No. This is more like leaving it on a park bench while you go take a shit in the bushes. Sure, it's your property. They certainly know it doesn't belong to them. And yes, stealing is illegal. And so is using it. So what? You still left it lying around.
The fact that you can't even post a coherent insult is... sadly amusing. And only serves to validate my point. Haha. And isn't it funny how you keep saying that this is some lamer trolling for his EOpinion writeup -- and then give no response to the actual points he makes. But whatever. Don't bother replying, I won't be reading your pathetic responses -- I've spent enough time dealing with morons and jackasses this week already.
Public schools get funding based on the number of students attending. Suspending malcontents might make the administrators' jobs easier, but it's less money in their pockets. As a result, they intentionally ignore abuse, or at the most, give a slap on the wrist to the abusers. That's the way it is.
My advice to others in this position (I was as well) is to go to a privateschool. There's lots of financial aid available at these two schools, and they're both top-notch. Definitely worth applying to.
Slashdot promised to publish Hellmouth electronically, and they are indeed doing so.
The first few chapters were on the front page. Then they became links in Slashbacks, at the very bottom, in two liners. And now, he mentions part 7, but no link?!?!?
I have to search for "Hellmouth" in order to read the latest part? I'm starting to get a strong feeling that there's some sort of conspiracy going on here!!
Your argument is flawed. While I agree that spam is a bad thing, the fact that they obfuscate their origins has nothing to do with their intentions.
Vigorous political protest in an oppresive regime also requires anonynimity, and that is arguably a Good Thing(tm), which would also likely require faking headers and connecting with fake IDs and using open relays.
Limited time available on the dialup line, esoteric features like rate passwords if connecting at less than say, 9600, etc, etc. all made it more challenging, but so much more fun to use BBSes.
I lived in SoCal, and there were certainly a lot of boards around, running stuff ranging from Tri-BBS, Renegade, and MajorBBS, to stuff like WildCat...
For someone who had never been able connect at all with the world, to be able to go 'online,' and exchange information, files, and play games remotely was just waaaaaaay awesome.
I'm not sure what it would feel like now. It felt like the best thing in the world back then, but now that I've had access to a T3 (doesn't college just rule?), and hyperlinking, and IM software, I don't think going back would be quite the same...
simpler analogy: censorware is like a squad of dumb security guards ordered to keep hoodlums out, and let the VIPs into a convention. They repeatedly refuse entrance to about 50% of all VIPs that walk up, but let 90% of all the hoodlums in anyway.
When you call the security company that you contracted out to, they threaten you with violence for complaining...
... and getting back to practical versus theoretical: yes, logic programming has great benefits. So does functional programming. But the world is procedural, and object-oriented if you're lucky. And that's just the way it is.
Make no mistake: I war3z as much as anyone out there, and love to see the new CD rips on the shiny FTPs. I however, make no mistake that what I'm doing is immoral, and unethical. I simply DON'T CARE.
On the other hand, it's rediculous to say that war3z doesn't hurt authors and publishers -- you can argue that the 15 year old would have never bought Maya 3 Unlimited anyhow, and while that's true, he's actively helping distribute said software to people who/might/ have otherwise purchased it, but now don't have to. It's not right, and if you happen to care, you'd be on the side of the publishers as well.
I admit that a) I am certainly biased against drugs, and that b) I've likely been indoctrinated by my parents (DARE is a joke -- ask anyone).
All that said, while being stoned may not make one violent, being high on coke might do so. Same with various other drugs. But that's beside the point. My personal opinion is that at least some drugs (e.g. cocaine and heroine) can be physically addictive, and cause people to do things they otherwise would not do.
Some of these acts have been criminalized just because they involve the consumption of the drug, others have been criminalized presumably because the behaviors infringe on the rights of others, while benefitting the committor(?) in his search for more of the drug that he's addicted to. (e.g. knocking over a 7-11 for drug money while I'm grabbing snacks inside)
I think that the main problem is this: we have different beliefs about the uses of drugs on others. What the drug does to oneself, at least from my point of view, is irrelavent. I believe, mainly because of the line of thought I expressed above, that other people's drug use affects me adversely, whereas you do not.
I am a very selfish person. I don't care if people die because they ODed on the latest batch of bad crack, and I think that product warning labels are impeding natural selection. I have no problem with vice, as long as it doesn't affect me personally: beastiality, necrophilia, rock stars shooting up and having orgies with fans, etc. All these are vices that I don't give a rat's ass about. I rather like some myself.
On the other hand, I abhor smokers, because they make me smell unpleasant odors. I abhor ghetto drug users, because they run out of money, and then commit crimes to get more. I abhor rapists, because their victims are not consensual. I don't, however, care about rich businessmen smoking crack -- they have enough money for their habit not to bother other people.
I agree that the US is certainly still quite reactionary in some of its policies, and that the war on drugs may well be poorly implemented and have had the original goal of prosecuting 'vice'. Heck, we live in a country where being an atheist is still something we have to whisper about. But the idea is certainly interesting:
cut back on demand by prosecuting users. less demand, less production. cut back on production by having imports checked, weed fields burned, and pushers jailed. less product available, less users possible.
Granted, this plan has obvious fallacies, such as the fact that cutting imports just encourages the domestic production. But I still don't think that granting a pardon to all substance abusers or all non-violent criminals is the best idea.
Going back to the idea of treatment: I'm sure that indeed, a certain percentage of people lapsed into drug use under pressure. As in, like, 'life is _totally_ fucked up'. But there's also a percentage that simply decided to try it to see what it would be like.
This is the percentage that needs to be taught a lesson, IMO. They know that in at least some cases, they have a chance of getting addicted. Unless they happen to be very rich, if they get addicted, they have a likelihood of committing additional crimes to get money for their habit.
They should get arrested for this. We arrest drunk drivers because they have the higher possibility of killing someone, not because they already have. (Well, we get those too, but for murder, not just DUI). We should arrest the people who try it just for fun and curiosity, because they are consciously making a choice to get involved in something that may well eventually drag them in and cause them to commit acts that infringe on the freedoms of others.
I realize that all of this rests on the assumption that drugs are a) addictive b) expensive, and that as a result, c) people likely won't be able to sustain use on their own for long periods of time without additional influxes of cash. These are my beliefs, some of which are subjective (expensive), and some of which are at least partially objective (addictiveness of/some/ drugs). The above, are, of course, my opinions on this issue based on these assumptions, nothing more.
Considering that you had no links to any other report other than the one written by some kid at PSU, we'll look at just this one.
From the report you linked to: about effects of Cannabis: Psychomotor impairment. Synergism with alcohol and sedatives. Apathy and mental slowing, impaired memory and learning (brain damage?). Impaired immune response?1
etc, etc. And as for beneficial effects: everything has beneficial effects. But only if used in certain ways.
Remember the prescrition drug Thalidomide? And how it was sold as a racemic mixture? The manufacturer thought the S enantiomer was inactive, but it led to massive birth defects, while the R enantiomer was the effective form. Drug was discontinued.
And now? the S enantiomer of thalidomide is being researched as a possible anti-cancer agent.
Does it have both beneficial and detrimental effects? Yes. Does that mean that you should take some S-thalidomide for fun? Umm... no. Not unless you like strong mutagens.
Same thing with weed: it has beneficial effects (so does cocaine, heroine, etc.), but it also has damaging effects.
I'm not going to waste my time right now tearing apart the references in that report, except to say that studies by "privately funded" special interest groups don't tend to be the fairest thing. Just ask the attourney generals sueing tobacoo...
People must take responsibility for their actions. You walk off a cliff, you die. You spill boiling coffee on your crotch, you should foot the bill alone.
About consensual crimes: is it legal to kill someone to make a snuff video? As long as the victim agrees of their own free will? I think not.
Grounds to making something illegal: how about, hallucinogenic, inhibition-lowering. I have personally seen an acquaintence high on weed and nothing else to grabbed a kitchen knife and tried to kill someone else at a D&D session, thinking very seriously, he was a dragon.
Chased him around for a good 15 minutes.
Non-violent as good or bad is a matter of opinion. I am of the personal opinion that sometimes, a little bit of force is needed. Having the school counselor ask the kid about his 'feelings' and 'emotions' as reasons why he's smoking weed does not help. What's the kid supposed to say?
Daddy keeps hitting mommy on the head with that bat, and mommie keeps crying, and I get so sad I have to smoke up...
I think not. As other responses have pointed out, some people smoke weed despite coming from an OK background family-wise, etc, etc. What some of these kids need, is a 300 pound solid-muscle attitude adjuster who threatens to beat the living shit out of them the next time they smoke weed. That tends to work a hell of a lot better.
Lastly: my post referred mainly to weed, but note that many of these candidates want to release _all_ substance offenders. They want the heroine addicts, the PCP freaks, the Meth screwballs, and everyone else back out. Bad idea. Moreover, some of the candidates want all non-violent offenders out. I guess that means that all the thieves, pushers, hookers, and most everyone except the 2 guys who beat the cop to death will be set free, eh? Not fair to the 2 copkillers, or to the rest of our society.
You fuck up, you go in the slammer. A buffed-up ex-Marine will 're-educate' you by making you his bitch. 'Nuff said.
Kids make mistakes, they shouldn't have their lives ruined for them. Suspension and counselling for drugs, not this zero tolerance crap.
Come on, people make mistakes. They shouldn't have to die just because they fell off a goddamn cliff.
Excuse me: despite all the new hippie-ass candidates for president declaring that smoking up mellows you out and puts you in harmony with nature, it's a fact that weed contains carcinogens, is mildly hallucinogenic, and reduces inhibitions.
So says scientific studies.
Moreover, it's not like kids don't _know_ drugs are bad for them. Most of the ones I know are like "yeah, fuck that... who gives a shit about cancer... I'm gonna fucking smoke my joint 'cause I wanna fucking smoke my joint."
They're not stupid, they _willingly_ commit said error. After constantly being told that they should not. I mean, name one kid who has not seen hundreds of "drugs are bad" posters and commercials in their life. Who hasn't seen the crack addicts in the airports.
Kids know better, and if some of them are still stupid enough to smoke up, they need punishment, not help.
This new-aged non-violent "let's talk about our feelings everyone" crap is making me sick. Especially since so many are abusing the system and getting away with it.
Fuck that. That's like saying we shouldn't care about gay and lesbian rights because most of us are straight.
It's easy to see that there are an infinite number of criteria that we can use to single out small groups of people from the larger mass. If the government is allowed to do whatever they want to these people, then we have a despotic government.
Slashdot Mirror
No. This is more like leaving it on a park bench while you go take a shit in the bushes. Sure, it's your property. They certainly know it doesn't belong to them. And yes, stealing is illegal. And so is using it. So what? You still left it lying around.
However, you are not free to leave your shotgun just lying around so any malcontents can use it. Understand that analogy as well?
The fact that you can't even post a coherent insult is ... sadly amusing. And only serves to validate my point. Haha. And isn't it funny how you keep saying that this is some lamer trolling for his EOpinion writeup -- and then give no response to the actual points he makes. But whatever. Don't bother replying, I won't be reading your pathetic responses -- I've spent enough time dealing with morons and jackasses this week already.
<cynicism>
Public schools get funding based on the number of students attending. Suspending malcontents might make the administrators' jobs easier, but it's less money in their pockets. As a result, they intentionally ignore abuse, or at the most, give a slap on the wrist to the abusers. That's the way it is.
My advice to others in this position (I was as well) is to go to a private school. There's lots of financial aid available at these two schools, and they're both top-notch. Definitely worth applying to.
Guilty myself as well. Tsk, tsk. Here it is:
Hellmouth Part 7
Slashdot promised to publish Hellmouth electronically, and they are indeed doing so.
The first few chapters were on the front page. Then they became links in Slashbacks, at the very bottom, in two liners. And now, he mentions part 7, but no link?!?!?
I have to search for "Hellmouth" in order to read the latest part? I'm starting to get a strong feeling that there's some sort of conspiracy going on here!!
Been "emailing" things to yourself lately, dear?
You know, people like you should be banned from the gene pool.
Your argument is flawed. While I agree that spam is a bad thing, the fact that they obfuscate their origins has nothing to do with their intentions.
Vigorous political protest in an oppresive regime also requires anonynimity, and that is arguably a Good Thing(tm), which would also likely require faking headers and connecting with fake IDs and using open relays.
BBSes were amazing in their own way.
Limited time available on the dialup line, esoteric features like rate passwords if connecting at less than say, 9600, etc, etc. all made it more challenging, but so much more fun to use BBSes.
I lived in SoCal, and there were certainly a lot of boards around, running stuff ranging from Tri-BBS, Renegade, and MajorBBS, to stuff like WildCat...
For someone who had never been able connect at all with the world, to be able to go 'online,' and exchange information, files, and play games remotely was just waaaaaaay awesome.
I'm not sure what it would feel like now. It felt like the best thing in the world back then, but now that I've had access to a T3 (doesn't college just rule?), and hyperlinking, and IM software, I don't think going back would be quite the same...
simpler analogy: censorware is like a squad of dumb security guards ordered to keep hoodlums out, and let the VIPs into a convention. They repeatedly refuse entrance to about 50% of all VIPs that walk up, but let 90% of all the hoodlums in anyway.
When you call the security company that you contracted out to, they threaten you with violence for complaining...
... and getting back to practical versus theoretical: yes, logic programming has great benefits. So does functional programming. But the world is procedural, and object-oriented if you're lucky. And that's just the way it is.
The question is ... why aren't there more Naz ... I mean Mac users? :-)
What the fuck is wrong with your protect the children crap? It shows that you're an irresponsible parent.
/should/ shoot spammers in the face, but because they annoy /me/, not some 8-year-old snot-nosed brat.
We
Haha you stupid wank -- they have to hack Slashdot first so they can find my fake ID, now won't they?
Go play with your pussy some more.
You call it 'abandonware', but that doesn't mean that the author or publisher has relinguished rights. 'nuff said.
Make no mistake: I war3z as much as anyone out there, and love to see the new CD rips on the shiny FTPs. I however, make no mistake that what I'm doing is immoral, and unethical. I simply DON'T CARE.
/might/ have otherwise purchased it, but now don't have to. It's not right, and if you happen to care, you'd be on the side of the publishers as well.
On the other hand, it's rediculous to say that war3z doesn't hurt authors and publishers -- you can argue that the 15 year old would have never bought Maya 3 Unlimited anyhow, and while that's true, he's actively helping distribute said software to people who
I admit that a) I am certainly biased against drugs, and that b) I've likely been indoctrinated by my parents (DARE is a joke -- ask anyone).
/some/ drugs). The above, are, of course, my opinions on this issue based on these assumptions, nothing more.
All that said, while being stoned may not make one violent, being high on coke might do so. Same with various other drugs. But that's beside the point. My personal opinion is that at least some drugs (e.g. cocaine and heroine) can be physically addictive, and cause people to do things they otherwise would not do.
Some of these acts have been criminalized just because they involve the consumption of the drug, others have been criminalized presumably because the behaviors infringe on the rights of others, while benefitting the committor(?) in his search for more of the drug that he's addicted to. (e.g. knocking over a 7-11 for drug money while I'm grabbing snacks inside)
I think that the main problem is this: we have different beliefs about the uses of drugs on others. What the drug does to oneself, at least from my point of view, is irrelavent. I believe, mainly because of the line of thought I expressed above, that other people's drug use affects me adversely, whereas you do not.
I am a very selfish person. I don't care if people die because they ODed on the latest batch of bad crack, and I think that product warning labels are impeding natural selection. I have no problem with vice, as long as it doesn't affect me personally: beastiality, necrophilia, rock stars shooting up and having orgies with fans, etc. All these are vices that I don't give a rat's ass about. I rather like some myself.
On the other hand, I abhor smokers, because they make me smell unpleasant odors. I abhor ghetto drug users, because they run out of money, and then commit crimes to get more. I abhor rapists, because their victims are not consensual. I don't, however, care about rich businessmen smoking crack -- they have enough money for their habit not to bother other people.
I agree that the US is certainly still quite reactionary in some of its policies, and that the war on drugs may well be poorly implemented and have had the original goal of prosecuting 'vice'. Heck, we live in a country where being an atheist is still something we have to whisper about. But the idea is certainly interesting:
cut back on demand by prosecuting users. less demand, less production. cut back on production by having imports checked, weed fields burned, and pushers jailed. less product available, less users possible.
Granted, this plan has obvious fallacies, such as the fact that cutting imports just encourages the domestic production. But I still don't think that granting a pardon to all substance abusers or all non-violent criminals is the best idea.
Going back to the idea of treatment: I'm sure that indeed, a certain percentage of people lapsed into drug use under pressure. As in, like, 'life is _totally_ fucked up'. But there's also a percentage that simply decided to try it to see what it would be like.
This is the percentage that needs to be taught a lesson, IMO. They know that in at least some cases, they have a chance of getting addicted. Unless they happen to be very rich, if they get addicted, they have a likelihood of committing additional crimes to get money for their habit.
They should get arrested for this. We arrest drunk drivers because they have the higher possibility of killing someone, not because they already have. (Well, we get those too, but for murder, not just DUI). We should arrest the people who try it just for fun and curiosity, because they are consciously making a choice to get involved in something that may well eventually drag them in and cause them to commit acts that infringe on the freedoms of others.
I realize that all of this rests on the assumption that drugs are a) addictive b) expensive, and that as a result, c) people likely won't be able to sustain use on their own for long periods of time without additional influxes of cash. These are my beliefs, some of which are subjective (expensive), and some of which are at least partially objective (addictiveness of
Considering that you had no links to any other report other than the one written by some kid at PSU, we'll look at just this one.
... no. Not unless you like strong mutagens.
From the report you linked to: about effects of Cannabis: Psychomotor impairment. Synergism with alcohol and sedatives. Apathy and mental slowing, impaired memory and learning (brain damage?). Impaired immune response?1
etc, etc. And as for beneficial effects: everything has beneficial effects. But only if used in certain ways.
Remember the prescrition drug Thalidomide? And how it was sold as a racemic mixture? The manufacturer thought the S enantiomer was inactive, but it led to massive birth defects, while the R enantiomer was the effective form. Drug was discontinued.
And now? the S enantiomer of thalidomide is being researched as a possible anti-cancer agent.
Does it have both beneficial and detrimental effects? Yes. Does that mean that you should take some S-thalidomide for fun? Umm
Same thing with weed: it has beneficial effects (so does cocaine, heroine, etc.), but it also has damaging effects.
I'm not going to waste my time right now tearing apart the references in that report, except to say that studies by "privately funded" special interest groups don't tend to be the fairest thing. Just ask the attourney generals sueing tobacoo...
People must take responsibility for their actions. You walk off a cliff, you die. You spill boiling coffee on your crotch, you should foot the bill alone.
About consensual crimes: is it legal to kill someone to make a snuff video? As long as the victim agrees of their own free will? I think not.
Grounds to making something illegal: how about, hallucinogenic, inhibition-lowering. I have personally seen an acquaintence high on weed and nothing else to grabbed a kitchen knife and tried to kill someone else at a D&D session, thinking very seriously, he was a dragon. Chased him around for a good 15 minutes.
Non-violent as good or bad is a matter of opinion. I am of the personal opinion that sometimes, a little bit of force is needed. Having the school counselor ask the kid about his 'feelings' and 'emotions' as reasons why he's smoking weed does not help. What's the kid supposed to say?
Daddy keeps hitting mommy on the head with that bat, and mommie keeps crying, and I get so sad I have to smoke up...
I think not. As other responses have pointed out, some people smoke weed despite coming from an OK background family-wise, etc, etc. What some of these kids need, is a 300 pound solid-muscle attitude adjuster who threatens to beat the living shit out of them the next time they smoke weed. That tends to work a hell of a lot better.
Lastly: my post referred mainly to weed, but note that many of these candidates want to release _all_ substance offenders. They want the heroine addicts, the PCP freaks, the Meth screwballs, and everyone else back out. Bad idea. Moreover, some of the candidates want all non-violent offenders out. I guess that means that all the thieves, pushers, hookers, and most everyone except the 2 guys who beat the cop to death will be set free, eh? Not fair to the 2 copkillers, or to the rest of our society.
You fuck up, you go in the slammer. A buffed-up ex-Marine will 're-educate' you by making you his bitch. 'Nuff said.
Uh huh. Moreover, these distributed systems have _awful_ latency.
There are no character faults. Only not enough girls with the same character. :)
Kids make mistakes, they shouldn't have their lives ruined for them. Suspension and counselling for drugs, not this zero tolerance crap.
... who gives a shit about cancer ... I'm gonna fucking smoke my joint 'cause I wanna fucking smoke my joint."
Come on, people make mistakes. They shouldn't have to die just because they fell off a goddamn cliff.
Excuse me: despite all the new hippie-ass candidates for president declaring that smoking up mellows you out and puts you in harmony with nature, it's a fact that weed contains carcinogens, is mildly hallucinogenic, and reduces inhibitions.
So says scientific studies.
Moreover, it's not like kids don't _know_ drugs are bad for them. Most of the ones I know are like "yeah, fuck that
They're not stupid, they _willingly_ commit said error. After constantly being told that they should not. I mean, name one kid who has not seen hundreds of "drugs are bad" posters and commercials in their life. Who hasn't seen the crack addicts in the airports.
Kids know better, and if some of them are still stupid enough to smoke up, they need punishment, not help.
This new-aged non-violent "let's talk about our feelings everyone" crap is making me sick. Especially since so many are abusing the system and getting away with it.
Fuck that. That's like saying we shouldn't care about gay and lesbian rights because most of us are straight.
It's easy to see that there are an infinite number of criteria that we can use to single out small groups of people from the larger mass. If the government is allowed to do whatever they want to these people, then we have a despotic government.
Next time, think before you open your mouth.
I know. It's scary ... granted, Jews /are/ definitely a minority religion. But they're so high-profile that noone dares to mistreat them.
But get suspended from school for supposedly using your Wiccan magic to put a curse on a teacher? Noone even flinches.