I have family in New Orleans. They have horror stories about the pervasive, persistent abuses of power by the police and the gatekeepers of government.
At times it seems to me that there is more in common between Louisiana and Haiti than between Louisiana and the United States. If it wasn't for the fact that New Orleans is the export point for all bulk goods from the Mississippi River and Ohio River basins, and where the Mississippi and the Intercoastal Waterway meet, it would be far more trouble than it is worth. But then, that positioning is exactly why Louisiana gets away with what it does.
Louisiana doesn't have counties, it has parishes. It doesn't have laws, it has codes. Louisiana pretty much makes up its own rules for everything. Get used to it, or move elsewhere.
Wow, what an eloquent and insightful response. Unfortunately, your conclusion is completely wrong. I haven't smoked marijuana in many years, although I will freely admit to having done so in my youth. Experimentation is key, you see, to understanding whether one likes something. Despite my appreciation for "the herb", I found the cost/benefit analysis to come up lacking in my particular circumstances. Going to jail is a rather serious detrimental (albeit only potential, not necessarily actual) side effect, and balanced against the career decisions I was making at the time, I didn't wish to risk it.
The psychological effects of marijuana use and/or abuse have been thoroughly documented, and the research has pretty much completely destroyed any credibility that government-sponsored propaganda such as Reefer Madness may have once had. As my above essay states, the physical effects are less damaging than other substances that are currently controlled, but only by age discrimination.*
It would appear to have helped me become a "mellower" and less aggressively ignorant individual, perhaps by expanding my tolerance zone. It also doesn't appear to have seriously impacted my ability to impart information in a clear and meaningful way, or caused me to become exceedingly asinine in my dealings with others... perhaps you should try some?
* Footnote: As a matter of fact, I think it's ridiculous that the drinking age is higher than the age at which you can be required to fight (and consequently die) for your political leaders' views. Either a person is an adult, or they are not, and it seems to me that at the point where you can be required to give your life for your country, any other age discrimination should cease. My preferred method would be to set the age of adulthood (and thus drinking, smoking, and the draft) to 25 years; children tend to stay home longer now than they used to be, thanks to college and other factors. Of course, we could always go the other direction and assume personal responsibility as penultimate, and eliminate age discrimination entirely.
To respond to your comment: biological agents are extremely problematic. Aside from the obvious issues involved with targeting an herbicide (biological or other) at a specific plant, there are numerous environmental disasters that were caused explicitly by introducing a new species into an area as a biological control method. The National Invasive Species Information Center has information on a large number of critters imported to areas as a control for other pests which then took over and dramatically altered the biodiversity of the area. For a specific example, try a Google search for the Cane Toad, or look to the Wikipedia article for an idea of how quickly and badly things can go wrong. For example, the following excerpt from that article:
Around 150 cane toads were introduced to Oahu in Hawaii in 1932, and the population swelled to 105,517 after 17 months.
You see, the cane toad had plenty of food and no natural predators in its new environment, so in less than a year and a half it rapidly took over the entire region, expanding its population literally a thousandfold. This was an unexpected "side effect" of attempting to control a beetle infestation in the crops by importing the toads. Another unanticipated issue was the toads' defense mechanism:
The adult cane toad has enlarged parotoid glands behind the eyes, and other glands across their back. When the toads are threatened, their glands secrete a milky-white fluid known as bufotoxin. Components of bufotoxin are toxic to many animals; there have even been human deaths due to the consumption of cane toads. Bufotenin, one of the chemicals excreted by the cane toad, is classified as a Class 1 drug under Australian law, alongside heroin and cannabis. It is thought that the effects of bufotenin are similar to that of mild poisoning; the stimulation, which includes mild hallucinations, lasts for less than an hour. As the cane toad excretes bufotenin in small amounts, and other toxins in relatively large quantities, toad licking could result in serious illness or death.
In other words, the damn things are extremely poisonous. The fact that one of the toxins they excrete induces hallucinations actually made the problem worse, as people would seek them out for a cheap thrill, and then end up in the hospital (or even the morgue) because they licked a toad to get high. Making the toxin a controlled substance didn't really help, and may have actually made the issue worse due to the Streisand Effect ("That's weird... why would they make it illegal to lick a toad? Oh, hey...")
In short, "biological agents" are generally considered to be a Bad Thing (tm).
I find in odd that you reason as though Mexico doesn't think it owns any of El Estados Unidos since the Mexican-American War. Durring Hurrican Katrina, if I remember correctly, several ARMED APC's outwardly showing their firepower invaded parts of Texas and towards Louisianna when Hurrican Katrina swamped much of the area. Their intent wasn't neutral and they setup stations in various places without permition from the Sheriff, yet they were mostly ignored for the short time as though they were tempting their antagonism against the civil unrest to demonstrate how far they would be tolerated.
Similarly, I find it digusting that Police and Sheriff Deputies don't tolerate The People to open-carry side-arms yet the same Police and Sheriff having no ties to the Constitution demand that The People tolerate their carry and so-called "courthouse justified" use of the same against various individuals they pre-judged them as being CRIMINAL or FELONIOUS. When The People pop, they're taking down the drug companies and the law enforcement and the judiciary and the army, but it seems today The People is more of a abandoned child or endangered animal because everyone is too busy hurting eachother in various unconstitional professions and activities.
Yes, the Mexican Army did send armed convoys to deliver aid to victims of hurricane Katrina. Doing a little research before you comment will not only allow you to impart accurate information, but allow you to give the URL of supporting information to strengthen your position, like this link to a Wikipedia article explaining the situation.
Also, it is fairly difficult to treat information with any amount of respect when the deliverer of that information (that would be you, Mr. Anonymous Coward) has serious issues with spelling, grammar, and (worst of all) capitalization.
Capitalizing random words, or worse yet, capitalizing entire words, presumably for emphasis, is simply ignorant. There are tags such as italics (<i>) and bold (<b>) that should be used for that, instead. Don't forget your closing tags.
Spell-check is a good thing to use, and most modern browsers actually have it built-in for text input fields (I know Firefox does, at least, and Microsoft products tend to have it available by pressing F7). That red squiggle under the word means it is not in the spell-checker's dictionary, so you may want to double-check the spelling before hitting "submit". This Taylor Mali video, entitled "The the Impotence of Proofreading"drives home the point that a spellchecker should not be your only guide, a point made even clearer when you read the text-only version, and realize just how badly mangled that poor student's paper is.
The grammar issues I can't give you a quick fix for; those require knowing how to properly formulate a sentence in the first place (a skill you obviously lack - no offense).
As for any factual information you may be attempting to convey, learn how to use an anchor tag to create a link - this page will show you how.
Both great games, but they make for a shitty reality.
To be honest, I don't differentiate between the two - they are both interchangeable gritty high-tech environments. The only real difference is the existence (or not) of magic. After one of our group made a min-maxed mage character who got 4 actions per combat round, was practically invincible, and whose primary mode of combat was to fling NPCs, vehicles, and small buildings at whatever he was mad at (and this was a starting character without any Karma spent), we decided to tone down the magic a bit.
Here's a nice glossary of dystopian future slang, if you're interested. Between that and some good background music (Pandora has some excellent sounds, if you seed it properly), you can really set the proper mood.
Oh, and to answer your question (and the subsequent commentary), yes and yes. Welcome to the new era.
Unless we have on the order of 100-150,000 troops, agents, or personnel tasked JUST to combat the cartels, it's a joke.
What would make much more sense is to pinpoint the location of the leadership cadre, and take them out with "precision" strikes - something small enough to only destroy, say, 3 city blocks. For each and every leadership-capable enemy combatant. Oh, and don't forget to napalm and agent orange the fields, destroying all the product. Poof, no more cartel - and if the new tenants decide to fire up a similar production, they're going to be a bit unhappy with the crops' growth rates.
What do you mean, we can't do that? We've done all that and more in the Persian Gulf, with more precision and less "collateral damage" - in this case, the excessive force would even be intentional, to inform the local populace that there's somebody bigger and badder than the cartels, with less interest in keeping a local labor force alive.
This also has the benefit of only needing a few hundred personnel, rather than the tens of thousands you specify.
If/When the Mexican government complains, tell them "You're welcome."
WASHINGTON -- Militants in Iraq have used $26 off-the-shelf software to intercept live video feeds from U.S. Predator drones, potentially providing them with information they need to evade or monitor U.S. military operations.
On the bright side, the command and control systems are not the same as the video output stream... but I still wouldn't rule out some enterprising hacker deciding to fling a few Predators south of the border and see what happens.
Actually, I was referring to the fact that any "flashing image" can cause an epileptic episode - computer screens, televisions, even a flickering candle have been known to induce seizures in patients.
I'm not condoning the behavior of a group of asinine adolescents who thought it would be funny to imagine the users of a website dedicated to the study of epilepsy suddenly having apoplectic fits, I'm pointing out that anyone with diagnosed (and hopefully, treated and manageable) epilepsy knows to avoid "flashing images" already, and is aware that a computer's video output qualifies as a potential source of danger.
I can understand the rational thinking behind this argument for anyone located in the US, or even Canada - those places are easily accessible via ground transport, assuming you know where you're going.
However, do you think the "long arm of the Mexican Drug Cartel" will reach to Europe? Asia? Australia? "Anonymous" is a fairly large crowd, and not very well connected to each other. I would assume the majority of the damaging information will be put out from some place less accessible to these wanna-be dictators.
Also, at the point these little gangsters decide to hop a pond, they have a whole new policing agency to deal with - not even counting the one at their destination. To further complicate matters, how well do you think a border crossing in Europe would go, when the dogs go berserk at the smell of cordite in and around the vehicle these Mexican assassins are traveling in? Most jurisdictions outside of the Americas don't react well to bullets, let alone guns.
I'm not talking about warning labels for advanced and complex things like potential drug interactions.
I'm referring to warning labels like the one on a hair dryer, that state that using it in the shower can kill you. I'm talking about the warning labels that keep idiots from suffocating themselves because they put a plastic bag over their head. I'm talking about the labels that are on a pan of take-n-bake lasagna that warn you not to burn yourself on the pan, because you're too stupid to realize that something that's been in the oven for the past 90 minutes, cooking at 425 degrees will be HOT.
We could use a drastic increase in the number of fatal household accidents due to things such as drinking drain cleaner, "huffing" oven cleaner, watching TV while the bug bombs spray toxic fumes into the house, setting off explosives (fireworks) in the garage, using a cigarette lighter as a light source to determine the depth of a petroleum tank, falling out of 5th floor windows, jumping off of third-floor balconies into swimming pools, shooting themselves in the testicles with a 22-caliber bullet they decided made a good replacement for that empty spot in the pickup truck's fuse-box while coming home from hunting frogs, making toast in the tub, surfing on the roof of the vehicle they just climbed out of (from the driver's seat, no less - be sure to watch the video), washing the base of a blender in the sink while it's still plugged in, putting a hand into a running garbage disposal, stepping in front of a train doing 50mph despite the flashing lights, gates, and the train itself desperately honking its horn, cutting one's own limbs off with a running [chain|table|circular|band|jig] saw, and anything else that the terminally stupid would do without a host of warning labels to keep the public safe - and better yet, they do them despite the warning labels.
All of the items in the above paragraph are excellent search terms for your favorite internet search engine if you find yourself beginning to give the human race the benefit of the doubt in the brains department. These are things people apparently continue to do, even with the warning labels all over everything because every manufacturer of anything is terrified of being sued (and the resulting PR scandal) should an end-user harm themselves with their product. Some places even have laws against doing things that any sane and rational sentient being would think are a joke - but those laws are in place because someone did something stupid and ended up hurt or dead.
Keep in mind that the average person is an idiot... and half of them are dumber than that.
Won't be too much longer before Google announces their new "virtual storefront" technology, allowing shoppers to visit stores online in a virtual fashion, picking through actual, real-time merchandise and ordering it online with their credit card (via another Google service, of course). The customer gets a richer shopping experience from the comfort of their living room, the business doesn't have to deal with as much foot traffic, and Google gets a small percentage of every transaction.
You have an interesting definition of "let the Cartels get away with it". A more accurate definition might be "actively aid and abet these activities via material support and large quantities of funding".
A truly ridiculous aspect of the drug traffic issue is that the United States hasn't managed to control the infiltration of people across the border; the illegal immigrant problem has apparently reached epic proportions! Can the US actually expect to be able to control the movements of much smaller packages that drugs and money can be smuggled back and forth in?
As for your "less incentives for the drugs to come here in the first place" plan, I agree wholeheartedly. Legalizing marijuana would be a phenomenal step in social management, as well as reducing the financial support we give to entities we can nearly all agree should not be profiting from us. I don't think it will "drop the value of all those illegal [drug] runs to zero", since we have pharmaceuticals crossing both the Mexican and the Canadian borders on a daily basis - apparently, it's orders of magnitude cheaper to ignore the patent-based monopolies in the US and acquire (supposedly) the exact same chemicals quasi-legally over the border; at least, that's what the spam in my inbox seems to indicate. Not just for "V1@GR@", but a wide array of prescription medications, everything from pain pills to antibiotics.
Marijuana has been clinically proven to be less physically damaging than either tobacco or alcohol (both of which are legal, albeit age-restricted), even with long-term usage. It keeps the (consuming) population docile, and it's incredibly cheap. Taxing it sounds like a great idea, but even just decriminalizing it would hit the drug cartels harder than sending 100,000 troops down to shoot at them, and it would hurt them where it matters: in the wallet. Why import it from Mexico, when it's so much less expensive to get it (literally, even) from your own back yard?
Marijuana grows in just about any conditions, that's part of the reason for the nickname "weed". Outlawing it is akin to outlawing carbon dioxide; how do you stop it? It has taken decades of strenuous effort to get rid of most of the "naturally occurring" cannabis growing alongside our nation's highways, never mind in a planter on someone's back porch. Criminalizing marijuana has simply given the cartels a (in effect, government-granted) monopoly on its production and distribution.
Patty Hearst and the paper industry were responsible for outlawing marijuana in the first place, because it was an economic threat - it's cheaper to make paper from marijuana than from trees. An acre of cannabis produces more paper than an acre of trees, because you can harvest every month instead of every few years. An acre of cannabis also produces more oxygen per year than an acre of trees - and it grows faster than the trees, with much less maintenance required, making it a much more renewable resource with a smaller carbon footprint. Add in the fact that you can grow hemp in a field with other plants, whereas trees pretty much exclude anything except grass, and the hemp seems (from an objective view) to become much more economically viable and environmentally friendly than many other products.
Hemp fiber is extremely versatile, and can be used to make all kinds of things that are currently made from less renewable resources - paper, clothing, rope, and even plastics and bio-fuels have been made from hemp. For example, replacing cotton with hemp would increase production by several orders of magnitude - cotton requires an entire growing season to become usable, whereas hemp is mature and ready for harvest in a much shorter time, allowing multiple "growing seasons" in the same amount of time; in addition, the cotton is confined to boles, whereas nearly the entire hemp plant is useful for its fibers.
As for its use in "self-medicating", it is interesting to note that "industrial" hemp has so little THC in it that it's barely measurable - you could smoke an e
I think the point that is trying to be made is that the taking out of this particular group will simply result in a small hole in the overall problem, which will quickly be filled by another existing group, or a new group.
Whoosh. The point that is trying to be made is that if this particular group doesn't play by the rules being imposed by Anonymous, then Anonymous will hasten the taking out of this particular group. The ever-present drug cartel problem isn't the target of Anonymous' ire.
Isn't this what they're already threatening to do, without nearly as many labyrinthine steps?
Cartel Z's information is to be released, which will lead to anyone on the list (and many who are merely related in some way to those on the list) having prices on their heads - whether from Cartel Z attempting to cover its tracks, or from Cartels A through Y attempting to take the competition down.
To join in on this threadjacking, I think the world would be a better place if all of those objects (and more things that aren't listed) were freely available to anyone who desired them.
Stupidity, left to its own devices, is a self-solving problem. We should take the warning labels off of everything, and let the world sort itself out.
A script kiddie or skiddie, occasionally skid, script bunny, script kitty, script-running juvenile (SRJ) or similar, is a derogatory term used to describe those who use scripts or programs developed by others to attack computer systems and networks and deface websites.
Emphasis added to rebut your assertion.
At second glance, it appears this is actually the point you were attempting to make... unfortunately, your condescending attitude and poor communication skills make that difficult to decipher.
Also, your assertion ignores that most "script users" didn't personally create the script they're using.
Sorry, were you talking about the drug cartels, or members of Anonymous?
If you were talking about the drug cartels, then I think you missed the point - it'll be much more personal to the cartel that goes down. If you were talking about Anonymous, then you might have been more accurate than you realize. The Streisand Effect is a powerful force.
I suppose the outcome of this is going to depend on which faction of Anonymous we're talking about here. Any of the Mexican drug cartels are definitely not Amateur Night. I have to wonder if the Anonymous in question here really understands on a visceral level that these people (if you can refer to any of these drug cartel animals as "people"), if they find them, will kill them, likely in the most hideous and painful manner possible.
Emphasis added to illustrate the whole point of "anonymous".
Slashdot Mirror
Braaaaaiiinnnss...
I have family in New Orleans. They have horror stories about the pervasive, persistent abuses of power by the police and the gatekeepers of government.
For example, during the preparations for hurricane Katrina, the New Orleans Police Department went house to house stealing and in some cases destroying residents' firearms.
At times it seems to me that there is more in common between Louisiana and Haiti than between Louisiana and the United States. If it wasn't for the fact that New Orleans is the export point for all bulk goods from the Mississippi River and Ohio River basins, and where the Mississippi and the Intercoastal Waterway meet, it would be far more trouble than it is worth. But then, that positioning is exactly why Louisiana gets away with what it does.
Louisiana doesn't have counties, it has parishes. It doesn't have laws, it has codes. Louisiana pretty much makes up its own rules for everything. Get used to it, or move elsewhere.
Please do not feed the trolls, it only makes you angry.
Go fuck yourself, pothead.
Wow, what an eloquent and insightful response. Unfortunately, your conclusion is completely wrong. I haven't smoked marijuana in many years, although I will freely admit to having done so in my youth. Experimentation is key, you see, to understanding whether one likes something. Despite my appreciation for "the herb", I found the cost/benefit analysis to come up lacking in my particular circumstances. Going to jail is a rather serious detrimental (albeit only potential, not necessarily actual) side effect, and balanced against the career decisions I was making at the time, I didn't wish to risk it.
The psychological effects of marijuana use and/or abuse have been thoroughly documented, and the research has pretty much completely destroyed any credibility that government-sponsored propaganda such as Reefer Madness may have once had. As my above essay states, the physical effects are less damaging than other substances that are currently controlled, but only by age discrimination.*
It would appear to have helped me become a "mellower" and less aggressively ignorant individual, perhaps by expanding my tolerance zone. It also doesn't appear to have seriously impacted my ability to impart information in a clear and meaningful way, or caused me to become exceedingly asinine in my dealings with others... perhaps you should try some?
* Footnote: As a matter of fact, I think it's ridiculous that the drinking age is higher than the age at which you can be required to fight (and consequently die) for your political leaders' views. Either a person is an adult, or they are not, and it seems to me that at the point where you can be required to give your life for your country, any other age discrimination should cease. My preferred method would be to set the age of adulthood (and thus drinking, smoking, and the draft) to 25 years; children tend to stay home longer now than they used to be, thanks to college and other factors. Of course, we could always go the other direction and assume personal responsibility as penultimate, and eliminate age discrimination entirely.
Side note: There is an entire domain directed at the difference between affect and effect; please educate yourself.
To respond to your comment: biological agents are extremely problematic. Aside from the obvious issues involved with targeting an herbicide (biological or other) at a specific plant, there are numerous environmental disasters that were caused explicitly by introducing a new species into an area as a biological control method. The National Invasive Species Information Center has information on a large number of critters imported to areas as a control for other pests which then took over and dramatically altered the biodiversity of the area. For a specific example, try a Google search for the Cane Toad, or look to the Wikipedia article for an idea of how quickly and badly things can go wrong. For example, the following excerpt from that article:
Around 150 cane toads were introduced to Oahu in Hawaii in 1932, and the population swelled to 105,517 after 17 months.
You see, the cane toad had plenty of food and no natural predators in its new environment, so in less than a year and a half it rapidly took over the entire region, expanding its population literally a thousandfold. This was an unexpected "side effect" of attempting to control a beetle infestation in the crops by importing the toads. Another unanticipated issue was the toads' defense mechanism:
The adult cane toad has enlarged parotoid glands behind the eyes, and other glands across their back. When the toads are threatened, their glands secrete a milky-white fluid known as bufotoxin. Components of bufotoxin are toxic to many animals; there have even been human deaths due to the consumption of cane toads.
Bufotenin, one of the chemicals excreted by the cane toad, is classified as a Class 1 drug under Australian law, alongside heroin and cannabis. It is thought that the effects of bufotenin are similar to that of mild poisoning; the stimulation, which includes mild hallucinations, lasts for less than an hour. As the cane toad excretes bufotenin in small amounts, and other toxins in relatively large quantities, toad licking could result in serious illness or death.
In other words, the damn things are extremely poisonous. The fact that one of the toxins they excrete induces hallucinations actually made the problem worse, as people would seek them out for a cheap thrill, and then end up in the hospital (or even the morgue) because they licked a toad to get high. Making the toxin a controlled substance didn't really help, and may have actually made the issue worse due to the Streisand Effect ("That's weird... why would they make it illegal to lick a toad? Oh, hey...")
In short, "biological agents" are generally considered to be a Bad Thing (tm).
I find in odd that you reason as though Mexico doesn't think it owns any of El Estados Unidos since the Mexican-American War. Durring Hurrican Katrina, if I remember correctly, several ARMED APC's outwardly showing their firepower invaded parts of Texas and towards Louisianna when Hurrican Katrina swamped much of the area. Their intent wasn't neutral and they setup stations in various places without permition from the Sheriff, yet they were mostly ignored for the short time as though they were tempting their antagonism against the civil unrest to demonstrate how far they would be tolerated.
Similarly, I find it digusting that Police and Sheriff Deputies don't tolerate The People to open-carry side-arms yet the same Police and Sheriff having no ties to the Constitution demand that The People tolerate their carry and so-called "courthouse justified" use of the same against various individuals they pre-judged them as being CRIMINAL or FELONIOUS. When The People pop, they're taking down the drug companies and the law enforcement and the judiciary and the army, but it seems today The People is more of a abandoned child or endangered animal because everyone is too busy hurting eachother in various unconstitional professions and activities.
Yes, the Mexican Army did send armed convoys to deliver aid to victims of hurricane Katrina. Doing a little research before you comment will not only allow you to impart accurate information, but allow you to give the URL of supporting information to strengthen your position, like this link to a Wikipedia article explaining the situation.
Also, it is fairly difficult to treat information with any amount of respect when the deliverer of that information (that would be you, Mr. Anonymous Coward) has serious issues with spelling, grammar, and (worst of all) capitalization.
Capitalizing random words, or worse yet, capitalizing entire words, presumably for emphasis, is simply ignorant. There are tags such as italics (<i>) and bold (<b>) that should be used for that, instead. Don't forget your closing tags.
Spell-check is a good thing to use, and most modern browsers actually have it built-in for text input fields (I know Firefox does, at least, and Microsoft products tend to have it available by pressing F7). That red squiggle under the word means it is not in the spell-checker's dictionary, so you may want to double-check the spelling before hitting "submit". This Taylor Mali video, entitled "The the Impotence of Proofreading"drives home the point that a spellchecker should not be your only guide, a point made even clearer when you read the text-only version, and realize just how badly mangled that poor student's paper is.
The grammar issues I can't give you a quick fix for; those require knowing how to properly formulate a sentence in the first place (a skill you obviously lack - no offense).
As for any factual information you may be attempting to convey, learn how to use an anchor tag to create a link - this page will show you how.
On a sep
Wouldn't 'chummer' be Shadowrun slang, not 2020?
Both great games, but they make for a shitty reality.
To be honest, I don't differentiate between the two - they are both interchangeable gritty high-tech environments. The only real difference is the existence (or not) of magic. After one of our group made a min-maxed mage character who got 4 actions per combat round, was practically invincible, and whose primary mode of combat was to fling NPCs, vehicles, and small buildings at whatever he was mad at (and this was a starting character without any Karma spent), we decided to tone down the magic a bit.
Here's a nice glossary of dystopian future slang, if you're interested. Between that and some good background music (Pandora has some excellent sounds, if you seed it properly), you can really set the proper mood.
Oh, and to answer your question (and the subsequent commentary), yes and yes. Welcome to the new era.
Unless we have on the order of 100-150,000 troops, agents, or personnel tasked JUST to combat the cartels, it's a joke.
What would make much more sense is to pinpoint the location of the leadership cadre, and take them out with "precision" strikes - something small enough to only destroy, say, 3 city blocks. For each and every leadership-capable enemy combatant. Oh, and don't forget to napalm and agent orange the fields, destroying all the product. Poof, no more cartel - and if the new tenants decide to fire up a similar production, they're going to be a bit unhappy with the crops' growth rates.
What do you mean, we can't do that? We've done all that and more in the Persian Gulf, with more precision and less "collateral damage" - in this case, the excessive force would even be intentional, to inform the local populace that there's somebody bigger and badder than the cartels, with less interest in keeping a local labor force alive.
This also has the benefit of only needing a few hundred personnel, rather than the tens of thousands you specify.
If/When the Mexican government complains, tell them "You're welcome."
--
"No, I'm not a very nice person. What of it?"
Well said. This is why I believe that the drug war is a proxy war for big pharma.
Luckily, several states have moved to decriminalize it. More information is available with this Legal history of cannabis in the United States and this list of Places that have decriminalized cannabis in the United States
It's still a federal crime to possess it, but there's a growing claim of "state's rights" that is challenging the constitutionality of that law.
WASHINGTON -- Militants in Iraq have used $26 off-the-shelf software to intercept live video feeds from U.S. Predator drones, potentially providing them with information they need to evade or monitor U.S. military operations.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126102247889095011.html
Predator drones use less encryption than your TV, DVDs
Cybersecurity Issues with Predators, Reapers, and Unmanned Aerial Systems
Not Just Drones: Militants Can Snoop on Most U.S. Warplanes
U.S. was Warned of Predator Drone Hacking contains information indicating that the US knew their UAVs had insufficient security as early as 1996.
On the bright side, the command and control systems are not the same as the video output stream... but I still wouldn't rule out some enterprising hacker deciding to fling a few Predators south of the border and see what happens.
there really isn't anybody for the cartels to retaliate against
They retaliate against the next public demonstration Anonymous whips up.
Man, those electrons better watch it, the Mexican Mafia is gonna get 'em!
Actually, I was referring to the fact that any "flashing image" can cause an epileptic episode - computer screens, televisions, even a flickering candle have been known to induce seizures in patients.
I'm not condoning the behavior of a group of asinine adolescents who thought it would be funny to imagine the users of a website dedicated to the study of epilepsy suddenly having apoplectic fits, I'm pointing out that anyone with diagnosed (and hopefully, treated and manageable) epilepsy knows to avoid "flashing images" already, and is aware that a computer's video output qualifies as a potential source of danger.
I can understand the rational thinking behind this argument for anyone located in the US, or even Canada - those places are easily accessible via ground transport, assuming you know where you're going.
However, do you think the "long arm of the Mexican Drug Cartel" will reach to Europe? Asia? Australia? "Anonymous" is a fairly large crowd, and not very well connected to each other. I would assume the majority of the damaging information will be put out from some place less accessible to these wanna-be dictators.
Also, at the point these little gangsters decide to hop a pond, they have a whole new policing agency to deal with - not even counting the one at their destination. To further complicate matters, how well do you think a border crossing in Europe would go, when the dogs go berserk at the smell of cordite in and around the vehicle these Mexican assassins are traveling in? Most jurisdictions outside of the Americas don't react well to bullets, let alone guns.
I'm not talking about warning labels for advanced and complex things like potential drug interactions.
I'm referring to warning labels like the one on a hair dryer, that state that using it in the shower can kill you. I'm talking about the warning labels that keep idiots from suffocating themselves because they put a plastic bag over their head. I'm talking about the labels that are on a pan of take-n-bake lasagna that warn you not to burn yourself on the pan, because you're too stupid to realize that something that's been in the oven for the past 90 minutes, cooking at 425 degrees will be HOT.
We could use a drastic increase in the number of fatal household accidents due to things such as drinking drain cleaner, "huffing" oven cleaner, watching TV while the bug bombs spray toxic fumes into the house, setting off explosives (fireworks) in the garage, using a cigarette lighter as a light source to determine the depth of a petroleum tank, falling out of 5th floor windows, jumping off of third-floor balconies into swimming pools, shooting themselves in the testicles with a 22-caliber bullet they decided made a good replacement for that empty spot in the pickup truck's fuse-box while coming home from hunting frogs, making toast in the tub, surfing on the roof of the vehicle they just climbed out of (from the driver's seat, no less - be sure to watch the video), washing the base of a blender in the sink while it's still plugged in, putting a hand into a running garbage disposal, stepping in front of a train doing 50mph despite the flashing lights, gates, and the train itself desperately honking its horn, cutting one's own limbs off with a running [chain|table|circular|band|jig] saw, and anything else that the terminally stupid would do without a host of warning labels to keep the public safe - and better yet, they do them despite the warning labels.
All of the items in the above paragraph are excellent search terms for your favorite internet search engine if you find yourself beginning to give the human race the benefit of the doubt in the brains department. These are things people apparently continue to do, even with the warning labels all over everything because every manufacturer of anything is terrified of being sued (and the resulting PR scandal) should an end-user harm themselves with their product. Some places even have laws against doing things that any sane and rational sentient being would think are a joke - but those laws are in place because someone did something stupid and ended up hurt or dead.
Keep in mind that the average person is an idiot... and half of them are dumber than that.
Won't be too much longer before Google announces their new "virtual storefront" technology, allowing shoppers to visit stores online in a virtual fashion, picking through actual, real-time merchandise and ordering it online with their credit card (via another Google service, of course). The customer gets a richer shopping experience from the comfort of their living room, the business doesn't have to deal with as much foot traffic, and Google gets a small percentage of every transaction.
Look out, eBay, Google's coming for you.
You have an interesting definition of "let the Cartels get away with it". A more accurate definition might be "actively aid and abet these activities via material support and large quantities of funding".
A truly ridiculous aspect of the drug traffic issue is that the United States hasn't managed to control the infiltration of people across the border; the illegal immigrant problem has apparently reached epic proportions! Can the US actually expect to be able to control the movements of much smaller packages that drugs and money can be smuggled back and forth in?
As for your "less incentives for the drugs to come here in the first place" plan, I agree wholeheartedly. Legalizing marijuana would be a phenomenal step in social management, as well as reducing the financial support we give to entities we can nearly all agree should not be profiting from us. I don't think it will "drop the value of all those illegal [drug] runs to zero", since we have pharmaceuticals crossing both the Mexican and the Canadian borders on a daily basis - apparently, it's orders of magnitude cheaper to ignore the patent-based monopolies in the US and acquire (supposedly) the exact same chemicals quasi-legally over the border; at least, that's what the spam in my inbox seems to indicate. Not just for "V1@GR@", but a wide array of prescription medications, everything from pain pills to antibiotics.
Marijuana has been clinically proven to be less physically damaging than either tobacco or alcohol (both of which are legal, albeit age-restricted), even with long-term usage. It keeps the (consuming) population docile, and it's incredibly cheap. Taxing it sounds like a great idea, but even just decriminalizing it would hit the drug cartels harder than sending 100,000 troops down to shoot at them, and it would hurt them where it matters: in the wallet. Why import it from Mexico, when it's so much less expensive to get it (literally, even) from your own back yard?
Marijuana grows in just about any conditions, that's part of the reason for the nickname "weed". Outlawing it is akin to outlawing carbon dioxide; how do you stop it? It has taken decades of strenuous effort to get rid of most of the "naturally occurring" cannabis growing alongside our nation's highways, never mind in a planter on someone's back porch. Criminalizing marijuana has simply given the cartels a (in effect, government-granted) monopoly on its production and distribution.
Patty Hearst and the paper industry were responsible for outlawing marijuana in the first place, because it was an economic threat - it's cheaper to make paper from marijuana than from trees. An acre of cannabis produces more paper than an acre of trees, because you can harvest every month instead of every few years. An acre of cannabis also produces more oxygen per year than an acre of trees - and it grows faster than the trees, with much less maintenance required, making it a much more renewable resource with a smaller carbon footprint. Add in the fact that you can grow hemp in a field with other plants, whereas trees pretty much exclude anything except grass, and the hemp seems (from an objective view) to become much more economically viable and environmentally friendly than many other products.
Hemp fiber is extremely versatile, and can be used to make all kinds of things that are currently made from less renewable resources - paper, clothing, rope, and even plastics and bio-fuels have been made from hemp. For example, replacing cotton with hemp would increase production by several orders of magnitude - cotton requires an entire growing season to become usable, whereas hemp is mature and ready for harvest in a much shorter time, allowing multiple "growing seasons" in the same amount of time; in addition, the cotton is confined to boles, whereas nearly the entire hemp plant is useful for its fibers.
As for its use in "self-medicating", it is interesting to note that "industrial" hemp has so little THC in it that it's barely measurable - you could smoke an e
I think the point that is trying to be made is that the taking out of this particular group will simply result in a small hole in the overall problem, which will quickly be filled by another existing group, or a new group.
Whoosh. The point that is trying to be made is that if this particular group doesn't play by the rules being imposed by Anonymous, then Anonymous will hasten the taking out of this particular group. The ever-present drug cartel problem isn't the target of Anonymous' ire.
Isn't this what they're already threatening to do, without nearly as many labyrinthine steps?
Cartel Z's information is to be released, which will lead to anyone on the list (and many who are merely related in some way to those on the list) having prices on their heads - whether from Cartel Z attempting to cover its tracks, or from Cartels A through Y attempting to take the competition down.
To join in on this threadjacking, I think the world would be a better place if all of those objects (and more things that aren't listed) were freely available to anyone who desired them.
Stupidity, left to its own devices, is a self-solving problem. We should take the warning labels off of everything, and let the world sort itself out.
Anonymous is in over their heads.
I keep hearing this phrase, over and over... and it seems to have joined the other myths, such as "BSD is dead".
xkcd references are great, but I think Penny Arcade may be more relevant in this context.
The drug cartels work by fear and intimidation.
Seems to me that Anonymous is attempting to use the same weapons.
(For the idiots who don't know this, a script user isn't a script kiddy)
Script kiddie, from the Wikipedia entry:
A script kiddie or skiddie, occasionally skid, script bunny, script kitty, script-running juvenile (SRJ) or similar, is a derogatory term used to describe those who use scripts or programs developed by others to attack computer systems and networks and deface websites.
Emphasis added to rebut your assertion.
At second glance, it appears this is actually the point you were attempting to make... unfortunately, your condescending attitude and poor communication skills make that difficult to decipher.
Also, your assertion ignores that most "script users" didn't personally create the script they're using.
one goes down another takes its place...
Sorry, were you talking about the drug cartels, or members of Anonymous?
If you were talking about the drug cartels, then I think you missed the point - it'll be much more personal to the cartel that goes down.
If you were talking about Anonymous, then you might have been more accurate than you realize. The Streisand Effect is a powerful force.
I suppose the outcome of this is going to depend on which faction of Anonymous we're talking about here. Any of the Mexican drug cartels are definitely not Amateur Night. I have to wonder if the Anonymous in question here really understands on a visceral level that these people (if you can refer to any of these drug cartel animals as "people"), if they find them, will kill them, likely in the most hideous and painful manner possible.
Emphasis added to illustrate the whole point of "anonymous".
To be fair, I feel it necessary to point out that any video display is already "flashing images" - that's how video displays work.
I don't know why I'm risking my karma by pointing this out, but there it is.