Do you regularly remote in to your home network? Do you connect out to a server somewhere? If not, then setting up a VPN isn’t going to give you much (well technically it won’t give you anything). If so, your specific use case (which was not provided) matters.
As for software, one of:
- Throw your linux on there (I like Gentoo hardened) and roll your own with OpenVPN and other assorted tools (I like shorewall as an iptables frontend).
- pfSense if you’ve got a decent box and want bells and/or whistles
- m0n0wall if you want something light but functional
You might also want to consider routerboard, it’s cool shit and reasonably priced.
I agree. I've been running a similar set up on a PIII-100 (remember those?) with 96MB RAM and a 200MB disk for almost twenty years. The most important part is hardening the kernel, stripping out unneeded software and having a sane set of IPTables rules. Works like a champ!
If it worked, it worked. If it didn't, it went back to the store. The buyer wasn't obliged to diagnose hardware and software conflicts or borked system installs --- or pay for the privilege of having these problems solved for him
And in the absence of Microsoft's rip-off OEM licensing agreement (pay for each unit you sell, regardless of installed OS), PC vendors would have invested in alternative OS builds and support, obviating that issue. Had this been done years ago, we'd have a much more competitive OS market, rather than what we have now.
Linux, BSD, other open source solutions are awesome, and if I am a hardware vendor I am going to build hardware that supports it because it's awesome. Not because I've been strong armed into it by a the courts. Likewise, I don't want to have to sell Windows because I've been strong-armed into it via Microsoft's predatory OEM licensing agreements
Here is my question, if the Free Software Foundation and the open source guys believe so much in having free software on PCs, why not start up a company that only sells PCs and Laptops with free software installed? Why is it the established vendors problem to solve? Begin by launching a fund raising campaign on Kickstarter, find a hardware supplier on Alibaba, and open a web storefront. It's not that hard...
A href="http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=linux+pc+vendor">Here you go.
Here is my question, if the Free Software Foundation and the open source guys believe so much in having free software on PCs, why not start up a company that only sells PCs and Laptops with free software installed? Why is it the established vendors problem to solve? Begin by launching a fund raising campaign on Kickstarter, find a hardware supplier on Alibaba, and open a web storefront. It's not that hard...
A href="http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=linux+pc+vendor">Here you go.
So practically speaking, unless you hate MS with a passion, it is in your own interested to get the basically free version of Windows, do a wipe and reinstall, and go on with your life, as pretty much every tech savvy person has been doing for decades.
A fairly reasonable point. However, if Microsoft's OEM licensing only covered those units that actually ship with Windows, PC vendors would have an incentive (or a least much less disincentive) to support alternative OS builds on their devices. This would, IMHO, improve competition in the OS market and give end consumers greater choices.
A law that forbids selling hardware and software together would increase innovation. Consumers would only be able to buy hardware and software separately. That way, hardware vendors are encouraged to document the hardware and software vendors will compete on quality. Installation procedures would become very easy very quickly due to market pressure.
Normal people don't like that though. Let's say that you try and sell product A to somebody that requires product B to function. This person has neither used nor ever had interest in A or B. Most people aren't interested in one or the other. Normal people want an A+B product where somebody else has worked out all of the compatibility problems.
You mean we can't have a check-box on the PC vendor's web page where we configure our device, which lists several operating systems? That's far too difficult, isn't it? The issue is Microsoft's OEM licensing agreements which charge a license fee for every unit sold, whether or not it has Windows. This creates a huge disincentive for vendors to pre-install (and, as you put it, work "out all of the compatibility isssues") alternative OS'.
The reason it's sold together is because people want it like that. There is obviously a demand for bundled software (given how prevalent it is), and the reasons for that demand probably range from "I don't care what goes on my computer" to "I'd rather my computer cost $2 less to have it include what essentially amounts to adware.".
Actually, most of that software is bundled not because of demand for some crappy application, but because software vendor paid the PC vendor to include it in their build.
Are you aware that changing to a model where some computers have Windows and some others not may _increase_ costs of computers? Think not only on the installation but also increasing costs for support and education of workers. Bulk costs for Windows are pretty low.
As has been mentioned elsewhere (by me and others), Microsoft's OEM licensing terms charges vendors a per unit sold fee for Windows, even if/when the customer doesn't want it. That's like making onboard GPS in a car mandatory, rather than optional. If you have your own GPS, you can use it, but you still have to pay for the built-in one.
This raises prices and reduces free market choices for the consumer. Why should I pay $50 or $75 more for my Linux PC so you can have Windows at a discount?
MS has done nothing to prevent a PC from being sold without an OS.
Actually, that's not really the case. Microsoft's Windows OEM licensing to PC vendors is (and has been for many, many years) based on the total number of units sold by the vendor -- whether Windows is being used or not. This creates a *huge* incentive for vendors to *only* support Windows, since they have to pay the licensing fee per unit, regardless of the installed OS.
What Microsoft has done is made it much more expensive to offer OS alternatives, as additional deployment and support resources are required to support other OS platforms. Since the vendor has to pay for the Windows license even if they pre-install another OS, there's a big disincentive to offer alternative OS' They certainly make it cheaper for Dell to pre-install Windows on a machine than for the end user to buy their own copy. They may have even said that they will raise the price if they don't make all their machines come with Windows. But manufacturers do that kind of stuff all the time in other areas. It costs almost as much for a whole new bike for the price you'd pay just for the drive train on a bicycle if you were to buy it apart from the bike. Companies pay big money to get exclusive rights to products (think games and products that are only sold in specific stores) because they know they'll make make money off the customer in the end.
Almost had me there article! Until you said the most evil words known to man... "statistical technique". AKA "bullshit"
Anyone who cannot cope with mathematics is not fully human. At best he is a tolerable subhuman who has learned to wear shoes, bathe, and not make messes in the house.
You're right but isn't all this just extremely banal? To say that entropy is a statistical measure of disorder and that between certain bounds, life is more or less likely is simply to say that a body at equilibrium (like Mars) is much less likely to harbour life than one that isn't (like the Earth). It's a "no-shit Sherlock" moment.
What I took from TFA is not that there's anything groundbreaking in terms of prediction in the paper, rather it provides some minor mathematical grounding for our theories of abiogenesis. No, it's not a huge breakthrough, and no it doesn't provide any definitive answers. What it does is lend credence to the idea that abiogenesis is fairly common, given appropriate conditions.
Does this change the world? No. Does this add (in a minor way) to our theories of how life could begin? Yes.
". We can quantify that harm, and it's not civilization ending.
it most certainly can be if we don't stop emitting greenhouse gasses. The trapped energy will increase with more greenhouse gasses. If we don't stop and work on lowering it, then it won't stop.
Now, we can do it using science, and brains, and engineering and planning. Or we can stop because the earth no longer supports humans.
Cost is irrelevant when dealing with complete collapse. The longer we wait, the more aggressive we must be.
To be clear, I'm not talking about tomorrow or next decade, but it can get too warm for human civilization as we know it in 100 years.
When the heat sink are no longer available, the temp will rise even more dramatically.
Yes, I am raising the alarm. The change we must make will take decades. There isn't a silver bullet, there isn't 1 solution. We must be aggressive in out planning.
I'm not sure why you bother. Or why anyone does. The scientific models are incomplete. It will take many decades or even centuries to refine those models until they can reliably represent climate changes. We should wait until we know exactly what's going to happen before doing anything at all. Besides, I need my latest new shiny toy, I don't have time for speculative bullshit. You show me the Empire State building ten floors deep in rising sea levels and I might care. If not, take your science and shove it up your well-reamed asses!
I mean, so what if the AGW folks are right? It's not like any of us will be alive to see one way or another,
Who cares what will happen to our grandchildren anyway? They're just a bunch of useless rugrats taking up space and not contributing to the economy (i.e., making me more money).
If they were worth a damn, they'd be job creators and hard workers, In which case, they'd have the resources to buy their own politicians.
As it is, they just sit around eating and pooping in their diapers and whining about every little thing that annoys them. Or worse, they're sperm and ova eating up the planet's resources without providing anything useful.
It's their responsibility, not ours.
The politicians I own are going to make sure I have what I want. Those lazy fucking babies and their unconceived brethren can bloody well do it themselves. It's no concern of mine. Oh, and fuck you, Jack! I got mine.
The mini-embedded version for phones can be called Linux, phablets get LinuX, and tablets get LiNuX.
It took Microsoft a couple decades to realize that servers an desktops should use common, strong code bases, with differences mainly in appearance and installed user-layer software.
It is YOU who grew up in a lilly white suburb. All you know about minorities was spoonfed to you by liberal publications. You likely rebelled against your conservative parents and embraced all things liberal. I on the other hand grew up in numerous different places, and know that reality is often not politically correct.
I grew up in NYC in the 1970s, bud. We had a street gang who made my block their home (along with all the others in my neighborhood). My elementary and junior high schools were at least 65% minorities. You have no idea what you're talking about, boy. And I do emphasize the word boy.
Forget political correctness -- people should be judged on their individual actions, not on some arbitrary characteristic such as socio-economic status, the location of their home, or their skin color. That's not political correctness, that's maturity and personal responsibility.
Yes, I know you're a troll, and you failed to get a rise out of me. Please, carry on.
Clickbait story, and it got (most) of you all. You want to get nerds feathers all a fluttering? Tell 'em that their internet speeds might get slower than very fast. (Oh Noes) *facepalm*
Suckers.
This is/. you think we even read TFA? And even if we do, many (if not most of us) are using ad blockers. Suckers? What are you sucking on, AC?
Most people here are going to scream, but I work with telcos. There are some really difficult last miles out there. This definition determines federal funding for mass broadband. If it becomes too costly because the definition is too hard to obtain for remote users, then they are just going to stop caring.
As far as most slashdot users are concerned, there's enough competition to let capitalism do it's thing.
Where this *definition* REALLY comes into play is the minimalist declaration for what someone needs to be a part of the connected world.
We still have a lot of work to be done at 4/1 in more rural areas before we can start screaming about 10 being the minimum.
Oh and YES, at 480p which is a fine minimalist (twats shut up now) resolution, you could have 2 or 3 streaming sessions, and HEVC is only going to help.
Stop being so selfish yo!
Strange. The population density where I live is ~67,000 people per square mile. There is zero fiber to the home where I am. Are you trying to say that the population density is too low here to support this?
If everyone had fibre to the home with 1Gb plus the internet would transform in to something that we can't imagine now, The internet is artificiality being held back from what it could be and it is not because of cost.
1Gb is not just for people pirating movies.
Absolutely! High speed (with synchronous upload/download) Internet will change how we interact with each other and the rest of the world. It could be the biggest boon to freedom *ever*. But instead, we have lopsided Internet to re-create the producer/consumer dynamic and limited bandwidth with restrictions on usage (server restrictions, packet gobbling, throttling, usage caps etc., etc., etc.) which only serve to maintain the current power dynamic.
This is a huge issue, and the powers-that-be aren't going to give up easily.
It's not like they're trying to rip us off or something.
That's so cute! You know, I have this extended warranty for your bathroom fixtures that will allow you to pay nothing to fix them when they break. Just send me $600/month and I'll take care of everything!
If it was just about population density, then the USA would be rocking decent internet in any large urban-ish area.
We by and large do, but we have literally millions of Americans that live in rural areas, unserved by the well-funded ISPs in the 'large urban-ish' areas...
That drives our national average down - millions of Americans can get similar service - those are the folks served by FiOS and a few other ISPs...
I live smack dab in the middle of one of the largest cities in the US and I can't get residential fiber. FIOS is the only player with that in the region and they aren't coming here. So I can get hobbled, expensive, reasonably fast cable internet or unhobbled, expensive, not so fast DSL. Period. I have no other choices.
Last mile connections should be a public/quasi-public utility with fiber to the home and ISPs paying user fees to access the last mile and competing on price and features. Sadly, I'm not sure I'll live to see that..(
I don't have any problem with confiscation as long as a crime was committed and the defendant proven guilty.
You should have a problem with it. Even if the defendant is guilty, the punishment should be decided by a judge, not a cop. The current system, where the police department can keep what they confiscate, gives them a HUGE incentive to fabricate evidence.
GP seems to be under the misconception that some sort of evidence is needed. This is how it goes:
1. Cop sees car rolling down the road
2. [sniff, sniff from 1/2 a mile away] Cop "smells" drugs in car
3. Cop impounds car and any valuables he likes as "Civil Forfeiture"
4. Profit!
Note that the owner of impounded property is *never* charged with a crime (unless they object to being robbed by the police, then it's assault on the police or the ever-popular "resisting arrest"), and their only recourse is to hire a lawyer and start a civil suit to regain their property.
Oh, you thought there was anything even vaguely like a criminal inquiry involved? That's adorable!
Slashdot Mirror
Do you regularly remote in to your home network? Do you connect out to a server somewhere? If not, then setting up a VPN isn’t going to give you much (well technically it won’t give you anything). If so, your specific use case (which was not provided) matters.
As for software, one of:
- Throw your linux on there (I like Gentoo hardened) and roll your own with OpenVPN and other assorted tools (I like shorewall as an iptables frontend). - pfSense if you’ve got a decent box and want bells and/or whistles - m0n0wall if you want something light but functional
You might also want to consider routerboard, it’s cool shit and reasonably priced.
I agree. I've been running a similar set up on a PIII-100 (remember those?) with 96MB RAM and a 200MB disk for almost twenty years. The most important part is hardening the kernel, stripping out unneeded software and having a sane set of IPTables rules. Works like a champ!
If it worked, it worked. If it didn't, it went back to the store. The buyer wasn't obliged to diagnose hardware and software conflicts or borked system installs --- or pay for the privilege of having these problems solved for him
And in the absence of Microsoft's rip-off OEM licensing agreement (pay for each unit you sell, regardless of installed OS), PC vendors would have invested in alternative OS builds and support, obviating that issue. Had this been done years ago, we'd have a much more competitive OS market, rather than what we have now.
Linux, BSD, other open source solutions are awesome, and if I am a hardware vendor I am going to build hardware that supports it because it's awesome. Not because I've been strong armed into it by a the courts. Likewise, I don't want to have to sell Windows because I've been strong-armed into it via Microsoft's predatory OEM licensing agreements
There. FTFY.
Here is my question, if the Free Software Foundation and the open source guys believe so much in having free software on PCs, why not start up a company that only sells PCs and Laptops with free software installed? Why is it the established vendors problem to solve? Begin by launching a fund raising campaign on Kickstarter, find a hardware supplier on Alibaba, and open a web storefront. It's not that hard...
A href="http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=linux+pc+vendor">Here you go.
Let's try that again. Here you go.
Here is my question, if the Free Software Foundation and the open source guys believe so much in having free software on PCs, why not start up a company that only sells PCs and Laptops with free software installed? Why is it the established vendors problem to solve? Begin by launching a fund raising campaign on Kickstarter, find a hardware supplier on Alibaba, and open a web storefront. It's not that hard...
A href="http://www.lmgtfy.com/?q=linux+pc+vendor">Here you go.
So practically speaking, unless you hate MS with a passion, it is in your own interested to get the basically free version of Windows, do a wipe and reinstall, and go on with your life, as pretty much every tech savvy person has been doing for decades.
A fairly reasonable point. However, if Microsoft's OEM licensing only covered those units that actually ship with Windows, PC vendors would have an incentive (or a least much less disincentive) to support alternative OS builds on their devices. This would, IMHO, improve competition in the OS market and give end consumers greater choices.
A law that forbids selling hardware and software together would increase innovation. Consumers would only be able to buy hardware and software separately. That way, hardware vendors are encouraged to document the hardware and software vendors will compete on quality. Installation procedures would become very easy very quickly due to market pressure.
Normal people don't like that though. Let's say that you try and sell product A to somebody that requires product B to function. This person has neither used nor ever had interest in A or B. Most people aren't interested in one or the other. Normal people want an A+B product where somebody else has worked out all of the compatibility problems.
You mean we can't have a check-box on the PC vendor's web page where we configure our device, which lists several operating systems? That's far too difficult, isn't it? The issue is Microsoft's OEM licensing agreements which charge a license fee for every unit sold, whether or not it has Windows. This creates a huge disincentive for vendors to pre-install (and, as you put it, work "out all of the compatibility isssues") alternative OS'.
The reason it's sold together is because people want it like that. There is obviously a demand for bundled software (given how prevalent it is), and the reasons for that demand probably range from "I don't care what goes on my computer" to "I'd rather my computer cost $2 less to have it include what essentially amounts to adware.".
Actually, most of that software is bundled not because of demand for some crappy application, but because software vendor paid the PC vendor to include it in their build.
Are you aware that changing to a model where some computers have Windows and some others not may _increase_ costs of computers? Think not only on the installation but also increasing costs for support and education of workers. Bulk costs for Windows are pretty low.
As has been mentioned elsewhere (by me and others), Microsoft's OEM licensing terms charges vendors a per unit sold fee for Windows, even if/when the customer doesn't want it. That's like making onboard GPS in a car mandatory, rather than optional. If you have your own GPS, you can use it, but you still have to pay for the built-in one.
This raises prices and reduces free market choices for the consumer. Why should I pay $50 or $75 more for my Linux PC so you can have Windows at a discount?
MS has done nothing to prevent a PC from being sold without an OS.
Actually, that's not really the case. Microsoft's Windows OEM licensing to PC vendors is (and has been for many, many years) based on the total number of units sold by the vendor -- whether Windows is being used or not. This creates a *huge* incentive for vendors to *only* support Windows, since they have to pay the licensing fee per unit, regardless of the installed OS.
What Microsoft has done is made it much more expensive to offer OS alternatives, as additional deployment and support resources are required to support other OS platforms. Since the vendor has to pay for the Windows license even if they pre-install another OS, there's a big disincentive to offer alternative OS' They certainly make it cheaper for Dell to pre-install Windows on a machine than for the end user to buy their own copy. They may have even said that they will raise the price if they don't make all their machines come with Windows. But manufacturers do that kind of stuff all the time in other areas. It costs almost as much for a whole new bike for the price you'd pay just for the drive train on a bicycle if you were to buy it apart from the bike. Companies pay big money to get exclusive rights to products (think games and products that are only sold in specific stores) because they know they'll make make money off the customer in the end.
There. FTFY.
There is "free as in beer" (usually both GPL and BSD). There is "free as in freedom" (BSD). And then there is "free as in free-range chickens" (GPL).
It amazes me that Milton was already involved in this conversation in 1649:
--John Milton
I guess the question is, to which license was he referring?
Almost had me there article! Until you said the most evil words known to man... "statistical technique". AKA "bullshit"
--RAH
or they will taste like chicken. :)
Too esoteric?
There. FTFY.
You're right but isn't all this just extremely banal? To say that entropy is a statistical measure of disorder and that between certain bounds, life is more or less likely is simply to say that a body at equilibrium (like Mars) is much less likely to harbour life than one that isn't (like the Earth). It's a "no-shit Sherlock" moment.
What I took from TFA is not that there's anything groundbreaking in terms of prediction in the paper, rather it provides some minor mathematical grounding for our theories of abiogenesis. No, it's not a huge breakthrough, and no it doesn't provide any definitive answers. What it does is lend credence to the idea that abiogenesis is fairly common, given appropriate conditions.
Does this change the world? No. Does this add (in a minor way) to our theories of how life could begin? Yes.
". We can quantify that harm, and it's not civilization ending. it most certainly can be if we don't stop emitting greenhouse gasses. The trapped energy will increase with more greenhouse gasses. If we don't stop and work on lowering it, then it won't stop.
Now, we can do it using science, and brains, and engineering and planning. Or we can stop because the earth no longer supports humans.
Cost is irrelevant when dealing with complete collapse. The longer we wait, the more aggressive we must be.
To be clear, I'm not talking about tomorrow or next decade, but it can get too warm for human civilization as we know it in 100 years. When the heat sink are no longer available, the temp will rise even more dramatically.
Yes, I am raising the alarm. The change we must make will take decades. There isn't a silver bullet, there isn't 1 solution. We must be aggressive in out planning.
I'm not sure why you bother. Or why anyone does. The scientific models are incomplete. It will take many decades or even centuries to refine those models until they can reliably represent climate changes. We should wait until we know exactly what's going to happen before doing anything at all. Besides, I need my latest new shiny toy, I don't have time for speculative bullshit. You show me the Empire State building ten floors deep in rising sea levels and I might care. If not, take your science and shove it up your well-reamed asses!
I mean, so what if the AGW folks are right? It's not like any of us will be alive to see one way or another,
Who cares what will happen to our grandchildren anyway? They're just a bunch of useless rugrats taking up space and not contributing to the economy (i.e., making me more money).
If they were worth a damn, they'd be job creators and hard workers, In which case, they'd have the resources to buy their own politicians.
As it is, they just sit around eating and pooping in their diapers and whining about every little thing that annoys them. Or worse, they're sperm and ova eating up the planet's resources without providing anything useful.
It's their responsibility, not ours.
The politicians I own are going to make sure I have what I want. Those lazy fucking babies and their unconceived brethren can bloody well do it themselves. It's no concern of mine. Oh, and fuck you, Jack! I got mine.
The mini-embedded version for phones can be called Linux, phablets get LinuX, and tablets get LiNuX.
It took Microsoft a couple decades to realize that servers an desktops should use common, strong code bases, with differences mainly in appearance and installed user-layer software.
There are ten of us, of family linux, all named "linux". Slight differences in how you pronounce. "linux"..."linux"..."linux" you are seeing now?
It is YOU who grew up in a lilly white suburb. All you know about minorities was spoonfed to you by liberal publications. You likely rebelled against your conservative parents and embraced all things liberal. I on the other hand grew up in numerous different places, and know that reality is often not politically correct.
I grew up in NYC in the 1970s, bud. We had a street gang who made my block their home (along with all the others in my neighborhood). My elementary and junior high schools were at least 65% minorities. You have no idea what you're talking about, boy. And I do emphasize the word boy.
Forget political correctness -- people should be judged on their individual actions, not on some arbitrary characteristic such as socio-economic status, the location of their home, or their skin color. That's not political correctness, that's maturity and personal responsibility.
Yes, I know you're a troll, and you failed to get a rise out of me. Please, carry on.
Clickbait story, and it got (most) of you all. You want to get nerds feathers all a fluttering? Tell 'em that their internet speeds might get slower than very fast. (Oh Noes) *facepalm*
Suckers.
This is /. you think we even read TFA? And even if we do, many (if not most of us) are using ad blockers. Suckers? What are you sucking on, AC?
Most people here are going to scream, but I work with telcos. There are some really difficult last miles out there. This definition determines federal funding for mass broadband. If it becomes too costly because the definition is too hard to obtain for remote users, then they are just going to stop caring. As far as most slashdot users are concerned, there's enough competition to let capitalism do it's thing. Where this *definition* REALLY comes into play is the minimalist declaration for what someone needs to be a part of the connected world. We still have a lot of work to be done at 4/1 in more rural areas before we can start screaming about 10 being the minimum. Oh and YES, at 480p which is a fine minimalist (twats shut up now) resolution, you could have 2 or 3 streaming sessions, and HEVC is only going to help. Stop being so selfish yo!
Strange. The population density where I live is ~67,000 people per square mile. There is zero fiber to the home where I am. Are you trying to say that the population density is too low here to support this?
If everyone had fibre to the home with 1Gb plus the internet would transform in to something that we can't imagine now, The internet is artificiality being held back from what it could be and it is not because of cost.
1Gb is not just for people pirating movies.
Absolutely! High speed (with synchronous upload/download) Internet will change how we interact with each other and the rest of the world. It could be the biggest boon to freedom *ever*. But instead, we have lopsided Internet to re-create the producer/consumer dynamic and limited bandwidth with restrictions on usage (server restrictions, packet gobbling, throttling, usage caps etc., etc., etc.) which only serve to maintain the current power dynamic.
This is a huge issue, and the powers-that-be aren't going to give up easily.
It's not like they're trying to rip us off or something.
That's so cute! You know, I have this extended warranty for your bathroom fixtures that will allow you to pay nothing to fix them when they break. Just send me $600/month and I'll take care of everything!
We by and large do, but we have literally millions of Americans that live in rural areas, unserved by the well-funded ISPs in the 'large urban-ish' areas... That drives our national average down - millions of Americans can get similar service - those are the folks served by FiOS and a few other ISPs...
I live smack dab in the middle of one of the largest cities in the US and I can't get residential fiber. FIOS is the only player with that in the region and they aren't coming here. So I can get hobbled, expensive, reasonably fast cable internet or unhobbled, expensive, not so fast DSL. Period. I have no other choices.
Last mile connections should be a public/quasi-public utility with fiber to the home and ISPs paying user fees to access the last mile and competing on price and features. Sadly, I'm not sure I'll live to see that. .(
I don't have any problem with confiscation as long as a crime was committed and the defendant proven guilty.
You should have a problem with it. Even if the defendant is guilty, the punishment should be decided by a judge, not a cop. The current system, where the police department can keep what they confiscate, gives them a HUGE incentive to fabricate evidence.
GP seems to be under the misconception that some sort of evidence is needed. This is how it goes:
1. Cop sees car rolling down the road
2. [sniff, sniff from 1/2 a mile away] Cop "smells" drugs in car
3. Cop impounds car and any valuables he likes as "Civil Forfeiture"
4. Profit!
Note that the owner of impounded property is *never* charged with a crime (unless they object to being robbed by the police, then it's assault on the police or the ever-popular "resisting arrest"), and their only recourse is to hire a lawyer and start a civil suit to regain their property.
Oh, you thought there was anything even vaguely like a criminal inquiry involved? That's adorable!
Deregulation does not prevent fraud charges, or lawsuits. As if our laws apply to the wealthy and well connected in the US...
There. FTFY.
So, if it seems too good to be true, it probably is.
If you've got some time on your hands, toddle over to 419 Eater and get educated. If you have even more time on your hands, become a scam baiter.