I like the way I have things setup, but my data is a heck of a lot more important to me than my operating system, so I'm not sure what bigger problem there would be than losing it all (of course, I have reasonable backups, but that isn't something normal people do yet).
I was talking about dealers suddenly becoming unemployed whilst having a rather blase attitude towards what is expected of them legally. The fact that there are screwed up people who sort of function doesn't really completely answer that (though it does point out that they might end up sort of functioning, I guess depending quite a bit on the nuances of their attitudes).
When I say "I agree in principle", I mean "I think that is the right thing", not "That's an idea I want to comment on", I don't think I actually have the attitude that you seem to me to be harshing on:
Well, no one has done a good job of establishing that it isn't a problem (the phrasing here is a little problematic, but whatever, they are both quite real possibilities).
If you think that changing our system of justice in a way that affects millions of people will run perfectly smoothly, we disagree. If you think it will mostly run smoothly, we disagree. I think it will often be o.k., but there will be lots of issues.
If you don't think a cop noticing you using a banned substance represents a poor decision, we disagree.
If you don't think there will be some issues for these people as they try to integrate into communities, we disagree.
If you don't think that easier, cheaper access to substances will sometimes exacerbate past problems, we disagree.
If you don't see a large influx of people with a proven history of making poor decisions, into communities that will not trust them highly, with better, cheaper access to substances that have proved to cause them issues in the past, as a potential problem, it is safe to say that we disagree.
None of this dissuades me from thinking that decriminalization and legalization are good ideas that would be far better than the current fucking mess.
I think it would work out over time. I don't think it would be quick and easy. Apparently, this position requires far more justification than thinking it would be relatively painless.
The federal government, which usually gets most of the worldwide attention, is, and I mean it, often the least stupid level of government for a particular place in the United States, and not usually the one granting right-of-ways to a single company. So congratulations on not having a stupid government.
The point that I apparently failed to make is that "Then legalize the drugs. Then use the profits from the government-sold drugs to start up rehab centers. Problem solved." is pretty glib.
I wasn't trying to establish that the problem is in any way insurmountable. Acknowledging the (what apparently only I see as) difficulty before hand is probably a good idea (well, assuming that there are people who aren't sure it is a good idea), rather than talking about how it will come with pink ponies and lemonade.
Alcoholics don't really count as well adjusted, at least, I don't count them that way.
I've also known quite a few people who dabbled in various ways (and that isn't even a euphemism for myself) and the most involved ones have generally demonstrated the highest rate of bad decisions (outside of the decision to mess with drugs and whatnot).
I am happy to admit that the considerable difficulties I see are just, like, my opinion, man.
(I do think that there are some people who might feel like maybe the time they spent in prison was a bit unjust when they get out because the law was changed because it was decided that putting people in prison for the things they did was unjust; they might not be entirely satisfied with just getting out)
Also, note that marginal jobs are different devices than jobs for the socially marginal:
If they were legal (or at least, non criminal, I'd be fine with confiscation laws...), the resources expended dealing with the associated crime (I mean things like dealing and gang violence) and with imprisoning addicts could be re-purposed to treatment.
A couple of basic classes on life skills at a quiet place away from people is going to go a lot further towards helping people live a more reasonable life than a felony conviction.
I agree with you in principle, but this description of how it would play out borders on the hilarious.
I mean, what do you do with the hundreds of thousands of people who are currently in prison on drug charges? Do you just let them out, or do you go further than that? What do you do about the thousands of socially marginal people who just lost their jobs (yes, if you are willing to risk prison to distribute drugs, you are likely socially marginal; sorry.)? And so on.
The point at which oil is economically viable is going to be different for different people. NASCAR will spend quite a bit on high energy fuel. Grandma probably won't.
When you have hundreds of millions of decisions makers, things tend to look smooth, rather than abrupt.
Steel doesn't really work like that. If it didn't deform, it probably didn't lose much strength, if any (the dented bumper is deformed, but probably not in such a way that it will behave poorly in an impact, it just needs to distribute force along its length).
Cyclical loading is a bigger issue, but think about the steel/iron components in engines that cycle thousands of times per minute.
If you salt the hash, they would also need to figure out the salt (and you would only need to remember 1 extra thing that was used across sites). Hopefully the authentication system is such that even a weak salt would require enough guessing to trigger some alarms, or something.
I think my long term solution will be to stop, as much as possible, interacting with systems that require stupidity in the name of security. To some extent that will mean agitating for systems to use physical tokens (which are strong and only a little inconvenient) and things like OpenID (which may be too complicated for most people to want to deal with; I mean people who store their passwords in their browser, with no system or profile password protecting them, ya know, the majority).
Slashdot Mirror
I like the way I have things setup, but my data is a heck of a lot more important to me than my operating system, so I'm not sure what bigger problem there would be than losing it all (of course, I have reasonable backups, but that isn't something normal people do yet).
I was talking about dealers suddenly becoming unemployed whilst having a rather blase attitude towards what is expected of them legally. The fact that there are screwed up people who sort of function doesn't really completely answer that (though it does point out that they might end up sort of functioning, I guess depending quite a bit on the nuances of their attitudes).
When I say "I agree in principle", I mean "I think that is the right thing", not "That's an idea I want to comment on", I don't think I actually have the attitude that you seem to me to be harshing on:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1238539&cid=28019345
Well, no one has done a good job of establishing that it isn't a problem (the phrasing here is a little problematic, but whatever, they are both quite real possibilities).
If you think that changing our system of justice in a way that affects millions of people will run perfectly smoothly, we disagree. If you think it will mostly run smoothly, we disagree. I think it will often be o.k., but there will be lots of issues.
If you don't think a cop noticing you using a banned substance represents a poor decision, we disagree.
If you don't think there will be some issues for these people as they try to integrate into communities, we disagree.
If you don't think that easier, cheaper access to substances will sometimes exacerbate past problems, we disagree.
If you don't see a large influx of people with a proven history of making poor decisions, into communities that will not trust them highly, with better, cheaper access to substances that have proved to cause them issues in the past, as a potential problem, it is safe to say that we disagree.
None of this dissuades me from thinking that decriminalization and legalization are good ideas that would be far better than the current fucking mess.
Only in the most inconvenient sense of the word.
Unless the price is nice and fair. If Comcast can provide access at $10 a month and transfer at $0.05 a gigabyte, why shouldn't they sell it that way?
For grandma, paying $50 a month for a ridiculously high speed pipe that can support 50 times the transfer that she uses is a shitty deal.
I think it would work out over time. I don't think it would be quick and easy. Apparently, this position requires far more justification than thinking it would be relatively painless.
He doesn't run Boing Boing man, he is one of the editors. Some other guy brought the idea and yet another guy brought the money.
You don't put a sign saying "Don't shoot the friendly robot." on it, you blare a recording of the Ride of the Valkyries.
Everyone knows that means bad news.
The federal government, which usually gets most of the worldwide attention, is, and I mean it, often the least stupid level of government for a particular place in the United States, and not usually the one granting right-of-ways to a single company. So congratulations on not having a stupid government.
I was going to go to a protest and then I found out they weren't serving ice cream.
He makes me feel good about my self-aggrandizement.
Well, less ridiculous about it anyway.
The point that I apparently failed to make is that "Then legalize the drugs. Then use the profits from the government-sold drugs to start up rehab centers. Problem solved." is pretty glib.
I wasn't trying to establish that the problem is in any way insurmountable. Acknowledging the (what apparently only I see as) difficulty before hand is probably a good idea (well, assuming that there are people who aren't sure it is a good idea), rather than talking about how it will come with pink ponies and lemonade.
Alcoholics don't really count as well adjusted, at least, I don't count them that way.
I've also known quite a few people who dabbled in various ways (and that isn't even a euphemism for myself) and the most involved ones have generally demonstrated the highest rate of bad decisions (outside of the decision to mess with drugs and whatnot).
I can't prove that you don't disagree with me.
I am happy to admit that the considerable difficulties I see are just, like, my opinion, man.
(I do think that there are some people who might feel like maybe the time they spent in prison was a bit unjust when they get out because the law was changed because it was decided that putting people in prison for the things they did was unjust; they might not be entirely satisfied with just getting out)
Also, note that marginal jobs are different devices than jobs for the socially marginal:
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22socially+marginal+jobs%22
http://www.google.com/search?q=%22socially+marginal+job%22
http://www.google.com/search?q=jobs+%22socially+marginal%22
http://www.google.com/search?q=job+%22socially+marginal%22
This greatly muddies said search water.
Your last paragraph is specious. On an actual percentage basis, very few people use meth, and they are overwhelmingly poor.
If it was a joke, well, then whoosh is me.
If they were legal (or at least, non criminal, I'd be fine with confiscation laws...), the resources expended dealing with the associated crime (I mean things like dealing and gang violence) and with imprisoning addicts could be re-purposed to treatment.
A couple of basic classes on life skills at a quiet place away from people is going to go a lot further towards helping people live a more reasonable life than a felony conviction.
Yeah right.
I agree with you in principle, but this description of how it would play out borders on the hilarious.
I mean, what do you do with the hundreds of thousands of people who are currently in prison on drug charges? Do you just let them out, or do you go further than that? What do you do about the thousands of socially marginal people who just lost their jobs (yes, if you are willing to risk prison to distribute drugs, you are likely socially marginal; sorry.)? And so on.
If I copy a link to the site off of an external blog, I probably don't have to pay much attention to anything they say.
Lawyers might disagree, but so far, internet culture supports linking to things that someone has put on a publicly accessible server.
Running water, modern medicine, etc.?
A colonoscopy really is a good idea for men over 40.
Feel like playing the peg to some 4" diameter steel pipe?
I'll bring the hammer.
The point at which oil is economically viable is going to be different for different people. NASCAR will spend quite a bit on high energy fuel. Grandma probably won't.
When you have hundreds of millions of decisions makers, things tend to look smooth, rather than abrupt.
I don't think anybody needs to worry about Palin. Maybe people in Alaska who don't like the way she governs.
People might decide that they aren't going to vote for Obama again, but I really can't see it happening in a way that Palin manages to get elected.
Steel doesn't really work like that. If it didn't deform, it probably didn't lose much strength, if any (the dented bumper is deformed, but probably not in such a way that it will behave poorly in an impact, it just needs to distribute force along its length).
Cyclical loading is a bigger issue, but think about the steel/iron components in engines that cycle thousands of times per minute.
If you salt the hash, they would also need to figure out the salt (and you would only need to remember 1 extra thing that was used across sites). Hopefully the authentication system is such that even a weak salt would require enough guessing to trigger some alarms, or something.
I think my long term solution will be to stop, as much as possible, interacting with systems that require stupidity in the name of security. To some extent that will mean agitating for systems to use physical tokens (which are strong and only a little inconvenient) and things like OpenID (which may be too complicated for most people to want to deal with; I mean people who store their passwords in their browser, with no system or profile password protecting them, ya know, the majority).