That's exactly the problem here. We petitioned the president for a real debate, and we got a canned answer from an enforcer. Do you at least agree with me that we deserve a real debate on these issues?
I gather that you are in favor of prohibition. If you are in favor of prohibition, then you should be in favor of a full and honest debate. NORML raises serious questions about the policy that have not been addressed. If the President fails to address these questions, more and more people will end up supporting legalization. Dodging these questions only makes a questionable policy look even more questionable.
Can someone find the shortened URL for this petition? It doesn't look like you can get a short url without signing it, and I didn't mark it down when I signed it.
Very very many arguments are based in ignorance, but that does not make them illogical. Logic does not care what premise you start with, it will still guide you to the natural conclusions of your premise.
True enough. So we demand a full explanation until we reach the premises, which we can then show to be faulty.
Also, in many cases drugs are the catalyst that ruins people's lives. Who hasn't known a drug-head who went off the deep end?
So does prison. Prison ruins more lives than marijuana does. Prohibition proponents only care about the harm done by drugs, never about the harm done by bad policy.
Those who care about drug legalization need to logically deal with that kind of situation or they will never convince the rest of the country to favor legalization.
We've already done that with alcohol. We found that prohibition caused worse problems than legalization does. The same should hold for the objectively much less harmful Cannabis.
Notice how Kerlikowske completely neglects to address alcohol, although it was specifically mentioned in the #1 question? If they were honest, they'd address the issue. They're not honest, and they're not interested in honest debate.
If you're interested in a point by point rebuttal of Kerlikowske's position, packed with real data, check out NORML's response.
No matter which side of the debate you're on, you have to admit that NORML raises real issues. They deserve to be addressed not ignored. Right?
They might say that's it's logical, but they cannot demonstrate that it's logical. There is no logical justification for Cannabis prohibition. The only possible arguments in favor are based on ignorance and cruelty. That's why we call them out on it at every opportunity.
This kind of argument is a mistake. It makes the mistake of assuming that the government is some large, logical entity. In reality, laws are made often out of compromise.
It's not a mistake. We know there's no logical basis for the differential treament of Cannabis and alcohol. By asking the question, we want them to admit that there is no logical basis for their position.
The pro-legalization side has more than met its burden of proof.
Look at the list of ill effects that Kerlikowske listed. "marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease, and cognitive impairment." Since this is coming from the Drug Czar, you can be assured that this is a worst case scenario. The question is, is addiction, organ damage, and cognitive impariment sufficient to justify prohibition. The fact is that alcohol is more addictive, causes more organ damge, and more cognitive impairment than marijuana, and we do not prohibit it. Why the double standard? Why is the double standard not even addressed in this response?
We're stubborn all right. We're stubborn because we're not ignorant, we're right. We've never been given a chance to make our case, and Obama isn't giving us that chance now. We need a real debate.
I'm kind of surprised that cutting edge malware depends on a central server for command and control. What about P2P? Or steganographic embedding of commands in forum posts or images? It seems like a robust and deniable control system would be one of the first things you implement in malware like this.
A core 2 duo is 2 or 3 orders of magnitude more hardware than you need to handle basic office tasks. But the hardware is cheap and available, and people are more comfortable with a fat software stack. Sometimes the best tool for the job depends on economic and social factors more than just plain hardware.
What's wrong with clicking the link and having the PDF launch in the viewer of your choice? This is significantly increasing browser footprint and attack surface for no appreciable benefit.
I think he understands quite well how the world works. If a journalist doesn't want to do his homework in order to get an interview with Stallman, that's the journalist's loss. He is not hurting for venues to get his ideas across.
Because our government is corrupt to the very highest levels. Even the Supreme Court issues blatantly unconstitutional decisions, simply because they know nothing will happen to them.
The Supreme Court has no shame. Expect them to roll over on every significant expansion of government power, and to throw us a bone or two on a few insignificant onces so they don't get called on it.
There's no reason for an OEM to refuse to sell PCs without Windows either. Still, they do it all the time. Whether it's a deal with microsoft, or just the hassle of tracking an extra SKU, it's hard to buy a PC without Windows on it. It will probably be even harder to buy a PC that's not locked to Windows.
Slashdot Mirror
Why is that sily and unhelpful? It's one of the fundamental truths of the universe. Everything is math.
500. tons of HSA/2.75 g/kg rice = 181000 tons of rice.
Do they take us for complete idiots?
Yes, yes they do. And why shouldn't they? Blatant lies have been very successful politically.
This stuff comes in an MRE. Why not put the caffeine pills in the MRE next to the jerky, instead of inside the jerky?
Does that make it any better? What's wrong with a caffeine pill? Do you really want a soldier getting caffeinated when he's just hungry?
Even if health care was completely not for profit, it would still make sense to be aware of false positives on cancer screens.
I liked their answer too. By my reading they said that the partisan tones are there and are intended.
That's exactly the problem here. We petitioned the president for a real debate, and we got a canned answer from an enforcer. Do you at least agree with me that we deserve a real debate on these issues?
I gather that you are in favor of prohibition. If you are in favor of prohibition, then you should be in favor of a full and honest debate. NORML raises serious questions about the policy that have not been addressed. If the President fails to address these questions, more and more people will end up supporting legalization. Dodging these questions only makes a questionable policy look even more questionable.
Can someone find the shortened URL for this petition? It doesn't look like you can get a short url without signing it, and I didn't mark it down when I signed it.
Very very many arguments are based in ignorance, but that does not make them illogical. Logic does not care what premise you start with, it will still guide you to the natural conclusions of your premise.
True enough. So we demand a full explanation until we reach the premises, which we can then show to be faulty.
Also, in many cases drugs are the catalyst that ruins people's lives. Who hasn't known a drug-head who went off the deep end?
So does prison. Prison ruins more lives than marijuana does. Prohibition proponents only care about the harm done by drugs, never about the harm done by bad policy.
Those who care about drug legalization need to logically deal with that kind of situation or they will never convince the rest of the country to favor legalization.
We've already done that with alcohol. We found that prohibition caused worse problems than legalization does. The same should hold for the objectively much less harmful Cannabis.
Notice how Kerlikowske completely neglects to address alcohol, although it was specifically mentioned in the #1 question? If they were honest, they'd address the issue. They're not honest, and they're not interested in honest debate.
If you're interested in a point by point rebuttal of Kerlikowske's position, packed with real data, check out NORML's response.
No matter which side of the debate you're on, you have to admit that NORML raises real issues. They deserve to be addressed not ignored. Right?
They might say that's it's logical, but they cannot demonstrate that it's logical. There is no logical justification for Cannabis prohibition. The only possible arguments in favor are based on ignorance and cruelty. That's why we call them out on it at every opportunity.
This meta petition is easily the most important petition.
This kind of argument is a mistake. It makes the mistake of assuming that the government is some large, logical entity. In reality, laws are made often out of compromise.
It's not a mistake. We know there's no logical basis for the differential treament of Cannabis and alcohol. By asking the question, we want them to admit that there is no logical basis for their position.
The pro-legalization side has more than met its burden of proof.
Look at the list of ill effects that Kerlikowske listed. "marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease, and cognitive impairment." Since this is coming from the Drug Czar, you can be assured that this is a worst case scenario. The question is, is addiction, organ damage, and cognitive impariment sufficient to justify prohibition. The fact is that alcohol is more addictive, causes more organ damge, and more cognitive impairment than marijuana, and we do not prohibit it. Why the double standard? Why is the double standard not even addressed in this response?
We're stubborn all right. We're stubborn because we're not ignorant, we're right. We've never been given a chance to make our case, and Obama isn't giving us that chance now. We need a real debate.
Yes. Notice how the number one question on the topic was "Legalize and Regulate Marijuana in a Manner Similar to Alcohol."
And in the response, alcohol was not mentioned once. Dodging the question a little Barack?
I'm kind of surprised that cutting edge malware depends on a central server for command and control. What about P2P? Or steganographic embedding of commands in forum posts or images? It seems like a robust and deniable control system would be one of the first things you implement in malware like this.
A core 2 duo is 2 or 3 orders of magnitude more hardware than you need to handle basic office tasks. But the hardware is cheap and available, and people are more comfortable with a fat software stack. Sometimes the best tool for the job depends on economic and social factors more than just plain hardware.
Also, FWIW, you can't ssh into an Arduino.
If you've determined to never pay back all your treasury bonds, how can treasury bonds be a stable investment?
What's wrong with clicking the link and having the PDF launch in the viewer of your choice? This is significantly increasing browser footprint and attack surface for no appreciable benefit.
I think he understands quite well how the world works. If a journalist doesn't want to do his homework in order to get an interview with Stallman, that's the journalist's loss. He is not hurting for venues to get his ideas across.
Because our government is corrupt to the very highest levels. Even the Supreme Court issues blatantly unconstitutional decisions, simply because they know nothing will happen to them.
The Supreme Court has no shame. Expect them to roll over on every significant expansion of government power, and to throw us a bone or two on a few insignificant onces so they don't get called on it.
There's no reason for an OEM to refuse to sell PCs without Windows either. Still, they do it all the time. Whether it's a deal with microsoft, or just the hassle of tracking an extra SKU, it's hard to buy a PC without Windows on it. It will probably be even harder to buy a PC that's not locked to Windows.
At what markup?
Plug in the ethernet and google it.