That was my thought at first, but it's still possible to make this kind of mistake with public key encryption. If the software sends your message to the wrong person, it would probably encrypt with the wrong public key as well.
Oh, I'm quite sure they exist. Just as people who believe that throwing acid in a young girl's face is preferable to educating that girl. There's really no difference between the two.
Hyperbole is a terrible argumentative tool
That is not hyperbole in the least. They are both examples of the exact same thought process in different contexts. Both are wanton cruelty justified by a twisted sense of morality. In both cases, the agressor believes that he is doing the right thing while harming individuals and his community.
If I'm wrong, what exactly is the difference?
They enforce laws against opiates. This jacks up the price, and driving addicts to commit crimes to get a fix. This also decreases the quality and consistancy of the supply, killing people.
"They don't have to do the drugs. An increased cost, and more danger would tell me that I should probably stop doing opiates. Addiction is no excuse for breaking the law. Also, saying that addicts HAVE to break the law to provide for their addiction is really only half of the argument. They have another option: getting clean."
This fails the "well meaning" test. Whether or not they have to use drugs, or can get clean is irrelevant. What matters is what policy yields the best public health outcomes. Prohibition has absolutely failed on this measure. It has no effect on rates of addiction, and makes addiction far more dangerous. Continuing prohibition in light of this fact is simply being cruel because "those people deserve it".
Also, consider that an islamist could use the same argument. "She didn't have to get an education/refuse the veil/drive a car/etc." This is just blaming the victim.
Oh, and "Addiction is no excuse for breaking the law." is begging the question. Presuming that opiates should be illegal because addicts should be punished for breaking the law is circular reasoning.
They enforce laws against cocaine, turning people towards more easily obtained, yet far more harmful stimulants like meth.
"Those two things are VERY dissimilar in how they act in your body. That's a bad argument. Coke heads don't go to meth. They go to crack. Meth use and cocaine use are in entirely separate areas of the country at the micro-scale, and in entirely separate communities at the macro-scale."
He's wrong in the first case, as you'd expect from a police officer lecturing about pharmacology. Cocaine and methamphetamine both act at the norepinephrine and dopamine transporters. Cocaine blocks reuptake, while methamphetamine runs the transporter in reverse. Both lead to extra neurotransmitter in the synapse of stimulatory/pleasure systems. The main pharmacological difference is that methamphetamine is metabolized much more slowly.
He's right in the second case, but the reasons for that are largely cultural and economic. If everything is equally available at reasonable prices, and people are educated properly, cocaine would likely displace a lot of meth use, leading to better public health. You'd also eliminate meth labs in one fell swoop.
The enforce laws against psychedelics, depriving most of the country from one of the most awe inspiring, and still incredibly safe experiences life has to offer.
"You could, you know, do something else awe inspiring. Ever seen the grand canyon? If your life is so boring that you MUST have psychedelics to enjoy it, you need to evaluate the choices you make."
As if nobody ever dies at the Grand Canyon? As if psychedelics that unlock corners of the mind and put us in touch with the closest thing to divinity that can be scientifically reproduced are not a natural wonder of the world, every bit as worthy of experiencing as the Grand Canyon? As if I couldn't say "If your life is so boring that you MUST see some giant hole in the ground, you need to
There are, and this may be hard to understand, people who genuinely believe that the only way to remove drugs from the streets - regardless of proof to the contrary - is to make them illegal and put people in jail for them.
Those people are, to put it lightly, pants on head retarded.
For proof of the fact that these people exist, and that they do not agree with your undergraduate statistics and crime course arguments, please consult anyone labeled 'officer'.
Oh, I'm quite sure they exist. Just as people who believe that throwing acid in a young girl's face is preferable to educating that girl. There's really no difference between the two.
Yes, the DEA enforces more than just marijuana laws.
They enforce laws against opiates. This jacks up the price, and driving addicts to commit crimes to get a fix. This also decreases the quality and consistancy of the supply, killing people.
They enforce laws against cocaine, turning people towards more easily obtained, yet far more harmful stimulants like meth.
The enforce laws against psychedelics, depriving most of the country from one of the most awe inspiring, and still incredibly safe experiences life has to offer.
And to top it all off, they drive these industries underground, enriching violent cartels at great human cost.
The DEA serves no desirable purpose whatsoever. I challenge anyone to put forth a single well meaning, well informed argument for prohibition of any drug.
I read TFA, and the linked FAs, and one of them gave the DEA's reason as background.
Right, so the media may not be as one sided as you initially claimed.
Then I used a bit of critical thought, and realized that the ACLU might not be wholly unbiased, so I read more, mentally emphasizing the DEA's justification.
And the DEA isn't biased? Why do you only apply critical thinking to the ACLU and not to the arguments of the DEA?
Then, applying Hanlon's razor, I assume that the DEA believes their own justification, and would apply that in their reports to the President.
Exactly, the DEA is biased in its own favor, and the President reads their reports directly. The President doesn't listen to the ACLU or any civil liberties groups. That's a huge bias towards authortiarianism.
Sure, he has access to the same newspapers you do, but he's also getting the counter-biased reports, so he's not likely to be as overcome by hatred as you are.
The DEA itself is a hate group tasked with the persecution of drug users. Pressuring doctors to underprescribe necessary pain medication is hateful. Imprisoning people who provide needed medication to the seriously ill is hateful. Refusing to even consider rescheduling a drug that has very clearly established medical use is hateful. Imprisoning black drug users at 10 times the rate of white drug users, when the rates of drug use are the same is hateful. Hell, simply disrespecting the right of your citizens to decide what they do with their own body is hateful. Drug prohibition is nothing but hate. It's an atrocity.
I speak only from a position of love for my fellow man. Evil is as evil does, and the DEA does evil. If you want what is best for your fellow man, and actually apply reason, the only conclusion is legalization.
The same place as every other President's: In the other branches. Funny thing about the President is that he has no ability, per the Constitution, to stop anything.
The DEA is in the executive branch. The President absolutely has the ability, AND the responsibility, to direct its enforcement efforts in a way that respects the rights of the people.
Or it proves you don't know everything about what's going on, and are just looking for a scapegoat for your prejudice against the government.
Ok then, educate me. What exactly is going on?
And prejudice? Let me put it this way. "Fool me once, shame on â" shame on you. Fool me â" you can't get fooled again." When every power that can be abused has been abused, you'd be an idiot to assume that further powers will not be abused.
Generally when an upgrade might break Sid, you'll see the packages that might break it as "kept back" and it won't install them. Update a few days later when the devs have sorted everything out and it works fine.
Now you're a bunch of witless idiots cowering in the dark.
Can't go along with that. I think corrupt morons is closer. Egotistical Assholes might also fit the bill.
How about vicious and cruel thugs? Dangerous madmen? Sick, twisted fucks? Reprehensible monsters?
I don't think there's invective too severe for the DEA. They'd rather see ill people waste away to their deaths in prison than get comfort from a medication they disapprove of. That's just plain evil.
You know about it because you read a one-sided story fed to you by the media.
If the media story is so one sided, how do you know that "In this case, the DEA claims their actions are justified by a SCOTUS ruling"? Does the President not have access to the same newspapers I do? Or does he not read them, because he doesn't care?
The President's office is exactly the same. They get their updates through thousands of periodic reports, and each one comes with a ready-built rationale for what they're doing.
Right, so where is his office of civil liberties that brings the abuse potential to Obama's attention? He doesn't have one, because he doesn't care.
Of course, in hindsight, we can easily see the reports, the flimsy justification, and the resulting inaction, but that doesn't make the situation any better.
If Obama used that hindsight to discipline his underlings, then you might have a point. The fact that he has not, even once, despite well established abuses of authority proves that he doesn't care.
The buck used to stop with the President. Where does it stop now?
Now I'm going to say the same thing I have said about every president during the last 30 years: They aren't Omnipotent. They do not know what everyone under them is doing, and they aren't really hands on running each agency beneath them.
If *I* know about it, what's the President's excuse for not knowing about it? When he finds out about these issues, what's his excuse for not firing the head of the agency? Why is Eric Holder still AG, when he violated Obama's promise to respect state laws on medical marijuana? Why is James Clapper still DNI, when he lied to Congress? For that matter, has Obama disciplined ANYONE underneath him for well established abuses of power?
Obama doesn't give a shit about us, our rights, or America. All he cares about are his cronies.
Jumped the shark presumes they had a legitimate purpose at some point. The DEA is evil, it has always been evil, and has never had any purpose other than oppression.
I work at the command line all the time. I run Debian Sid on almost all of my computers. I really tried to give Arch a shot, but damned if it didn't break on every other update. Yeah, yeah, I'm supposed to read the release notes, so it's "my fault". Whatever, I can "apt-get upgrade" Sid any time, no matter how long I've left the computer, and it works.
Here's an example. A the top of the news items on archlinux.org, we see:
Deprecation of/etc/sysctl.conf
2013-09-17
From version 207 on, systemd will not apply the settings from/etc/sysctl.conf anymore: it will only apply those from/etc/sysctl.d/*. Since the settings of our/etc/sysctl.conf shipped by procps-ng have become kernel defaults anyway, we have decided to deprecate this file.
Upon upgrading to procps-ng-3.3.8-3, you will be prompted to move any changes you made to/etc/sysctl.conf under/etc/sysctl.d. The easiest way to do this is to run:
If you never customized/etc/sysctl.conf, you have nothing to do.
Why can't the package manager do that for me? Sure it's easy enough to do, but I'm lazy. This could easily be automated, and I don't have time to manually do things that could easily be automated. That's what computers are supposed to do for us.
I really wanted to like Arch. I ran it on my laptop for a year and a half. But I've gone back to Sid, it just works.
No, you just didn't pay attention. All Myst took to beat was a notebook. Go everywhere, write down everything unusual, use the clues in the obvious place. If anything it was too easy, I beat it in one sick day home from school. You want frustrating? Try a Sierra adventure game.
But it did change the face of gaming. It killed the graphic adventure genre. Why spend money on actors and writers when you can grab a logic puzzle book from the grocery store magazine rack, render some pretty graphics, and call it a game? To someone who grew up on King's Quest and Monkey Island, Myst was a poor excuse for an adventure game.
GTA could get its rating based solely on the amount of violence.
GTA V is rated M. If it had included sex, it would be rated AO. How do we know this? Because GTA:SA was also rated M. When it was discovered that there was a hidden sex scene, which you had to modify the game to uncover, it was rerated AO.
His point stands. Gratuitous violence is perceived as much less harmful than even non-explicit sex by those we are supposed to trust to make value judgements.
Exactly. Not that you have any actual reason to believe that this content is harmful. Just because you're a parent, and that makes you the all knowing always correct judge of what is good and bad.
If you want to expose your kids to hardcore porn and Saw movies at age 2--hey knock yourself out, pal
Hardcore porn, why not? If they're not pubescent, they're not going to be interested. If they enjoy it, good for them. Saw movies? They're likely to cause nightmares, that's actually a problem and a good reason to avoid them.
But I kind of like the idea of protecting my kid.
Then try protecting your kid from censorship and arbitrary value judgements.
I have a very hard time explaining to my child why his cousin can play these games, but he can't.
Maybe that should tell you something. Can you explain it to anyone? Do you have an actual reason, or is it "because I said so"?
I have been unable to convince the parents that there was never any need for their child to play these games.
You have it backwards, nobody needs any specific form of entertainment. You have to explain to them that there is a need for their child to not play those games. But you can't do that, because there is no reason.
In fact, he throws a major tantrum if he can't play these games.
Lots of kids will throw a tantrum if you take away their video games. It doesn't matter whether it's GTA or Pokemon.
Despite all this, they still beleive that they're not doing anything wrong.
Failing to control a tantrum is a problem. Kids need to learn that throwing a tantrum will only get them farther from what they want. The reason for the tantrum is irrelevant.
Children have been playing cops & robbers for as long as there have been cops and robbers. How is GTA any different?
In what way is it not a good thing? For whom is it not a good thing? For you or for the kid or for the rest of society? On what basis do you make this value judgement?
A kid's innocence is a precious thing, and it's a shame to squander it too early.
How does "innocence" differ from "ignorance"?
I also don't want him introduced to the ugly world of violent crime, drugs, and prostitution while he's still in kindergarten either.
Better for him to be introduced to the ugly world of censorship and deference to arbitrary authority, right?
No I don't support bent cops who enforce it selectively to their or their friends benefit, but I don't think asking cops to apply a bit of common sense in law enforcement is really too much to ask.
Most cops think that refusing to ticket other cops, whitewashing police brutality via internal affairs, etc is "common sense".
Slashdot Mirror
Neither did old keyboards, but that's not the point. The point is that the operating system's low-level keyboard drivers have special handling for it
Then Gates is wrong to blame the IBM keyboard engineers. He could have chosen any key or key combo.
c-kermit, now fully open source, is at v9.0. ZTerm is at version 1.2. Both were last released in 2011.
Personally, SMPlayer (and MPlayer's) early history on Linux was horrible - there was no one GUI that was nice enough on it
Why does a video player need a GUI anyway?
I'm marking this one WORKSFORME.
That was my thought at first, but it's still possible to make this kind of mistake with public key encryption. If the software sends your message to the wrong person, it would probably encrypt with the wrong public key as well.
That is not hyperbole in the least. They are both examples of the exact same thought process in different contexts. Both are wanton cruelty justified by a twisted sense of morality. In both cases, the agressor believes that he is doing the right thing while harming individuals and his community.
If I'm wrong, what exactly is the difference?
This fails the "well meaning" test. Whether or not they have to use drugs, or can get clean is irrelevant. What matters is what policy yields the best public health outcomes. Prohibition has absolutely failed on this measure. It has no effect on rates of addiction, and makes addiction far more dangerous. Continuing prohibition in light of this fact is simply being cruel because "those people deserve it".
Also, consider that an islamist could use the same argument. "She didn't have to get an education/refuse the veil/drive a car/etc." This is just blaming the victim.
Oh, and "Addiction is no excuse for breaking the law." is begging the question. Presuming that opiates should be illegal because addicts should be punished for breaking the law is circular reasoning.
He's wrong in the first case, as you'd expect from a police officer lecturing about pharmacology. Cocaine and methamphetamine both act at the norepinephrine and dopamine transporters. Cocaine blocks reuptake, while methamphetamine runs the transporter in reverse. Both lead to extra neurotransmitter in the synapse of stimulatory/pleasure systems. The main pharmacological difference is that methamphetamine is metabolized much more slowly.
He's right in the second case, but the reasons for that are largely cultural and economic. If everything is equally available at reasonable prices, and people are educated properly, cocaine would likely displace a lot of meth use, leading to better public health. You'd also eliminate meth labs in one fell swoop.
As if nobody ever dies at the Grand Canyon? As if psychedelics that unlock corners of the mind and put us in touch with the closest thing to divinity that can be scientifically reproduced are not a natural wonder of the world, every bit as worthy of experiencing as the Grand Canyon? As if I couldn't say "If your life is so boring that you MUST see some giant hole in the ground, you need to
There are, and this may be hard to understand, people who genuinely believe that the only way to remove drugs from the streets - regardless of proof to the contrary - is to make them illegal and put people in jail for them.
Those people are, to put it lightly, pants on head retarded.
For proof of the fact that these people exist, and that they do not agree with your undergraduate statistics and crime course arguments, please consult anyone labeled 'officer'.
Oh, I'm quite sure they exist. Just as people who believe that throwing acid in a young girl's face is preferable to educating that girl. There's really no difference between the two.
Yes, the DEA enforces more than just marijuana laws.
They enforce laws against opiates. This jacks up the price, and driving addicts to commit crimes to get a fix. This also decreases the quality and consistancy of the supply, killing people.
They enforce laws against cocaine, turning people towards more easily obtained, yet far more harmful stimulants like meth.
The enforce laws against psychedelics, depriving most of the country from one of the most awe inspiring, and still incredibly safe experiences life has to offer.
And to top it all off, they drive these industries underground, enriching violent cartels at great human cost.
The DEA serves no desirable purpose whatsoever. I challenge anyone to put forth a single well meaning, well informed argument for prohibition of any drug.
I read TFA, and the linked FAs, and one of them gave the DEA's reason as background.
Right, so the media may not be as one sided as you initially claimed.
Then I used a bit of critical thought, and realized that the ACLU might not be wholly unbiased, so I read more, mentally emphasizing the DEA's justification.
And the DEA isn't biased? Why do you only apply critical thinking to the ACLU and not to the arguments of the DEA?
Then, applying Hanlon's razor, I assume that the DEA believes their own justification, and would apply that in their reports to the President.
Exactly, the DEA is biased in its own favor, and the President reads their reports directly. The President doesn't listen to the ACLU or any civil liberties groups. That's a huge bias towards authortiarianism.
Sure, he has access to the same newspapers you do, but he's also getting the counter-biased reports, so he's not likely to be as overcome by hatred as you are.
The DEA itself is a hate group tasked with the persecution of drug users. Pressuring doctors to underprescribe necessary pain medication is hateful. Imprisoning people who provide needed medication to the seriously ill is hateful. Refusing to even consider rescheduling a drug that has very clearly established medical use is hateful. Imprisoning black drug users at 10 times the rate of white drug users, when the rates of drug use are the same is hateful. Hell, simply disrespecting the right of your citizens to decide what they do with their own body is hateful. Drug prohibition is nothing but hate. It's an atrocity.
I speak only from a position of love for my fellow man. Evil is as evil does, and the DEA does evil. If you want what is best for your fellow man, and actually apply reason, the only conclusion is legalization.
The same place as every other President's: In the other branches. Funny thing about the President is that he has no ability, per the Constitution, to stop anything.
The DEA is in the executive branch. The President absolutely has the ability, AND the responsibility, to direct its enforcement efforts in a way that respects the rights of the people.
Or it proves you don't know everything about what's going on, and are just looking for a scapegoat for your prejudice against the government.
Ok then, educate me. What exactly is going on?
And prejudice? Let me put it this way. "Fool me once, shame on â" shame on you. Fool me â" you can't get fooled again." When every power that can be abused has been abused, you'd be an idiot to assume that further powers will not be abused.
Generally when an upgrade might break Sid, you'll see the packages that might break it as "kept back" and it won't install them. Update a few days later when the devs have sorted everything out and it works fine.
The DEA has always been the enemy of the American people. You can't wage a war on drugs, only a war on drug users.
How about vicious and cruel thugs? Dangerous madmen? Sick, twisted fucks? Reprehensible monsters?
I don't think there's invective too severe for the DEA. They'd rather see ill people waste away to their deaths in prison than get comfort from a medication they disapprove of. That's just plain evil.
You know about it because you read a one-sided story fed to you by the media.
If the media story is so one sided, how do you know that "In this case, the DEA claims their actions are justified by a SCOTUS ruling"? Does the President not have access to the same newspapers I do? Or does he not read them, because he doesn't care?
The President's office is exactly the same. They get their updates through thousands of periodic reports, and each one comes with a ready-built rationale for what they're doing.
Right, so where is his office of civil liberties that brings the abuse potential to Obama's attention? He doesn't have one, because he doesn't care.
Of course, in hindsight, we can easily see the reports, the flimsy justification, and the resulting inaction, but that doesn't make the situation any better.
If Obama used that hindsight to discipline his underlings, then you might have a point. The fact that he has not, even once, despite well established abuses of authority proves that he doesn't care.
The buck used to stop with the President. Where does it stop now?
Now I'm going to say the same thing I have said about every president during the last 30 years: They aren't Omnipotent. They do not know what everyone under them is doing, and they aren't really hands on running each agency beneath them.
If *I* know about it, what's the President's excuse for not knowing about it? When he finds out about these issues, what's his excuse for not firing the head of the agency? Why is Eric Holder still AG, when he violated Obama's promise to respect state laws on medical marijuana? Why is James Clapper still DNI, when he lied to Congress? For that matter, has Obama disciplined ANYONE underneath him for well established abuses of power?
Obama doesn't give a shit about us, our rights, or America. All he cares about are his cronies.
Jumped the shark presumes they had a legitimate purpose at some point. The DEA is evil, it has always been evil, and has never had any purpose other than oppression.
Why do we need a buzzword?
I work at the command line all the time. I run Debian Sid on almost all of my computers. I really tried to give Arch a shot, but damned if it didn't break on every other update. Yeah, yeah, I'm supposed to read the release notes, so it's "my fault". Whatever, I can "apt-get upgrade" Sid any time, no matter how long I've left the computer, and it works.
Here's an example. A the top of the news items on archlinux.org, we see:
Why can't the package manager do that for me? Sure it's easy enough to do, but I'm lazy. This could easily be automated, and I don't have time to manually do things that could easily be automated. That's what computers are supposed to do for us.
I really wanted to like Arch. I ran it on my laptop for a year and a half. But I've gone back to Sid, it just works.
No, you just didn't pay attention. All Myst took to beat was a notebook. Go everywhere, write down everything unusual, use the clues in the obvious place. If anything it was too easy, I beat it in one sick day home from school. You want frustrating? Try a Sierra adventure game.
But it did change the face of gaming. It killed the graphic adventure genre. Why spend money on actors and writers when you can grab a logic puzzle book from the grocery store magazine rack, render some pretty graphics, and call it a game? To someone who grew up on King's Quest and Monkey Island, Myst was a poor excuse for an adventure game.
Notice that I offered a reason why that's a bad idea. Nightmares are disturbing. What actual reason do you have to censor GTA V?
GTA could get its rating based solely on the amount of violence.
GTA V is rated M. If it had included sex, it would be rated AO. How do we know this? Because GTA:SA was also rated M. When it was discovered that there was a hidden sex scene, which you had to modify the game to uncover, it was rerated AO.
His point stands. Gratuitous violence is perceived as much less harmful than even non-explicit sex by those we are supposed to trust to make value judgements.
On the basis that I'm a father
Exactly. Not that you have any actual reason to believe that this content is harmful. Just because you're a parent, and that makes you the all knowing always correct judge of what is good and bad.
If you want to expose your kids to hardcore porn and Saw movies at age 2--hey knock yourself out, pal
Hardcore porn, why not? If they're not pubescent, they're not going to be interested. If they enjoy it, good for them. Saw movies? They're likely to cause nightmares, that's actually a problem and a good reason to avoid them.
But I kind of like the idea of protecting my kid.
Then try protecting your kid from censorship and arbitrary value judgements.
I have a very hard time explaining to my child why his cousin can play these games, but he can't.
Maybe that should tell you something. Can you explain it to anyone? Do you have an actual reason, or is it "because I said so"?
I have been unable to convince the parents that there was never any need for their child to play these games.
You have it backwards, nobody needs any specific form of entertainment. You have to explain to them that there is a need for their child to not play those games. But you can't do that, because there is no reason.
In fact, he throws a major tantrum if he can't play these games.
Lots of kids will throw a tantrum if you take away their video games. It doesn't matter whether it's GTA or Pokemon.
Despite all this, they still beleive that they're not doing anything wrong.
Failing to control a tantrum is a problem. Kids need to learn that throwing a tantrum will only get them farther from what they want. The reason for the tantrum is irrelevant.
Children have been playing cops & robbers for as long as there have been cops and robbers. How is GTA any different?
And that's not a good thing.
In what way is it not a good thing? For whom is it not a good thing? For you or for the kid or for the rest of society? On what basis do you make this value judgement?
A kid's innocence is a precious thing, and it's a shame to squander it too early.
How does "innocence" differ from "ignorance"?
I also don't want him introduced to the ugly world of violent crime, drugs, and prostitution while he's still in kindergarten either.
Better for him to be introduced to the ugly world of censorship and deference to arbitrary authority, right?
No I don't support bent cops who enforce it selectively to their or their friends benefit, but I don't think asking cops to apply a bit of common sense in law enforcement is really too much to ask.
Most cops think that refusing to ticket other cops, whitewashing police brutality via internal affairs, etc is "common sense".