all Portugese...

  50. You can draw a parrallel with city responsibility by NeedleSurfer · · Score: 1

    You cannot sue a city because people sell drugs within its boundary.

    You can sue a city for using taxpayers money for opening an official place to sell drugs if its against the country's law.

    Therefore

    You cannot sue Google because people sell drugs using its service.

    You could sue Google for offering an official service used to sell drug to resident of a country where its illegal.

  51. News Flash by kosmosik · · Score: 1

    Dealers also tend to use cell phones to make deals. They've also been spotted to use busses and maybe even cars to deal drugs.

    Lets blame cell phone companies and car manufacturers for people who *like* to get high using something else than alcohol.

  52. Illegal? by fishbowl · · Score: 1

    Why does Brazil have a law that makes marijuana illegal?

    --
    -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
  53. Medical marijuana rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    A bit OT, but there is an incredible deficiency of compassion in this country (America) if we don't even care enough to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes.

    My mother suffers from a soft-tissue disease, with the net result being constant pain throughout her body. Marijuana is the only pain-killer that works for her without side-effects worse than the initial pain.

    You know what the chances of her getting medical marijuana are now that the supreme court has passed its ruling? Consider that her doctor acknowledged that she should have a prescription, but refused out of fear of prosecution, *before* the ruling.

    So I buy it for her (now you see why I'm posting AC). Whoever said it's illegal and therefore oughta be stopped can go to hell. Sometimes the law is incredibly irrational and harmful, and every citizen who caves to this crap out of ignorance, indifference or blind obeisance is part of the problem.

    1. Re:Medical marijuana rant by collectivescott · · Score: 1
      Well said, and I agree completely. Current DEA marijuana regulations list marijuana as a Schedule 1 drug, meaning it has the highest abuse potential, and in this case no legal medical use*. "Schedule I drugs are classified as having a high potential for abuse, no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States and lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision." - http://www.dfaf.org/marijuana/excuse.php/

      To put this in perspective, crack cocaine, oxycodone (aka percoset or oxycontin), methamphetamine (speed) and PCP, are all schedule 2 drugs, which makes it easier to obtain approval to conduct research using them, or approve a new medical application of them. (DEA Drug Scheduling: http://www.usdoj.gov/dea/pubs/scheduling.html/)

      *Marinol is available in pill form, but it is the synthesis of only one of the active drugs in marijuana smoke, leaving other, potentially useful counterparts out. While I understand the refusal of the FDA to approve of smoke administered drugs, vaporizers eliminate the harms of smoking, and have existed since the 1970s. Recent models such as the "Volcano" eliminate any realistic health objections (evidence: http://www.canorml.org/healthfacts/vaporizerstudy2 .html/ and pictures here: http://www.storz-bickel.com/en_home.htm/ )

      Overall, inhalation is a superior delivery mechanism for pain that comes on quickly. This is because ingested marijuana (or Marinol alone) takes some time to be released and will remain in the body for long periods of time, making it ineffective in alleviating flare-ups.

      It would be a helpful first step if marijuana were rescheduled given the fact that it does not possess the abuse potential the FDA claims. Marijuana has never been shown to be physically/chemically addicting, unlike all of the schedule 2 drugs I mentioned, as well as tobacco. Furthermore, marijuana doesn't have a significant lethal dose potential, unlike all of the schedule 2 drugs I mentioned, or even alcohol for that matter! It's time we got over our government propaganda induced fear and approve beneficial medical applications as a minimal first step. Our irrational fear hurts those with chronic pain, forcing ordinary people to choose between breaking the law or suffering needlessly.

      Re: lethal dose of Marijuana and Alcohol - "There is a major health risk of acute alcohol use that is not shared with cannabis. In large doses alcohol can cause death by asphyxiation, alcohol poisoning, cardiomyopathy and cardiac infarct. There are no recorded cases of overdose fatalities attributed to cannabis, and the estimated lethal dose for humans extrapolated from animal studies is so high that it cannot be achieved by recreational users." (Source: http://www.legalisieren.at/studien/who/comparison. htm/)

      ...further recognizing that marijuana prohibition, like alcohol prohibition in its heyday, creates more problems then it solves would be icing on the cake. I'm not holding my breath for that one, especially given the White House's historic position and the recent Bush Supreme Court nominee.

      -Scott

    2. Re:Medical marijuana rant by BewireNomali · · Score: 1

      dude, that sucks. I definitely hope your mom feels better.

      --
      un burrito me trampeó.
  54. Obligatory by Stormwatch · · Score: 1

    Bad, bad server. No pot for you.

  55. that's stupid and paranoid by v1 · · Score: 1

    And what are the limits of criminal liability in a case like this?"

    Mentality like that is like trying to sue the telephone company for someone making a drug deal over a payphone.

    Paranoia is not really an in-or-out kinda thing, it's a varying scale from slight caution to neurotic obsession. Some people just don't know where to draw the line, or even that the line exists.

    To truly and completely protect the public, we must surrender 100% of our rights. It's already gone too far, we need to start digging ourselves out. The laws are becoming more harmful than the things which they are supposed to protect us from.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  56. Reagan was a vegetable. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will grant what you say is quite astute.

  57. Common Carrier? by BrianMarshall · · Score: 1
    I didn't RTFA and IANAL, but there is one aspect about this that is interesting...

    Phone companies, postal servers, delivery companies are common carriers - they provide a service (within their own rules) to anyone who wants it, and they are not liable for what is in the packages - they are providing a service; they are not part of a criminal enterprise even if criminals use the service.

    Isn't Slashdot protected in the same way? Anyone can post, Slashdot is a common carrier and is not responsible for the contents of the post.

    On the other hand, if this outfit is 'Invite Only', it is more like a club, a group... a (partly) criminal group!

    --
    "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro" -- HST
    1. Re:Common Carrier? by droptone · · Score: 1
      On the other hand, if this outfit is 'Invite Only', it is more like a club, a group... a (partly) criminal group!
      How is this any different than phone providers and mail carriers which charge a fee? It is invite only, and you get your invitation when you have the relevant funds.
      --
      Every post I make begins with the assumption P=~P.
  58. Doh! by kamileon · · Score: 2, Funny

    Damn! Why didn't I think of using a social networking site to buy drugs? Now it's too late...

    Erm, I mean, that's reprehensible. How dare they be so ingenious.

    --
    To truly understand recursion, you must first truly understand recursion.
  59. "We're not stupid!" -- Trainspotting by CherniyVolk · · Score: 1

    If all the legislatures were on E, they wouldn't give a hoot about what was done on Orkut, unless everyone at Orkut was willing to hand out massages.

    Everyone at Google just might be raiding the bong though. Why else is their search engine so fast? Pot smokers NEED a very fast result else they'll forget why they are at the computer to begin with, much less why "Google" is on the screen.

  60. New Business Model! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1.Establish secure, private, pay-for-access, offshore "social networking" site.

    2.Invite druggies to join

    3.???

    4.Profit!!!

  61. no, you just picked the wrong forum by toby · · Score: 1
    There are many forums that are 95%-100% English, like this one. You just picked the wrong one.

    (If you don't read Portuguese, how did you know it was abusive?)

    --
    you had me at #!
    1. Re:no, you just picked the wrong forum by modecx · · Score: 1

      Q: If you don't speak French how do you know they're being arrogant?

      A: You just do!

      I think that illustrates the point well enough.

      (I'd hide under the desk but I know that if I glower hard enough I'll scare 'em off)

      --
      Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
  62. Not from what I have read by Whyte · · Score: 1

    "Except that the foreign languages we speak are other European languages, not that of immigrants. Usually it's mother tongue + English and for those with more education one or two additional languages (French, German or Spanish)."

    You didn't fully address my analysis. Actually you have both. You have fractured state level markets within the greater EU, and then further you have fractured intrastate level markets. All with linquistical patterns as I outline previously.

    The state level markets are more frequently and more effectively working together than ever, and as a result a single language for commerce is developing (English for whatever reason - German would have been less confusing in the long run, but that is a different argument). That you are unwilling to speak the language of immigrants within your country, as you observe, and secondly unwilling to allow them to fully integrate economically was part of the point of my previous post - and an accurate example of why economic integration does not occur for immigrants within Europe as quickly or as frequently as it should.

    "Secondly, many immigrants in US speaks only Spanish, even in 2nd and 3rd generation."

    Many immigrants? Sure, we probably have more immigration into the U.S. than Europe does in aggregate. But proportionally, the last numbers I saw showed the U.S. was way ahead as far as integrating immigrants linquistically and economically. The last numbers I saw on this were along the lines of the following for immigrants to the U.S. (a majority of which are Latino):

    First Gen = 50% English as primary language at home and work.
    Second Gen = 75% English as primary language at home and work.
    Third Gen = 97% English as primary language at home and work.

    Also remember that generations are temporally shorter for immigrant groups than for established groups in U.S. society. This holds true across most waves of immigration within the U.S. regardless of continental origination (Europian, Latino, etc).

    --
    -- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
  63. And more important... by mangu · · Score: 1
    who invited thier Law Enforcement friend?


    The question the law enforcement guys are asking is "Who invited the drug dealers?"

    1. Re:And more important... by Cyno01 · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The question the law enforcement guys are asking is "Who invited the drug dealers?"
      The ones who know how to throw a decent party.:p
      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
  64. RTFA!!! by mangu · · Score: 1

    I think there's a terrible confusion here. TFA states "Dynamoo writes "Google's Orkut service has been allegedly used to sell drugs by a Brazilian outfit". Therefore, in that context, "this country" means Brazil, where there *is* a law saying that cell-phone service providers must request and register IDs of all their customers, including those that buy pre-paid phones.

  65. Re:First Post by Cookie_Monster_Troll · · Score: 0

    Me try.

    --
    dum de dum de dum de dum de dum ...
  66. Curiosity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Like, trying to get answers to the classical "what the heck ever happened to $name ?"

    The average Brazilian is extremely keen on his/her next door's life. Orkut just made it effortless.

  67. Orkut? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A more pressing question is, "what the Hell is Orkut, and why do I care?"

    This headline might at well real, "Third World Thugs Use 'Internet' to Carry Out Crime." Whoop-dee-doo! Who really gives a shit?

  68. Speaking as a community-boss by Heddahenrik · · Score: 1

    I've been running Elftown, Elfpack, CatHug and a few even smaller communities for over 3 years now. Elftown has more than 17000 users logging in each week. On that huge amount of people, I've only been contacted by the police once (It was about an underage girl that got rescued from her parents by her boyfriend, or as some one-sided US-newspapers wrote: "13 year old girl abducted by a pedophile"). Unfortunately it seems like Google is getting all the press, even for non-news like this. Not even the local newspaper was interested in my story. I guess I should send out press-releases with "No drugs sold this month, not even by roleplaying druids!".

  69. Re:'merciful' atomic bomb !? by Forbman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What next, pub owners held liable in Ireland because they let IRA bomb plotters meet during happy hour? The London Underground Authority held liable because it is so trivially easy to leave a backpack filled with about 5 kilos of plastic explosives (or a bunch of repackaged M80 firecrackers) and ball bearings behind, yet SOMEONE must be found at fault?

    This is a pretty lame argument against Orkut, etc. Who is to say that the "criminals" using the cell phones in other countries are actually who they say they are, even though the phones have to be "registered"? If it is trivial to buy fake visas and other credentials, it is probably not that hard to come by falsely registered cell phones or phones registered to non-existant people or entities (especially if they've been hacked outside of the country where the crime has been facilitated).

    What if the phones had been cleverly hacked in Brazil to be from Brazilian government accounts?

    Cuba has a pretty low (petty) crime rate. Why? Because of the ever-present fear of oneself being turned into the internal security aparatus or police, where tattling on your neighbor is pretty common (and a good way to earn a few pesetos). But not too many people from Cuba or who have been in Cuba say that things are particularly free there, as in, open exchange of words, associations, etc.

    It's too bad, really. A few people acting madly have such a huge effect on everyone else. Car-jacking and road rage cause everyone to just cave in and let things happen which in the past would have been dealt with and de-escalated.

    In SoCal, it's OK to completely follow 10 other cars through a red light to turn left, because getting in an altercation is perceived to greatly increase the risk of pissing off the offender to the point where he does a u-turn, follows you down, and beats the shit out of you basically for the hell of it.

    We Americans like to talk about the "tyranny of the majority", but more or less it has really turned into the "tyranny of the minority" (and, no, I'm not referring to the puritanicals ranting against 'the gay minority wagging the dog' [sic]) in so many facets, not the least is if you happen to stop someone from robbing a store, and happen to cause intense physical pain to the creep, and perhaps a few broken bones in the process, you get sued by the perp, and the perp wins.

    So in some arenas the courts enforce this tyranny as well.

    Oh well.

  70. BULLSHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.virginmobileusa.com/catalog/catalog.do

    Kyocera K7 Rave phone: $25
    300 Minutes: $30
    Selling $500/lb pot for $100/oz with complete anonymity . . . PRICELESS

    1. Re:BULLSHIT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bah! loser.

      You could be selling said pot for $250/Oz.

      God bless Amerikka and its 'War on Drugs'.

  71. Nah, columbians is right by Pac · · Score: 1

    The drug lords were from the District of Columbia. If you had ever watched C-SPAN you'd know nobody understands those guys.

  72. yeah, *multi*lingual - doesn't mean "English" by toby · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are also substantial Iranian, Estonian, Pakistani communities... If you don't speak their languages, how is that their problem? Most of them have made the effort to learn yours. Here are Orkut's actual demographic statistics. It would be interesting to see statistics based on proportion-of-population. I think Estonia would be quite high on the list. Where else could you meet these guys if you don't travel?

    --
    you had me at #!
  73. Welcome to the real world, Neo! [NT] by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No text.

  74. American is a Language? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I didn't know there was an American language, unless your referring to the American version of English in which case it would be American English not American ^^

  75. MOD ME INFORMATIVE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Yes, I had the same trouble that you mentioned. However, everytime someone tries to hijack an English thread, I post this insightful lesson from Samuel L. Jackson:

    ENGLISH, MOTHERFUCKER, DO YOU SPEAK IT?

  76. Doesn't matter. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you know where to go you can get a cloned phone on the streets of any major city.

  77. Re:Self-Reported "MDMA" use and Lesions by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm assuming your study took place in the US, if that assumption is wrong then I wouldn't be as confident in my assertions. That said:

    The seminal study that made the "ecstasy"/neurotoxicity link was actually with methamphetamine-- that's a pretty big mistake. [View the retraction.] Unfortunately it's a mistake which is easily upheld against anecdotal evidence of recreational users due to the high frequency with which pills are sold as "ecstasy" which are meth (in addition to DXM, ephedrine, etc.) While these people may believe they used MD(M)A, more than likely they were reporting repeated, high-dose methamphetamine usage.

    It would be prudent for everyone- especially researchers- to be made aware of the large discrepancy between what your subjects SAY they have taken, and what they have most likely actually ingested, particularly in the case of ecstasy/MDMA.

    [For more info on how one faulty study getting a therapeutic substance on emergency Schedule I, read the story at MAPS, and give a few dollars while you're there.]

  78. Re:'merciful' atomic bomb !? by Com2Kid · · Score: 1
    • It's too bad, really. A few people acting madly have such a huge effect on everyone else. Car-jacking and road rage cause everyone to just cave in and let things happen which in the past would have been dealt with and de-escalated.


    I always figured that brief spout of road rage we had a few years back helped every one learn to ease up and drive nicer.

    Or maybe that was just here in the Pacific Northwest. :) After a number of (rather brutal) beatings, we all kinda took a step back and said "woh, thats too much man, gotta smooth things out a bit ya know?"