Software is necessary for nuclear weapons systems, which are computer guided, to perform.
Therefore software does kill.
I could be a wiseass and use your logic to state "therefore all software kills just as all weapons are made to kill" but I won't.
We both know that's not the case.
Put your emotions aside for a moment, clear your mind, and think of non-lethal uses for weapons. I'm sure that you can think of at least two if you honestly try.
If you're willing to actually do that, then clear your mind again and let's try another. Think of two more uses for weapons in which the weapons are used to kill but not to kill another human.
If you're with me so far, good. Now clear your mind again and think of five ways in which software is used to kill, destroy, or do harm to the welfare of others.
Red, you need to understand that any tool, even a hammer or screwdriver, can be used for evil. Weapons sold in sport shops are intended for good and most are used that way. The same can be said for Visual C, GCC, Bash, Linux, BSD Unix, etc. It's all sold/given with good intent and most of it is used that way. Sometimes tho someone will use it for evil.
One last test of your mind. Can you think of any ways in which killing or wounding another human might be a good thing?
In a story about any other company I could see this being an important story. And I could discussing it on/.
The court orders Microsoft to do a lot of things.
MICROSOFT DOESN'T DO THEM!
The court doesn't follow thru with anything directed at Microsoft. There is no enforcement, no actual punishment.
You wouldn't raise your kids this way. You wouldn't tolerate this kind of behavior from your neighbors. You would expect/demand that the courts stand behind what they say in any other case.
But this is not what happens with Microsoft.
So some lawyers and a judge got their chests all fluffed up and announced that Microsoft will carry java.
If you think that actually means that Microsoft will include java....well, I've got some great real estate deals for you.
"the potential things that could go wrong with designing a CPU are, such as software incompatibilities"
In the free market that would be a valid concern. China is not a free market.
If you have a processor that is incompatible with everyone else you do have to develop your own software to go with it. True. But you also prevent the dependence upon western software. In a place like China they can force that issue.
That helps them keep the west out. In a communist society (yes folks they are communist and yes, that does run counter to the way we live) they view that as a good thing.
When these processors are used in thier defensive and offensive military systems, and THEY WILL BE USED THAT WAY, it will be that much harder for us to counter them. There will be a new niche in the west for geeks who understand the Dragon so that we understand their exact capabilities and combat them.
So software incompatibilities could work for them rather than against.
The/. crowd seems to believe that data and source code should be free. Microprocessors should not attach serial numbers to files. Office software such as word processors and spreadsheets should not attach serial numbers to files. Everyone should have open and easy access to software.
And yet the/. crowd believes that guns should be heavily controlled.....if they are allowed to exist at all.
I think the/. crowd and the State Of New Jersey are both going to have a very hard time facing reality. Life just doesn't work like that.
Most crime involving weapons does not involve weapons purchased legally by the offender. Often times the weapons have been modified and no longer meet legal specifications (barrel length, full auto, serial number removed, etc.)
You know how easy it is to build your own gun in this day and age?
Harrassing people who want to own legal weapons for legal purposes is NOT the answer here.
It's so hard to believe that someone who can see how wrong the DMCA is can't see the obvious about gun/people control.
These jerks are big enough that a boycott isn't going to do much. At least not anything that the/. community is capable of comming up with.
Besides, if you did "win" with a boycott you would end up with the same jerks in control, they would simply conform enough to please you.
Do you really want those jerks running entertainment?
Instead I would propose a revolution. Rather than getting them to bend the rules a bit to meet your desires.....shatter them. Completely change the rules of the entertainment industry.
The/. community has the power to do this. Napster was a great start. Don't quit there. What other ways can you think of that the geek world change the way entertainment is produced and distributed?
At first it may take a bit of guerilla warfare, things like bootlegging. But you will need to recognize, as you create the new entertainment industry, that those involved do need to make a living.
Forget trying to make your point with them tho. They just don't care. Forget them. Replace the bastards.
Since all involved, and their companies, are long gone I don't see what difference it would make.
Just as with radio, it doesn't matter now who made it first. The determination came late enough that it never made any financial difference to Tesla or his estate and never changed anything in the history books. The same would be true of powered flight.
It might make a difference in national pride. But I don't think it would decrease the Americans pride much. And, from the sounds of the article, I'm not sure the kiwi's would buy into the whole thing anyway. Even with proof.
Why would that be a good thing? If someone wanted to do evil that badly they would surely find a way, even tho your formula had been censored.
Taking your example, let's now look at why censorship of your formula would be bad:
1) Knowing how you created the virus could have been useful in learning more about the natural virus. That information might have been useful in defense. We now don't have that opportunity.
2) There may be properties of corn-flakes and/or coca-cola that we were not aware of. You have discovered them in the creation of your evil formula. We now will be delayed in learning those unique properties, if we learn them at all. Some good could have come from that knowledge but now we'll never know.
3) In the creation of your virus there may have been useful byproducts or other products created by variations of your formula. These (by)products may be useful for good. Now we will never know.
4) Because you now know how to do this thing cheaply and easily, ebola is much more common and available than previously thought. The medical community is not properly prepared because they believe ebola to be rare and confined. Due to their lack of preperation, many more people will die. Products could have been pulled from shelves, recepies for corn-flakes or coke changed, etc. But now we don't know about the change in the level of threat.
Did you know that you can find instructions on how to build chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons? It's easy to find. Censorship makes it a wee bit harder to get that information, but the knowledge still exists.
Now, let's look at what possible good comes of censorship.
Hmmmm.....can't think of any. Can you help me out here using your example?
You're telling me that the primary use of guns is defense? I would agree if we were talking about guns in general, but we're not.
The issue here is about Google not carrying advertising from sport shops because they sell guns or gun parts. And you're saying that the guns sold by those businesses are primiarly used for defense?
I guess you and I shop in some very different stores!
At least in the U.S. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even be legal for those stores to sell guns and advertise them as defensive weapons. I don't know.
I am aware of places like Cabellas that sell guns and other weapons to sportsmen for hunting or target shooting. At work we purchase weapons and such from places like Galls for public safety use.
Outside of military arms suppliers, who advertises weapons for sale to the public for defense?
So you're saying that if I commit an act with a good intention, that act is not wrong?
If I rob you to feed my family, that is ok? If I rape your sister to satisify my urge in order that my urge doesn't grow to where I desire to rape your daughter, then it's ok? If I kill someone because they attempted to kill me, even if I could have simply wounded them, it's ok?
No, sometimes you might commit an evil act in the name of what you believe to be good but it does not make that act any less evil or ugly.
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.
You are correct, the primary purpose for cars is transportation....a good thing. Since cars are used most often for good we tend to tolerate them even when they are used to kill.
The same is true of guns. Guns are often used for good. I won't go in to all the uses of guns for good, please think about that for yourself. The problem with guns is their bad press. The PERCEPTION of guns is that they are bad, so they aren't tolerated as much.
Note that we're talking about sport weapons here. The comment was that Google won't advertise for sport shops that sell guns or gun parts. I'm not talking about military weapons. So the purpose of these guns is target shooting or hunting. So we're talking about sport shops that are selling guns for good purposes, not guns intended to kill people.
It amazes me that people automatically assume that guns are used to kill. You'll find that most guns sold by sport shops are used for target practice. A lesser number is used for acutal hunting and, of those, an even smaller number are used successfully to bag game.
The number of guns sold by sporting goods shops that are used to kill people or commit crime? Interesting, I'll bet it is a very small number. Especially when compared to the number of guns used for their intended purpose.
The number of guns advertised by sporting goods shops as weapons to kill people or commit crimes? ZERO.
When looked at from that angle does it still make sense to have Google protect us from sporting goods shops? If you answer yes then shouldn't they also protect us from car dealers?
I agree. As long as they are up front and open about what they are censoring and why, I don't have a problem with it. I also don't have a problem with it as they are not the sole source of information.
It's still evil, still wrong, but for them maybe a necessary evil to support what they believe are issues of greater importance. I understand that we all have to do ugly things sometimes in order to support what we feel is the greater good. It still doesn't make those ugly things right.
They provide an information service to the public. They edit that information based upon thier personal beliefs.
You're right, I'm a fool. I guess that I don't really understand censorship.
Funny tho because when my library, who provides an information service to the public, edited or deleted content because of the personal beliefs of the board of directors it was called censorship. I didn't call it that, there were many people who did including those who make our laws and govern our country. There were many educated people who call it that.
Yes I can, but from the tone of your post it sounds like you won't be very receptive.
As a religious example: Suppose that I tell you that Satan is the one true god. You must serve his every wish. Then I censor your information stream so that anything to the contrary is not included. How then do you make an intelligent, informed decision? You can't, you will conclude that what I say must be true.
As a commercial example: You wish to purchase a car. I filter your incomming information so that only a select few brands are known to you. Of those brands only negative information is allowed for certain brands, only favorable information is allowed on others. Your choice for purchase then would be very much biased toward my ideas and my goals....which may very well be evil.
Thanks for playing devils advocate here. But I think that it's pretty obvious that censorship is a bad thing.
That's right, they are choices. They, in themselves are not evil. The evil part might come in when people favor the self-destructive option of that choice.
But that would be their decision, wouldn't it.
To make that decision they should have information available to them on both sides of the issue. With Google censoring that information those people could not make a properly informed, intelligent decision (if they only used google).
Perhaps the greatest evil involved here then is censorship.
Re:Google, and corporate responsibility,
on
Google vs. Evil
·
· Score: 2
" I don't see any evidence that they have used that power irresponsably yet."
You don't see censorship as irresponsible?
Censorship is Evil
on
Google vs. Evil
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"Evil," says Google CEO Eric Schmidt, "is what Sergey says is evil."
Evil, says/. poster ONOIML8, is censorship. Be it by government, religious cult group, or privately held company in the "information technology" business.
1. People who created, run and privately own Google think guns are bad.
Cool, everyone has an opinion.
2. Google won't advertise guns.
Ok, fine.
3. Outdoor shops who do a little gun-related bid'ness are enticed to get rid of it.
Really? Just because Google wont carry their ads? How is that?
Time-Warner won't carry ads for porn sites but I belive those business are doing quite well and do not feel enticed to eliminate porn from thier business. They just find other ways to advertise that do not involve that company. Time-Warner's doesn't get their revenue but the do get to stick to their policy.
4. There is one less place to buy parts for things used to kill other people.
Several problems with that theory. First is the assumption that if a company doesn't advertise on Google they can't do business. Advertising on Google is not such an important thing that it will determine if a gun parts business remains profitable.
Another problem with your theory is the fact that most guns are not used to kill people.
Assuming your theory were correct it would also mean that there were fewer parts available for guns to defend people.
Cars kill more people everyday than do guns. Google still advertises companies who sell car parts.
Please rethink your theory.
5. Google still makes profit, society gets a little more like creators, maintainers and private owners of Google want it to be.
Google still makes profit, that's a good thing. Standing up for what they believe in is a good thing. They set an example and that is a good thing.
But I think you overestimate their impact on society. Google is important, and they do have an impact. But if Google went away, or people use another service, it doesn't harm society. Despite what they may tell you they just aren't that important.
Someone pointed out here, in jest, that they would cut down a tree with a hippie in it. Ha ha, funny. Can't do it here in the U.S. because they would lock you up.
In those places the logger would fell the tree, cut it up, and cut the freakin hippie up too. Move on to the next one. No questions asked.
But the point is made. The trees that are being logged here are being replanted. We have more trees in the US now than before the white man came. They aren't replanting and they aren't regulating in those rainforest areas.
So if they are worth fighting for, why don't the hippies pack up and take their protests to where the action is.
Besides, with the lack of regulation in those places they can do all the dope they want. You would think they would go for that alone.
Slashdot Mirror
That is incorrect. BuzzZZZZZZZZTTT!
Software is necessary for nuclear weapons systems, which are computer guided, to perform.
Therefore software does kill.
I could be a wiseass and use your logic to state "therefore all software kills just as all weapons are made to kill" but I won't.
We both know that's not the case.
Put your emotions aside for a moment, clear your mind, and think of non-lethal uses for weapons. I'm sure that you can think of at least two if you honestly try.
If you're willing to actually do that, then clear your mind again and let's try another. Think of two more uses for weapons in which the weapons are used to kill but not to kill another human.
If you're with me so far, good. Now clear your mind again and think of five ways in which software is used to kill, destroy, or do harm to the welfare of others.
Red, you need to understand that any tool, even a hammer or screwdriver, can be used for evil. Weapons sold in sport shops are intended for good and most are used that way. The same can be said for Visual C, GCC, Bash, Linux, BSD Unix, etc. It's all sold/given with good intent and most of it is used that way. Sometimes tho someone will use it for evil.
One last test of your mind. Can you think of any ways in which killing or wounding another human might be a good thing?
Thanks for playing.
Like I said in another post in another thread this morning......
And?????
This is news how?
Like anything would ever be done about it. This doesn't suprise anyone and nothing will ever be done about it.
We all know that Microsoft does shady deals. We know that they break the law in the open. This has been proven in court.
Since nothing will ever be done about any of it, why waste time dwelling on it?
Come on people, just get on with replacing them.
Linus is a role model, not a hero.
I seem to remember being instructed as to what a hero is in basic training. But I never understood it, not really.
Not until I met one. Two holes in his chest and fighting for his own life at that point. But he saved two lives prior. That is a hero.
A hero is the man who runs into a blazing fire in order to save your sorry ass.
A hero is the lady who jumps into an ice cold river to save your child.
A role model is someone who writes a free Unix like kernel and gives it to the world for free.
I want to be like Linus some day. I hope I never have to be a hero.
In a story about any other company I could see this being an important story. And I could discussing it on /.
The court orders Microsoft to do a lot of things.
MICROSOFT DOESN'T DO THEM!
The court doesn't follow thru with anything directed at Microsoft. There is no enforcement, no actual punishment.
You wouldn't raise your kids this way. You wouldn't tolerate this kind of behavior from your neighbors. You would expect/demand that the courts stand behind what they say in any other case.
But this is not what happens with Microsoft.
So some lawyers and a judge got their chests all fluffed up and announced that Microsoft will carry java.
If you think that actually means that Microsoft will include java....well, I've got some great real estate deals for you.
Wake up people!
"the potential things that could go wrong with designing a CPU are, such as software incompatibilities"
In the free market that would be a valid concern. China is not a free market.
If you have a processor that is incompatible with everyone else you do have to develop your own software to go with it. True. But you also prevent the dependence upon western software. In a place like China they can force that issue.
That helps them keep the west out. In a communist society (yes folks they are communist and yes, that does run counter to the way we live) they view that as a good thing.
When these processors are used in thier defensive and offensive military systems, and THEY WILL BE USED THAT WAY, it will be that much harder for us to counter them. There will be a new niche in the west for geeks who understand the Dragon so that we understand their exact capabilities and combat them.
So software incompatibilities could work for them rather than against.
Let me see if I understand the majority here.
/. crowd seems to believe that data and source code should be free. Microprocessors should not attach serial numbers to files. Office software such as word processors and spreadsheets should not attach serial numbers to files. Everyone should have open and easy access to software.
/. crowd believes that guns should be heavily controlled.....if they are allowed to exist at all.
/. crowd and the State Of New Jersey are both going to have a very hard time facing reality. Life just doesn't work like that.
The
And yet the
I think the
Most crime involving weapons does not involve weapons purchased legally by the offender. Often times the weapons have been modified and no longer meet legal specifications (barrel length, full auto, serial number removed, etc.)
You know how easy it is to build your own gun in this day and age?
Harrassing people who want to own legal weapons for legal purposes is NOT the answer here.
It's so hard to believe that someone who can see how wrong the DMCA is can't see the obvious about gun/people control.
These jerks are big enough that a boycott isn't going to do much. At least not anything that the /. community is capable of comming up with.
/. community has the power to do this. Napster was a great start. Don't quit there. What other ways can you think of that the geek world change the way entertainment is produced and distributed?
Besides, if you did "win" with a boycott you would end up with the same jerks in control, they would simply conform enough to please you.
Do you really want those jerks running entertainment?
Instead I would propose a revolution. Rather than getting them to bend the rules a bit to meet your desires.....shatter them. Completely change the rules of the entertainment industry.
The
At first it may take a bit of guerilla warfare, things like bootlegging. But you will need to recognize, as you create the new entertainment industry, that those involved do need to make a living.
Forget trying to make your point with them tho. They just don't care. Forget them. Replace the bastards.
Since all involved, and their companies, are long gone I don't see what difference it would make.
Just as with radio, it doesn't matter now who made it first. The determination came late enough that it never made any financial difference to Tesla or his estate and never changed anything in the history books. The same would be true of powered flight.
It might make a difference in national pride. But I don't think it would decrease the Americans pride much. And, from the sounds of the article, I'm not sure the kiwi's would buy into the whole thing anyway. Even with proof.
Kiwi's, god love 'em, are like that.
I'm getting pretty f'in tired of the sick bastard with the mod points.
I hope someday you'll be worrying about a layoff and how you're going to feed your family. We'll all get a good chuckle then won't we.
Why would that be a good thing? If someone wanted to do evil that badly they would surely find a way, even tho your formula had been censored.
Taking your example, let's now look at why censorship of your formula would be bad:
1) Knowing how you created the virus could have been useful in learning more about the natural virus. That information might have been useful in defense. We now don't have that opportunity.
2) There may be properties of corn-flakes and/or coca-cola that we were not aware of. You have discovered them in the creation of your evil formula. We now will be delayed in learning those unique properties, if we learn them at all. Some good could have come from that knowledge but now we'll never know.
3) In the creation of your virus there may have been useful byproducts or other products created by variations of your formula. These (by)products may be useful for good. Now we will never know.
4) Because you now know how to do this thing cheaply and easily, ebola is much more common and available than previously thought. The medical community is not properly prepared because they believe ebola to be rare and confined. Due to their lack of preperation, many more people will die. Products could have been pulled from shelves, recepies for corn-flakes or coke changed, etc. But now we don't know about the change in the level of threat.
Did you know that you can find instructions on how to build chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons? It's easy to find. Censorship makes it a wee bit harder to get that information, but the knowledge still exists.
Now, let's look at what possible good comes of censorship.
Hmmmm.....can't think of any. Can you help me out here using your example?
I got the usual.
Nothing
Zip
Nada
Not even a thank you.
911 dispatch wants to know where to physically find me on xmas and new years tho in case communications go out as I am on call for that, without pay.
Of course I would much rather have nothing compared to your gag gift doll. That's just sick.
LMAO!
Somebody please give him a +1 funny!!!!
You're telling me that the primary use of guns is defense? I would agree if we were talking about guns in general, but we're not.
The issue here is about Google not carrying advertising from sport shops because they sell guns or gun parts. And you're saying that the guns sold by those businesses are primiarly used for defense?
I guess you and I shop in some very different stores!
At least in the U.S. I'm pretty sure it wouldn't even be legal for those stores to sell guns and advertise them as defensive weapons. I don't know.
I am aware of places like Cabellas that sell guns and other weapons to sportsmen for hunting or target shooting. At work we purchase weapons and such from places like Galls for public safety use.
Outside of military arms suppliers, who advertises weapons for sale to the public for defense?
So you're saying that if I commit an act with a good intention, that act is not wrong?
If I rob you to feed my family, that is ok? If I rape your sister to satisify my urge in order that my urge doesn't grow to where I desire to rape your daughter, then it's ok? If I kill someone because they attempted to kill me, even if I could have simply wounded them, it's ok?
No, sometimes you might commit an evil act in the name of what you believe to be good but it does not make that act any less evil or ugly.
I'm afraid we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.
You are correct, the primary purpose for cars is transportation....a good thing. Since cars are used most often for good we tend to tolerate them even when they are used to kill.
The same is true of guns. Guns are often used for good. I won't go in to all the uses of guns for good, please think about that for yourself. The problem with guns is their bad press. The PERCEPTION of guns is that they are bad, so they aren't tolerated as much.
Note that we're talking about sport weapons here. The comment was that Google won't advertise for sport shops that sell guns or gun parts. I'm not talking about military weapons. So the purpose of these guns is target shooting or hunting. So we're talking about sport shops that are selling guns for good purposes, not guns intended to kill people.
It amazes me that people automatically assume that guns are used to kill. You'll find that most guns sold by sport shops are used for target practice. A lesser number is used for acutal hunting and, of those, an even smaller number are used successfully to bag game.
The number of guns sold by sporting goods shops that are used to kill people or commit crime? Interesting, I'll bet it is a very small number. Especially when compared to the number of guns used for their intended purpose.
The number of guns advertised by sporting goods shops as weapons to kill people or commit crimes? ZERO.
When looked at from that angle does it still make sense to have Google protect us from sporting goods shops? If you answer yes then shouldn't they also protect us from car dealers?
I agree. As long as they are up front and open about what they are censoring and why, I don't have a problem with it. I also don't have a problem with it as they are not the sole source of information.
It's still evil, still wrong, but for them maybe a necessary evil to support what they believe are issues of greater importance. I understand that we all have to do ugly things sometimes in order to support what we feel is the greater good. It still doesn't make those ugly things right.
Oh I wont. And you be sure to let me know if it ever seems that way.
Of course since you posted as a gutless AC, I don't know who you are.
They provide an information service to the public. They edit that information based upon thier personal beliefs.
You're right, I'm a fool. I guess that I don't really understand censorship.
Funny tho because when my library, who provides an information service to the public, edited or deleted content because of the personal beliefs of the board of directors it was called censorship. I didn't call it that, there were many people who did including those who make our laws and govern our country. There were many educated people who call it that.
Maybe you can explain it to me and to them.
Yes I can, but from the tone of your post it sounds like you won't be very receptive.
As a religious example: Suppose that I tell you that Satan is the one true god. You must serve his every wish. Then I censor your information stream so that anything to the contrary is not included. How then do you make an intelligent, informed decision? You can't, you will conclude that what I say must be true.
As a commercial example: You wish to purchase a car. I filter your incomming information so that only a select few brands are known to you. Of those brands only negative information is allowed for certain brands, only favorable information is allowed on others. Your choice for purchase then would be very much biased toward my ideas and my goals....which may very well be evil.
Thanks for playing devils advocate here. But I think that it's pretty obvious that censorship is a bad thing.
"Cigs and Booze are choices that people make..."
That's right, they are choices. They, in themselves are not evil. The evil part might come in when people favor the self-destructive option of that choice.
But that would be their decision, wouldn't it.
To make that decision they should have information available to them on both sides of the issue. With Google censoring that information those people could not make a properly informed, intelligent decision (if they only used google).
Perhaps the greatest evil involved here then is censorship.
" I don't see any evidence that they have used that power irresponsably yet."
You don't see censorship as irresponsible?
"Evil," says Google CEO Eric Schmidt, "is what Sergey says is evil."
/. poster ONOIML8, is censorship. Be it by government, religious cult group, or privately held company in the "information technology" business.
Evil, says
Yes, you may quote me on that.
"What's porn ever done to you personally? If you don't like it, don't look for it."
The same could easily be said of tobacco. If you don't like it, don't use it.
1. People who created, run and privately own Google think guns are bad.
Cool, everyone has an opinion.
2. Google won't advertise guns.
Ok, fine.
3. Outdoor shops who do a little gun-related bid'ness are enticed to get rid of it.
Really? Just because Google wont carry their ads? How is that?
Time-Warner won't carry ads for porn sites but I belive those business are doing quite well and do not feel enticed to eliminate porn from thier business. They just find other ways to advertise that do not involve that company. Time-Warner's doesn't get their revenue but the do get to stick to their policy.
4. There is one less place to buy parts for things used to kill other people.
Several problems with that theory. First is the assumption that if a company doesn't advertise on Google they can't do business. Advertising on Google is not such an important thing that it will determine if a gun parts business remains profitable.
Another problem with your theory is the fact that most guns are not used to kill people.
Assuming your theory were correct it would also mean that there were fewer parts available for guns to defend people.
Cars kill more people everyday than do guns. Google still advertises companies who sell car parts.
Please rethink your theory.
5. Google still makes profit, society gets a little more like creators, maintainers and private owners of Google want it to be.
Google still makes profit, that's a good thing. Standing up for what they believe in is a good thing. They set an example and that is a good thing.
But I think you overestimate their impact on society. Google is important, and they do have an impact. But if Google went away, or people use another service, it doesn't harm society. Despite what they may tell you they just aren't that important.
Well no shit! But I'll tell you why they don't:
Someone pointed out here, in jest, that they would cut down a tree with a hippie in it. Ha ha, funny. Can't do it here in the U.S. because they would lock you up.
In those places the logger would fell the tree, cut it up, and cut the freakin hippie up too. Move on to the next one. No questions asked.
But the point is made. The trees that are being logged here are being replanted. We have more trees in the US now than before the white man came. They aren't replanting and they aren't regulating in those rainforest areas.
So if they are worth fighting for, why don't the hippies pack up and take their protests to where the action is.
Besides, with the lack of regulation in those places they can do all the dope they want. You would think they would go for that alone.