moderators: who thought this was funny? i just imagined it said by that simpson's kid who is the son of a cop, always eats his crayons... now that made it funny, and fitting.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you proposing that real people actually monitor everything children do in school? You can make it as technological, or untechnological as you want, but in effect, you're saying someone should stand and look over your kid's shoulder to see the sites they go to. Besides the obvious economic implications of having an army of nannies, what about that other big point that has been beat to a pulp for so long already... do i need to say it? starts with a P, ands with a Y, but doesn't need to be filtered for children... privacy?
First of all, one thing needs to be said - "I don't smoke marijuana."
With that having been said, here are some reasons to legalize marijuana in the United States. Nice and simple:
1) Marijuana use is less harmful and risky than the use of alcohol, tobacco, and many nonprescription drugs. It is the safest (currently) illegal drug. Marijuana is much less addictive than tobacco or alcohol. This is one reason why most people that smoked it in the 70's were able to quit easily and not become addicts.
2) Legalization of marijuana would cut down on crime. Because marijuana is illegal, it is difficult to manufacture, and is expensive, so addicts often have to turn to crime to sustain their habit. Legalization would drive the price down and alleviate this problem. Currently, much of the crime that goes on is a result of territory disputes between dealers. Legalization of marijuana would hurt organized crime as a whole. If marijuana was legal, the entire infrastructure of organized crime involved in its manufacturing and distribution would lose any reason for existence because marijuana would be legally produced and sold at a much cheaper price by legitimate companies. Police officers and suspected informants often face retribution by gangs and drug dealers. Legalization of marijuana would simply eliminate the need for dealers and put a stop to all this. Legalization would cut down on corruption in the law enforcement, the government. Officials will no longer be tempted into accepting bribes, and pocketing large amounts of drug money.
3) Legalization would free up resources to fight legitimate crimes. It would end prison overcrowding, as many prisoners are sitting in jails for drug-related convictions. It would free up the court system and the police and allow them to concentrate on other crimes. Fighting marijuana-related "crimes" is costing us tax money.
4) Legalizing marijuana would make it safer for users. One of the main reasons why marijuana is unsafe right now is because it isn't regulated, and its quality isn't monitored by anyone. When people buy marijuana, they don't know for sure what they're getting or where it's been.
5) The government has no right to interfere with people's personal freedom as it is currently doing. Smoking marijuana only has the potential to hurt the health of the user. An individual should have the right to choose to use it. People are allowed to skydive, and drive cars. There are risks in those and many other activities, but the government isn't regulating them. Sure, smoking marijuana does put others at minimal risk through second hand smoke and the user's actions towards others, but this is also valid for alcohol and tobacco. This is why driving while stoned should remain illegal.
There is one thing that can be done to make sure that music sharing won't ever stop, and to reform the whole copyright issue. Napster and Gnutella are already tainted by their advertising that says that "this is where people come to trade music, join us". The ONLY thing that can withstand the courts is a non-profit piece of software that's inherently used to share information of ALL sorts. This is why they aren't suing aol because people share mp3s in their "rooms". Whether it's cooking recipes, or the anarchist cookbook, exchange of free information of any kind. Now, "if" people decide to come in and use it to trade pirated music, that's not the application developers' fault, because they never advertised it as "music sharing software". That's the only way that any of this trading software will ever survive.
I live in New York, our mayor, Guliani, recently managed to outlaw all xxx video shops, requiring them all to carry regular videos as at least 60% of their inventory. Now, the city is filled with stores named "All Kinds Of Videos", with cartoon boxes all over the front. Everyone knows that's where you get your xxx, and nobody can do anything about it. See the parallel?
It becomes painful to play them on my 19" monitor. Each pixel becomes incredibly huge, and I am looking at a once gorgeous world of Civilization, and realize i just really can't do it because it just looks WAY TOO UGLY. The same happened with other games. I tried to play with my ancient miraculously salvaged copy of Death Track, and as soon as I launched the race, I was dead because all the other cars have run already had time to run around the entire track a few times and frag me like there's no tomorow. Old games often don't anticipate newer hardware...
Lets say you're the master of the world, you are the judge on every panel. All you need to do, is say the word, and every napster and gnutella clone is not just theoretically made illegal, but EFFECTIVELY disappears. What would you, as an intelligent slashdotter do? This issue is not about music either, it's about trading copyrighted information. So, do you allow people to continue trading whatever the hell they want, or do you not allow them to trade anything? Think hard, because I don't have a fucking idea as to what to do about this.
"And I'm willing to bet that sales near colleges have gone down because of CDNow and other such services that are cheaper and easier to get good music from than most music stores that take advantage of college towns."
"Just because the force of gravity is different, or weaker, than the other forces in the universe, right away you judge it and say there is something wrong with it. This kid of bigotry troubles me deeply."
The pair batteries lasted me around an hour. I've tried this with about 5 different sets of rechargeable batteries, and didn't get any better results. Maybe they meant 10 hour playtime with audio, not mp3 cds? Am i the only one with this problem? Is there a some sort of big, long lasting, rechargeable battery that i can just plug into the ac in on the player? Anyone know?
I am not a scientist, but from what I remember, tornadoes are way too quick to have time to get on a plane (thats can withstand the winds), fly to it, and dump some powdery crap into it or whatever. You would have a better chance at survival by flying into the eye of the tornado in a helicopter, there is virtually no wind there, so you can fly in, move around a bit, and fly back out with no problem.
and what do you accomplish?
on
Pirate DNS?
·
· Score: 1
Basically, this whole thing would just be to screw over Microsoft or to fix some short term issues with the whole name server system. But in the long run, you'll simply have to face all the problems of the new system all over again. It's kind of like saying the establishment is bad, if we try really hard, we could overthrow the government! But what then?
Girls like nice cars, but they aren't going to get oil all over them to crank up the engine a little. I think that's ok, and is just a product of the social upbringing of women in our society.
I wonder if alt.cooking have forums about men not participating as much as women...
What will happen when some of these people are actually found dead because of the actions of the NYT and the guy who opened the docs. Just imagine that for a second. People might actually fucking die. And the more interesting question, is who'll have to be the one to answer for it?
Nobody on a public server will see the skin that you spent so much time creating, unless they go and download it. And nobody will go and download everyone's personal skins because of bandwidth and storage restrictions, as well as the fear of having to stare at a naked guy with a railgun running around.
So I think this will be great fun, but only for a private network with your buddies.
A common system should be established
on
A Matter Of Trust?
·
· Score: 1
I myself have the same problem when I see things I like on foreign sites, and am afraid to order from them because I'm afraid they could misuse my cc number, and there would be nothing I could do about it, short of suing them overseas. I think there should be a third party between the site, and my credit card company.
Perhaps it should be a "reputable" server, where I establish an account, with physical information, kind of like registering for a drivers license, that asks me for my password and the account number of the e-commerce site, and the amount i want "wired" to them. In response, the commerce site sends me my stuff.
I know there are privacy issues involved in this, but imho, there are much more benefits.
Sooner or later, they have to disclose exactly how they got the list of the users, don't they? Otherwise, who is to know that the list they got is not taken out of thin air or whether it is totally accurate - which is a bit more difficult to prove. And they will need to prove it if they want to get these users blocked from Napster.
There is such a thing as an illegal contract. For instance, your boss cannot require you to work in a room full of asbestos and say if you don't want to work here, don't sign the disclaimer. This is a similar thing, you are being asked to give up some really important rights. I think it might be illegal for them to ask you to do that.
Apparently, "Questions can be submitted 30 minutes ahead of time via artistdirect.com or yahoo.com."
read this one at: http://www.mtledge.com/me_wire.shtml
I think this means that this isn't a realtime chat. May be wrong.
I can already feel the flames rushing in...
on
The Eroded Self
·
· Score: 1
Privacy is great and all, it is important to protect ourselves from misuses of such information. But bear with me on this: imagine the scenario where the entire country is constantly taped. Everything everyone does is always on video - this video is not viewed by anyone unless approved by a bunch of courts (kinda like a search warrant).
Yes, I'm talking cameras in every home and on telephone polls, i'm talking about the justice department theoretically having access to a kind of a 3D studio max construct of the world - at least the surfaces. Privacy advocates are ready to tear out people's throats over even the introduction of the possibility of the benefits of such a concept, but i will anyway.
95% of all crimes will easily be solved. If a woman is killed sometime on a street corner, a qualified person can go and "zoom into" that time frame, and see exactly what happened. No need for lengthy trials, witnesses, perjury. I think that someday society will come to this whether we like it or not, but personally, I think it might be a good idea. The "grinding gears" of american justice are nice and safe, but barely get anything done. We don't build our cars like this, so why do we not mind our courts working this way?
I understand this may be an appalling concept to a lot of you, but actually think about this from an independent point of view, if we wanted to make this work, we could pass legislation preventing abuses, making all irrelevant findings inadmissible, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
Not the brightest idea behind it... But the graphics are awesome!
moderators: who thought this was funny? i just imagined it said by that simpson's kid who is the son of a cop, always eats his crayons... now that made it funny, and fitting.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you proposing that real people actually monitor everything children do in school? You can make it as technological, or untechnological as you want, but in effect, you're saying someone should stand and look over your kid's shoulder to see the sites they go to. Besides the obvious economic implications of having an army of nannies, what about that other big point that has been beat to a pulp for so long already... do i need to say it? starts with a P, ands with a Y, but doesn't need to be filtered for children... privacy?
The words "Wag The Dog" come to mind.
First of all, one thing needs to be said - "I don't smoke marijuana." With that having been said, here are some reasons to legalize marijuana in the United States. Nice and simple: 1) Marijuana use is less harmful and risky than the use of alcohol, tobacco, and many nonprescription drugs. It is the safest (currently) illegal drug. Marijuana is much less addictive than tobacco or alcohol. This is one reason why most people that smoked it in the 70's were able to quit easily and not become addicts. 2) Legalization of marijuana would cut down on crime. Because marijuana is illegal, it is difficult to manufacture, and is expensive, so addicts often have to turn to crime to sustain their habit. Legalization would drive the price down and alleviate this problem. Currently, much of the crime that goes on is a result of territory disputes between dealers. Legalization of marijuana would hurt organized crime as a whole. If marijuana was legal, the entire infrastructure of organized crime involved in its manufacturing and distribution would lose any reason for existence because marijuana would be legally produced and sold at a much cheaper price by legitimate companies. Police officers and suspected informants often face retribution by gangs and drug dealers. Legalization of marijuana would simply eliminate the need for dealers and put a stop to all this. Legalization would cut down on corruption in the law enforcement, the government. Officials will no longer be tempted into accepting bribes, and pocketing large amounts of drug money. 3) Legalization would free up resources to fight legitimate crimes. It would end prison overcrowding, as many prisoners are sitting in jails for drug-related convictions. It would free up the court system and the police and allow them to concentrate on other crimes. Fighting marijuana-related "crimes" is costing us tax money. 4) Legalizing marijuana would make it safer for users. One of the main reasons why marijuana is unsafe right now is because it isn't regulated, and its quality isn't monitored by anyone. When people buy marijuana, they don't know for sure what they're getting or where it's been. 5) The government has no right to interfere with people's personal freedom as it is currently doing. Smoking marijuana only has the potential to hurt the health of the user. An individual should have the right to choose to use it. People are allowed to skydive, and drive cars. There are risks in those and many other activities, but the government isn't regulating them. Sure, smoking marijuana does put others at minimal risk through second hand smoke and the user's actions towards others, but this is also valid for alcohol and tobacco. This is why driving while stoned should remain illegal.
There is one thing that can be done to make sure that music sharing won't ever stop, and to reform the whole copyright issue. Napster and Gnutella are already tainted by their advertising that says that "this is where people come to trade music, join us". The ONLY thing that can withstand the courts is a non-profit piece of software that's inherently used to share information of ALL sorts. This is why they aren't suing aol because people share mp3s in their "rooms". Whether it's cooking recipes, or the anarchist cookbook, exchange of free information of any kind. Now, "if" people decide to come in and use it to trade pirated music, that's not the application developers' fault, because they never advertised it as "music sharing software". That's the only way that any of this trading software will ever survive.
I live in New York, our mayor, Guliani, recently managed to outlaw all xxx video shops, requiring them all to carry regular videos as at least 60% of their inventory. Now, the city is filled with stores named "All Kinds Of Videos", with cartoon boxes all over the front. Everyone knows that's where you get your xxx, and nobody can do anything about it. See the parallel?
It becomes painful to play them on my 19" monitor. Each pixel becomes incredibly huge, and I am looking at a once gorgeous world of Civilization, and realize i just really can't do it because it just looks WAY TOO UGLY. The same happened with other games. I tried to play with my ancient miraculously salvaged copy of Death Track, and as soon as I launched the race, I was dead because all the other cars have run already had time to run around the entire track a few times and frag me like there's no tomorow. Old games often don't anticipate newer hardware...
Lets say you're the master of the world, you are the judge on every panel. All you need to do, is say the word, and every napster and gnutella clone is not just theoretically made illegal, but EFFECTIVELY disappears. What would you, as an intelligent slashdotter do? This issue is not about music either, it's about trading copyrighted information. So, do you allow people to continue trading whatever the hell they want, or do you not allow them to trade anything? Think hard, because I don't have a fucking idea as to what to do about this.
Feel like eating your mouse?
"Just because the force of gravity is different, or weaker, than the other forces in the universe, right away you judge it and say there is something wrong with it. This kid of bigotry troubles me deeply."
In a few years, high school history books will write about "discrimination based on operating system/internet provider" in the 00's.
I'd just run the engine all day, sniffing the exhaust...
The pair batteries lasted me around an hour. I've tried this with about 5 different sets of rechargeable batteries, and didn't get any better results. Maybe they meant 10 hour playtime with audio, not mp3 cds? Am i the only one with this problem? Is there a some sort of big, long lasting, rechargeable battery that i can just plug into the ac in on the player? Anyone know?
I am not a scientist, but from what I remember, tornadoes are way too quick to have time to get on a plane (thats can withstand the winds), fly to it, and dump some powdery crap into it or whatever. You would have a better chance at survival by flying into the eye of the tornado in a helicopter, there is virtually no wind there, so you can fly in, move around a bit, and fly back out with no problem.
Basically, this whole thing would just be to screw over Microsoft or to fix some short term issues with the whole name server system. But in the long run, you'll simply have to face all the problems of the new system all over again. It's kind of like saying the establishment is bad, if we try really hard, we could overthrow the government! But what then?
"It compiles? Ship it!"
I wonder if alt.cooking have forums about men not participating as much as women...
What will happen when some of these people are actually found dead because of the actions of the NYT and the guy who opened the docs. Just imagine that for a second. People might actually fucking die. And the more interesting question, is who'll have to be the one to answer for it?
So I think this will be great fun, but only for a private network with your buddies.
Perhaps it should be a "reputable" server, where I establish an account, with physical information, kind of like registering for a drivers license, that asks me for my password and the account number of the e-commerce site, and the amount i want "wired" to them. In response, the commerce site sends me my stuff.
I know there are privacy issues involved in this, but imho, there are much more benefits.
wow... that is really some of the worst singing I've ever downloaded. I guess that's why she feels safe from the MP3-grabbing pirates...
Sooner or later, they have to disclose exactly how they got the list of the users, don't they? Otherwise, who is to know that the list they got is not taken out of thin air or whether it is totally accurate - which is a bit more difficult to prove. And they will need to prove it if they want to get these users blocked from Napster.
Or am I just not making sense today?
There is such a thing as an illegal contract. For instance, your boss cannot require you to work in a room full of asbestos and say if you don't want to work here, don't sign the disclaimer. This is a similar thing, you are being asked to give up some really important rights. I think it might be illegal for them to ask you to do that.
read this one at: http://www.mtledge.com/me_wire.shtml
I think this means that this isn't a realtime chat. May be wrong.
Privacy is great and all, it is important to protect ourselves from misuses of such information. But bear with me on this: imagine the scenario where the entire country is constantly taped. Everything everyone does is always on video - this video is not viewed by anyone unless approved by a bunch of courts (kinda like a search warrant).
Yes, I'm talking cameras in every home and on telephone polls, i'm talking about the justice department theoretically having access to a kind of a 3D studio max construct of the world - at least the surfaces. Privacy advocates are ready to tear out people's throats over even the introduction of the possibility of the benefits of such a concept, but i will anyway.
95% of all crimes will easily be solved. If a woman is killed sometime on a street corner, a qualified person can go and "zoom into" that time frame, and see exactly what happened. No need for lengthy trials, witnesses, perjury. I think that someday society will come to this whether we like it or not, but personally, I think it might be a good idea. The "grinding gears" of american justice are nice and safe, but barely get anything done. We don't build our cars like this, so why do we not mind our courts working this way?
I understand this may be an appalling concept to a lot of you, but actually think about this from an independent point of view, if we wanted to make this work, we could pass legislation preventing abuses, making all irrelevant findings inadmissible, etc.