One, it wouldn't work. Smuggling is easy when you have lots of money, which drug smugglers do. There is always an unprotected place (how much coastline does the U.S. have? how much of it is private property?) where it's possible to bring contraband into the country.
Two, it would be prohibitively expensive. We already spend way too much on the military in this country, and the kind of operation you describe would probably double or triple the military budget.
Three, it doesn't address the real problem. The war on drugs is misguided. Casual drug use isn't *really* a problem. Lots of successful, happy people smoke pot with no ill effects. Why make it illegal when it's not worse than cigarettes or alcohol? The problem with drugs is that people do get addicted and such abuse can ruin their lives. But this is a medical problem, not a law enforcement one.
Finally, it does nothing to address the unparalleled crime wave across this country the drug war has created. Think of all the violent crimes that occur as a result of the illicit drug trade. Has drug interdiction helped at all? Of course not. There are two ways to solve this. First, work seriously on eliminating poverty so that the motivation to get into selling drugs is gone, and second, decriminalize drugs so that the black market is no longer profitable.
Actually, that's not quite right. (Slashdot got it wrong.) If you read the story, you'll see that it was News.com's decision not to publish the name because Apple wouldn't confirm that there wasn't another employee with the same name. If you ask me, it's a strange editorial decision. Usually the only names kept out of stories are those of rape victims, minors accused of crimes, and the like. I've never heard of a name kept out of a story because someone else might have the same name. As far as I know there are no journalistic ethics guidelines about this situation.
I may be optimistic, but I imagine this law would fair no better in the courts than CDA or COPA. Of course, if the Supreme Court shifts quickly to the right, things could change.
I think what makes me angry about this is that its an attempt to help kids through a kind of deception. This pulling the wool over their eyes and trying to pretend that this stuff doesn't exist is no substitute for talking to them about it. While I recognize the right for parents to put filtering software on their computers, I think it's bad parenting--a copout.
And I know what people are going to say: do I really want my kids to see the All Anal Action at allanalaction.com? Well, no, not particularly, but I think it's healthier for them if they know they can talk to you about it rather than discovering it somewhere else and immediately realizing that this is Naughty Stuff.
So there it is, in a fucking nutshell. Why the fuck does "money" equate to "evil" with you??! Why the fuck is the first thing you think of "Coke paying a town to force its residents to take a gene that makes them drink coke"?? WHY must dipshit fuckers like you spread FUD indiscriminately??!
Because dipshit motherfuckers do very horrible, horrible things all the time to make money. They poison people, they indocrinate them to consumption-based philosophies, they influence politicians to shift the tax burden away from corporations--anything to make a dollar. Of course this kind of technology is scary and of course we should be worried about what people are doing with it. It isn't FUD to say that people are likely to use new technology to do bad things for money; it's common sense!
And my comment (like most of the others posted so far) has more to do with the implications of the technological possibilties of implanting chromosomes than the specific applications this company is doing. So sue me; I thought that was the kind of thing Slashdot was for.
For me the real question with something like this is when will corporate interests try to "monetize" something like this, and how? Right now the research being done is nominally medical; that is, it's focused on curing disease or improving health. But at some point, there are going to be some bad--but profitable--ideas on the table. Will Coke pay a town millions to have a "prefers Coke to Pepsi" gene given to residents? Sure it sounds crazy now, but how different is this from getting a school to spell out the word Coke with its students?
Perhaps I was a bit harsh in talking about the average citizen--my work involves dealing with a broad range of people who need computer help, so you can imagine the cross-section of people I see.:)
But whether or not you think the average person is stupid or smart, one thing is absolutely true: he is not able to be well informed on every subject necessary to make him a good consumer. And as long as they are able, companies will take advantage of that fact in order to bleed as much money out of him as possible. Whether they do it through outright fraud or through somewhat deceptive practices, it's going to happen. Marketing works, and it's something that is by its very nature deceptive. (Yes, I know there are exceptions.)
As for the fact that libertarians believe that government should fight fraud--good, I'm glad you think so. I guess I assumed that they would think it wasn't fraud in this case because a well informed consumer would know better. To me, that isn't a fair standard. (I realize that it sounds fair. Doesn't make it so.) Tell me, do you think it's fraud in this case?
Would you really want to live in an "idiot proof" society? Are you willing to give up your rights as an adult in order to have the government raise you children for you?
These questions really cut too broad strokes for me to answer them intelligently, and I'm not sure they're relevant. Mostly they seem rhetorical.
Are you willing to give up a free market in order to avoid having to read the fine print?
If you mean perfectly free, yes. Absolutely. Only not to give up reading the fine print. I just don't want it to be fine. What do I really want? A society based on truth, rather than deception.
No, I wasn't trolling, although I certainly appreciate your correction--indeed, I should have used the lowercase "l" or perhaps even said anarchists. However, I would guess in this case that libertarians would be inclined to criticize the FTC. I probably should have waited until someone did, and then responded to that post. I certainly can be too quick on the draw with my arguments.
Maybe I shouldn't have named libertarians, anarchists, or anyone--just "those who thing the FTC was wrong to do this." Free-marketers would probably be the most accurate description.
This kind of thing is exactly why I don't understand the positions of Libertarians (apologies to Eric Raymond, of course). There are obviously people and--more often--corporations who purposefully deceive consumers to the fullest extent possible for the sake of making a big fat profit. That's why we have things like fraud laws and agencies like the FTC to enforce them. It isn't easy for average Americans (bless their dim li'l hearts) to see through these kinds of offers, and it's great to see people who know what they're doing trying to protect them. Kudos to the FTC.
Actually, the report suggests something much worse than outlawing Napster. It reads:
Require internet service providers that wish to qualify for safe harbor to collect personally identifiable and verifiable information from their users. Napster currently allows its users to sign on anonymously, making it impossible for rights holders to track down the infringers.
That means that ISPs will be liable for copyright infringement unless they collect identifying data on you. It will be their burden to make sure their users don't violate copyright laws, and their asses if they don't.
The threat to privacy is clear. If this were to become law, ISPs that try to protect your privacy would actually be doing so illegally.
It makes perfect sense. Probation comes *after* the punishment, and is not supposed to be a punishment itself. It's supposed to be a sort of "test" period to make sure you don't break any more laws. Your freedom is somewhat restricted (for example, you're usually not allowed to leave the state w/o notifying your PO), but the punitive stage of rehabilitation is supposed to be over, unless you relapse into criminal activity.
The argument here is that the restriction on his speech is not reasonable and constitutes a greater punishment. Seems right to me.
Yes, let's immediately demonize everyone who breaks the law, like, oh, the founding fathers and, um, Martin Luther King, Jr.
And no, I'm not equating Mitnick with Thomas Jefferson and MLK. I'm just pointing out that those who are convicted of crimes are not always justly convicted.
There is another interesting point to this story besides the blantant stripping of Mitnick's First Amendment Rights. CNN felt the need to call him "infamous" in its headline, so by the time most readers get to the first paragraph, they're already assuming he is getting what he deserves. Why does the mainstream media feel the need to demonize him? Because it represents the interests supposedly victimized by Mitnick's activities: big business.
Or just threaten to. Look, the way Internet companies are valued these days, you're worth ten times whatever revenue you can bring in in the next 100 years. So don't worry about their shock. If they really want you, a quarter mil is a bargain.
Of course, it isn't really relevant that your service has been acceptable. It's better than dialup? So what? It's a fundamentally different thing than dialup. It should be *way* better than dialup, and if it isn't as good as advertised, then there's still a problem.
But even that's irrelevant. The issue here isn't whether @Home customers are happy; the question is whether @Home has a reasonable spam policy that it enforces. I don't know what the policy is, but obviously it isn't enforcing any policy at all.
How much will you enjoy your service when your posts to newsgroups are no longer propagated? Maybe you don't care about that because you don't post. But those who do are going to be pissed, I imagine. That's what the UDP is for.
Of course, it isn't really relevant that your service has been acceptable. It's better than dialup? So what? It's a fundamentally different thing than dialup. It should be *way* better than dialup, and if it isn't as good as advertised, then there's still a problem.
But even that's irrelevant. The issue here isn't whether @Home customers are happy; the question is whether @Home has a reasonable spam policy that it enforces. I don't know what the policy is, but obviously it isn't enforcing it.
How much will you enjoy your service when your posts to newsgroups are no longer propagated? Maybe you don't care about that because you don't post. But those who do are going to be pissed, I imagine. That's what the UDP is for.
Has anyone else noticed that whenever there's bad new about Microsoft, MSNBC always seems to be the first to report it? Do you suppose that at the first sign of something that might result in bad press, Microsoft immediately gets MSNBC the story, thinking that at the very least, it can use the situations to bolster the network's credibility?
Good or bad is a value judgement. Value judgements are morals, morals are religion, and church and state are supposed to be seperate (I was going to write "religion is a load of crap" but I'm feeling nice today.)
The government has no place saying whether anything is "good" or "bad". Period. Otherwise, they are practicing organized religion.
That's just silly. Of course government has to make some judgements as to what's good or bad. Right and wrong might be better terms here.) Otherwise there'd be no laws at all.
Which isn't to say the government does a very good job of it...
Slashdot Mirror
One, it wouldn't work. Smuggling is easy when you have lots of money, which drug smugglers do. There is always an unprotected place (how much coastline does the U.S. have? how much of it is private property?) where it's possible to bring contraband into the country.
Two, it would be prohibitively expensive. We already spend way too much on the military in this country, and the kind of operation you describe would probably double or triple the military budget.
Three, it doesn't address the real problem. The war on drugs is misguided. Casual drug use isn't *really* a problem. Lots of successful, happy people smoke pot with no ill effects. Why make it illegal when it's not worse than cigarettes or alcohol? The problem with drugs is that people do get addicted and such abuse can ruin their lives. But this is a medical problem, not a law enforcement one.
Finally, it does nothing to address the unparalleled crime wave across this country the drug war has created. Think of all the violent crimes that occur as a result of the illicit drug trade. Has drug interdiction helped at all? Of course not. There are two ways to solve this. First, work seriously on eliminating poverty so that the motivation to get into selling drugs is gone, and second, decriminalize drugs so that the black market is no longer profitable.
--
--
I think what makes me angry about this is that its an attempt to help kids through a kind of deception. This pulling the wool over their eyes and trying to pretend that this stuff doesn't exist is no substitute for talking to them about it. While I recognize the right for parents to put filtering software on their computers, I think it's bad parenting--a copout.
And I know what people are going to say: do I really want my kids to see the All Anal Action at allanalaction.com? Well, no, not particularly, but I think it's healthier for them if they know they can talk to you about it rather than discovering it somewhere else and immediately realizing that this is Naughty Stuff.
--
--
Because dipshit motherfuckers do very horrible, horrible things all the time to make money. They poison people, they indocrinate them to consumption-based philosophies, they influence politicians to shift the tax burden away from corporations--anything to make a dollar. Of course this kind of technology is scary and of course we should be worried about what people are doing with it. It isn't FUD to say that people are likely to use new technology to do bad things for money; it's common sense!
And my comment (like most of the others posted so far) has more to do with the implications of the technological possibilties of implanting chromosomes than the specific applications this company is doing. So sue me; I thought that was the kind of thing Slashdot was for.
--
--
--
But whether or not you think the average person is stupid or smart, one thing is absolutely true: he is not able to be well informed on every subject necessary to make him a good consumer. And as long as they are able, companies will take advantage of that fact in order to bleed as much money out of him as possible. Whether they do it through outright fraud or through somewhat deceptive practices, it's going to happen. Marketing works, and it's something that is by its very nature deceptive. (Yes, I know there are exceptions.)
As for the fact that libertarians believe that government should fight fraud--good, I'm glad you think so. I guess I assumed that they would think it wasn't fraud in this case because a well informed consumer would know better. To me, that isn't a fair standard. (I realize that it sounds fair. Doesn't make it so.) Tell me, do you think it's fraud in this case?
Would you really want to live in an "idiot proof" society? Are you willing to give up your rights as an adult in order to have the government raise you children for you?
These questions really cut too broad strokes for me to answer them intelligently, and I'm not sure they're relevant. Mostly they seem rhetorical.
Are you willing to give up a free market in order to avoid having to read the fine print?
If you mean perfectly free, yes. Absolutely. Only not to give up reading the fine print. I just don't want it to be fine. What do I really want? A society based on truth, rather than deception.
--
Maybe I shouldn't have named libertarians, anarchists, or anyone--just "those who thing the FTC was wrong to do this." Free-marketers would probably be the most accurate description.
--
--
Sure, many ISPs do. Mine does. But there's a world of difference between many ISPs collecting data and making it illegal for them not to do so.
That means that ISPs will be liable for copyright infringement unless they collect identifying data on you. It will be their burden to make sure their users don't violate copyright laws, and their asses if they don't.
The threat to privacy is clear. If this were to become law, ISPs that try to protect your privacy would actually be doing so illegally.
The argument here is that the restriction on his speech is not reasonable and constitutes a greater punishment. Seems right to me.
And no, I'm not equating Mitnick with Thomas Jefferson and MLK. I'm just pointing out that those who are convicted of crimes are not always justly convicted.
There is another interesting point to this story besides the blantant stripping of Mitnick's First Amendment Rights. CNN felt the need to call him "infamous" in its headline, so by the time most readers get to the first paragraph, they're already assuming he is getting what he deserves. Why does the mainstream media feel the need to demonize him? Because it represents the interests supposedly victimized by Mitnick's activities: big business.
Or just threaten to. Look, the way Internet companies are valued these days, you're worth ten times whatever revenue you can bring in in the next 100 years. So don't worry about their shock. If they really want you, a quarter mil is a bargain.
What's the worst Web site you've ever seen, and why?
How embarassing.
Of course, it isn't really relevant that your service has been acceptable. It's better than dialup? So what? It's a fundamentally different thing than dialup. It should be *way* better than dialup, and if it isn't as good as advertised, then there's still a problem.
But even that's irrelevant. The issue here isn't whether @Home customers are happy; the question is whether @Home has a reasonable spam policy that it enforces. I don't know what the policy is, but obviously it isn't enforcing any policy at all.
How much will you enjoy your service when your posts to newsgroups are no longer propagated? Maybe you don't care about that because you don't post. But those who do are going to be pissed, I imagine. That's what the UDP is for.
Of course, it isn't really relevant that your service has been acceptable. It's better than dialup? So what? It's a fundamentally different thing than dialup. It should be *way* better than dialup, and if it isn't as good as advertised, then there's still a problem.
But even that's irrelevant. The issue here isn't whether @Home customers are happy; the question is whether @Home has a reasonable spam policy that it enforces. I don't know what the policy is, but obviously it isn't enforcing it.
How much will you enjoy your service when your posts to newsgroups are no longer propagated? Maybe you don't care about that because you don't post. But those who do are going to be pissed, I imagine. That's what the UDP is for.
And Salon, of course, is the first to report on it.
Is anyone else annoyed by the tiny charts that aren't linked to larger versions?
Has anyone else noticed that whenever there's bad new about Microsoft, MSNBC always seems to be the first to report it? Do you suppose that at the first sign of something that might result in bad press, Microsoft immediately gets MSNBC the story, thinking that at the very least, it can use the situations to bolster the network's credibility?
Good or bad is a value judgement. Value judgements are morals, morals are religion, and church and state are supposed to be seperate (I was going to write "religion is a load of crap" but I'm feeling nice today.)
The government has no place saying whether anything is "good" or "bad". Period. Otherwise, they are practicing organized religion.
That's just silly. Of course government has to make some judgements as to what's good or bad. Right and wrong might be better terms here.) Otherwise there'd be no laws at all.
Which isn't to say the government does a very good job of it...
Actually, I don't think that's rich enough anyway. When I filled out the application, I had to check the lowest amount in "assets."
It was "under $50,000."
As for the AOL comment, it's silly. The whole point of the stock market is that you never can tell what the AOLs are.