What's libc again? Oh, that's right, it's something C programs generally need to run. So you're only programming in C if you don't use libc or statically linking? How awesome it is to have an "I am actually programming" flag in your compiler and linker!
"Higher than V1" refers to the stages of visual processing in the brain and the corrisponding areas of the visual cortex used for them - V1/V2 are the earliest stages, known for having the most bitmap-like, "whole" processing of objects. Later on, the data is divided into ventral and dorsal streams of processing, each extracting/focusing/refining the input given to it for more refined characteristics (e.g. picking out motion). The later stages of visual processing thus would be very difficult sources to work with if one is hoping to reproduce videocamera-like data of what we're looking at.
If we're willing to be invasive, it's not outlandishly difficult in theory, although few people would be willing to have their skull opened for the privilege.
There's a lot of fascinating research happening with technologies like TMS (noninvasive magnetics-based stimulation of brain areas), but it may lack the ability to stimulate areas with enough precision to be used for input like that - finding a way to reliably and accurately input data into the brain without physical intervention is, as far as I know, at least a ways off. Perhaps TMS will develop into something like that, perhaps not.
The visual cortex is one of the more understood areas of the brain, and decoding V1/V2 is low-hanging fruit. To the extent that memory and dreams back-project to these areas, perhaps recording parts of these experiences would be possible.
Making this practical and inexpensive would be quite a practical breakthrough though - imagine being able to imagine something and import it into GIMP from a headband. Doing this through MRI would be impractical unless someone would be able to keep the image stable in their head for long enough for a high resolution scan of the area (and bear the ~$700/hour cost of MRI).
It seems the discussion has shifted into one of values - we're talking about "what is right and wrong" rather than disputing facts so much - All that's left productive to say about the value differences is that you're working from a much more autonomy-centric value system than I am - I value autonomy, but I am willing to sacrifice it in some circumstances for other values that are part of my notion of the public good. For example:
I disagree with you when you say: *The government "has no right whatsoever to make any laws at all about people's choices to use them", at least to the extent that it's a statement about values and not one about legality. I am uninterested in discussing legal theory at the moment but it suffices to say that if it is constitutionally awkward to have such laws from a "type checking" perspective, we should fix our government to formally permit the federal government to do these things in a "legally simple" way. (in other words, I don't care for states rights, and on the early federalist-antifederalist debate in our nation's history, I side with a very strong federal government and very weak states) *It isn't the purpose of laws to deter people from things that might harm them. Government has no legitimate business doing anything of the sort - I disagree wholeheartedly. Society has values, and some of them, generally the strongest/most common we enshrine into law - we may not agree as to the "why" on "thou shalt not kill" (e.g. religious versus secular reasons) but we all broadly agree on it, and so murder is a crime. A value-free government is one that does nothing and is the mark of a failed society. We can argue productively about what should be enshrined and how, but to say that nothing shall be so enshrined is to put an end to civilisation.
I think you also should consider that something does not have to be entirely (or even mostly) positive in our overall evaluation of it for us to see some good in it. It's much more reasonable for you to say "there are benefits to the drug war but they're not worth the costs" than "there are no benefits" - the latter is patently and simply false (and claiming it is a sign that you're not taking the discussion seriously), the first is something which we could carefully discuss.
"Law as deterrence" is one of the foundations of law - what do you think there is about drugs that makes you think that that foundation does not apply there? Do you think that something being illegal in general does not deter it, or that drugs are special?
Our existing system works to a certain extent - it does deter some people from some harmful drugs (and also some relatively harmless ones, unfortunately). I believe it needs considerable readjustment to eliminate the expenditures on fighting drugs that are not (or are negligibly) harmful (like pot), both in the name of better respecting a default of autonomy and because that money and effort is better spent elsewhere, but it is not a worthless system even as it is now. Law as deterrent works, both in general and on the topic of drugs - in the time I've spent doing social work I've met plenty of people who limited or eliminated their drug use primarily because they did not want to get caught. In the cases where those were harder drugs, this was a good thing (even if the reason is a bit odd). European and Central Asian societies have generally benefitted in many tangible ways when they've had effective drug programmes - while I don't like the following example much because I don't think alcohol should be prohibited, during the times when Gorbachev was experimenting with limiting alcohol use in the Soviet Union, suicide rates dropped very markedly. Worth it? By my standards, no, but there were benefits.
I think you're off base on all this "butting heads with reality" thing you're painting me into.
I think you're wrong, and that you're being a bit hysterical by using terms like "entirely evil" and "utterly insane" and claiming that there are "no possible positive results". If your would read this entire discussion thread, you would see careful discussion of facts, motivations, and aims, basically all of it more civil and thoughtful than what you've posted here. If you want to just state your condemnation of my position and think you understand it well enough to do so, you've done so. If you want to have a discussion over the matter, you can and should do better in both understanding everything I've said and replying in ways that are meaningful. I'm still willing to have that discussion.
It's not illogical, it's just possibly ignorant - I don't actually know much about many of the prohibited drugs - I primarily meant to suggest an attitude to approach their legality, and the conclusions on specific drugs are things that people should base on actual research rather than my (admittedly lacking) offhand knowledge of the various substances. If it's reasonably possible for people to use a drug in moderation, then that's at least one strong possible argument for its prohibition sunk.
A dual regime is possible too though - having anonymous needle exchanges can coexist with prohibition. By focusing law enforcement efforts on traffickers, one can limit the raw amount of substance that reaches people, and the pure fact of use of prohibited substances being illegal dissuades people from trying it. All of these can work together to achieve good results (meaning less substance availability and use, and mitigation of as much harm as possible from what use does occur) - we may never reach zero usage of the drugs we would like to entirely block, but things short of that are not a failure.
I guess my point is that I don't think marking activities as illegal means "prohibition and nothing else", nor that prohibition is definitionally incompatible with these other programmes.
What do you mean by "doesn't work"? No effect, or a failure to end demand entirely?
Increased purity could also be explained by improved technology - I don't think price and purity can be argued to give us a clear view on actual usage.
Amsterdam does treat "hard" drug trafficking as a serious crime (for a certain definition of hard drugs that is admittedly narrower than most one might consider).
Turkey has, over the years, experimented with various anti-drug-trafficking laws, some of which have been quite successful.
I think if we use the more reasonable notion of "does or does not work" meaning "significantly reduce occurance/usage/bad effect", drug prohibition, when done carefully and thoughtfully, can work. Wasting funds and time (and sacrificing credibility) fighting drugs that should not be prohibited (like pot and possibly LSD) hampers efforts to work on others though.
I actually have travelled Europe. Which countries are you referring to where hard drugs are legal and drug trafficking is kosher? (If you're thinking of Amsterdam, some "soft drugs" are still illegal but those laws are not enforced - hard drugs are just as illegal but the laws are enforced and trafficking in them will land you in jail).
Calling your conclusions "reality" without providing more than incredibly vague handwavy data is hardly an argument, it's just rude.
Sure it is - if you insist that autonomy is so absolute a call that either people are free to be the barbarians in the woods who raid at their pleasure with no consequences, then the term is meaningless because it can never be applied without terrible consequences. Historical calls for liberty/autonomy have (almost) never been calls for anarchy (either in the political theory sense or the popular meaning) - they've been people who wanted more autonomy/liberty (often a particular set).
All values are on sliding scales where they compete with other values for consideration in implementation.
A large portion of the alcohol market would be cut off were it illegal again though - people like me, who occasionally have a cup of wine with dinner and occasionally bring home a bottle of something mild, would probably not drink it at all were it illegal. There would probably be a lot less consumption of beer here too were it illegal - sure, there would be a black market with some people continuing to drink illegally, but a number of people would comply and stop (and some would shift their values) after some adjustment.
I don't think alcohol *should* be illegal though, nor do I think that tobacco should be (I am undecided about smoking in public places).
You're using a strange definition of socialism here - at least one different from the traditional political science one.
There really isn't an "ahead" or "behind" per se, just large sets of values, some more important than others, that need to be weighed in political matters. Drugs like marijuana, for example, have a small enough cost to society that we should consider the happiness they bring plus the default happiness that autonomy brings to far outweigh the small benefits of banning them.
Values don't really die anyhow, they just have different relative importance in various societies.
I am detecting a bit of ironic mockery in your phrasing though:)
It's not that the black market is better, but that the system of (potential_for_black_market+illegality) is potentially better than the legal alternative - that illegality has a number of effects that you're not considering.
Using your example, if we for some reason made Big Macs illegal, perhaps McDonalds would become a black market operation and charge what they like (probably much more, because of higher risk), but fewer Big Macs would reach customers, and whatever reason we banned Big Macs for would benefit a bit. Of course, we'd need to weigh all the negatives against the positives there, but for some examples it's worthwhile doing those bans, even if they don't reduce supply to 0.
Deterrence doesn't need to be 100% to be deterrence, and to the extent that the US adheres to "rule of law", the illegality of murder plus presence of cops lead to deterrence (although illegality itself is actually a deterrent for a number of people - the norms of society and the laws of society are more entwined than most people think). There will probably always be a few people who either "snap" or decide to go against societal norms, but for most people these systems work reasonably well.
In no nation is individual autonomy the only value. All societies, all legal systems, all states determine the rights of the individual - they codify societal norms into a system that evolves alongside those norms to shape the autonomies, duties, and things forbidden to each person, group, etc. The US, like other nations, may stress particular values, but none of them is absolute.
Ahh, ok. By this measure, perhaps LSD should be legalised as well, especially if it is possible to use it in moderation and still be productive in society.
It is not meant as a suggestion for moral equivalence - just to support the idea that law and prohibition of some behaviours can be effective, even if not entirely. I realise that it's possible to suggest they're somehow morally on the same par - I don't believe they are.
I don't see much of a mismatch, but I'll rephrase so as to include the world "should" if that makes it feel like more of an appropriate reply to you.
Your health choices are not yours alone, society has a stake as well. They should be willing to look at the consequences of your health choices because they have an interest in your health and how you relate to others in society. If you never had to interact with another member of society, nor was your labour part of society's labour, in short, if you were going to be locked inside of a box for the rest of your life, then they could say that what mind-altering drugs you take are truly none of their business. That is not, however, the case - you are a member of society, you will interact with others with their own interests (some legally protected), you will affect the status of society, and so society/the state's obligation to serve the public good comes into play. Society should recognise a default of autonomy - that when a strong argument is lacking that a type of behaviour is harmful enough to warrant prohibition or control, people are happiest when they may live their life as they choose. The strong argument, to me, is that when a substance is hazardous enough that it cannot reasonably be used in moderation and when its abuse has a broad societal impact, it should be strongly considered for prohibition. Some substances pass this bar, some do not. Society should protect its interests, which includes broad autonomy with structured exceptions for its people, public health, keeping violence and crime down, etc.
I'm not sure if this is exactly what you're asking for. I hope it is.
Slashdot Mirror
What's libc again? Oh, that's right, it's something C programs generally need to run. So you're only programming in C if you don't use libc or statically linking? How awesome it is to have an "I am actually programming" flag in your compiler and linker!
I've been using a USB-based FreeBSD5 image for a project for some time now. I wonder what they're talking about with USB boot support.
Productivity of all geeks over the age of 25 has dropped markedly.
The 7th Guest/11th hour were quite good, but maddeningly difficult. I wonder if we'll get "Return to Zork" too in a few years..
Eep. Wow, it's irritating to remember things incorrectly.
I think the 90s version of this was "Streaming...", courtesy of Realaudio..
"Higher than V1" refers to the stages of visual processing in the brain and the corrisponding areas of the visual cortex used for them - V1/V2 are the earliest stages, known for having the most bitmap-like, "whole" processing of objects. Later on, the data is divided into ventral and dorsal streams of processing, each extracting/focusing/refining the input given to it for more refined characteristics (e.g. picking out motion). The later stages of visual processing thus would be very difficult sources to work with if one is hoping to reproduce videocamera-like data of what we're looking at.
If we're willing to be invasive, it's not outlandishly difficult in theory, although few people would be willing to have their skull opened for the privilege.
There's a lot of fascinating research happening with technologies like TMS (noninvasive magnetics-based stimulation of brain areas), but it may lack the ability to stimulate areas with enough precision to be used for input like that - finding a way to reliably and accurately input data into the brain without physical intervention is, as far as I know, at least a ways off. Perhaps TMS will develop into something like that, perhaps not.
The visual cortex is one of the more understood areas of the brain, and decoding V1/V2 is low-hanging fruit. To the extent that memory and dreams back-project to these areas, perhaps recording parts of these experiences would be possible.
Making this practical and inexpensive would be quite a practical breakthrough though - imagine being able to imagine something and import it into GIMP from a headband. Doing this through MRI would be impractical unless someone would be able to keep the image stable in their head for long enough for a high resolution scan of the area (and bear the ~$700/hour cost of MRI).
It seems the discussion has shifted into one of values - we're talking about "what is right and wrong" rather than disputing facts so much - All that's left productive to say about the value differences is that you're working from a much more autonomy-centric value system than I am - I value autonomy, but I am willing to sacrifice it in some circumstances for other values that are part of my notion of the public good. For example:
I disagree with you when you say:
*The government "has no right whatsoever to make any laws at all about people's choices to use them", at least to the extent that it's a statement about values and not one about legality. I am uninterested in discussing legal theory at the moment but it suffices to say that if it is constitutionally awkward to have such laws from a "type checking" perspective, we should fix our government to formally permit the federal government to do these things in a "legally simple" way. (in other words, I don't care for states rights, and on the early federalist-antifederalist debate in our nation's history, I side with a very strong federal government and very weak states)
*It isn't the purpose of laws to deter people from things that might harm them. Government has no legitimate business doing anything of the sort - I disagree wholeheartedly. Society has values, and some of them, generally the strongest/most common we enshrine into law - we may not agree as to the "why" on "thou shalt not kill" (e.g. religious versus secular reasons) but we all broadly agree on it, and so murder is a crime. A value-free government is one that does nothing and is the mark of a failed society. We can argue productively about what should be enshrined and how, but to say that nothing shall be so enshrined is to put an end to civilisation.
I think you also should consider that something does not have to be entirely (or even mostly) positive in our overall evaluation of it for us to see some good in it. It's much more reasonable for you to say "there are benefits to the drug war but they're not worth the costs" than "there are no benefits" - the latter is patently and simply false (and claiming it is a sign that you're not taking the discussion seriously), the first is something which we could carefully discuss.
"Law as deterrence" is one of the foundations of law - what do you think there is about drugs that makes you think that that foundation does not apply there? Do you think that something being illegal in general does not deter it, or that drugs are special?
Our existing system works to a certain extent - it does deter some people from some harmful drugs (and also some relatively harmless ones, unfortunately). I believe it needs considerable readjustment to eliminate the expenditures on fighting drugs that are not (or are negligibly) harmful (like pot), both in the name of better respecting a default of autonomy and because that money and effort is better spent elsewhere, but it is not a worthless system even as it is now. Law as deterrent works, both in general and on the topic of drugs - in the time I've spent doing social work I've met plenty of people who limited or eliminated their drug use primarily because they did not want to get caught. In the cases where those were harder drugs, this was a good thing (even if the reason is a bit odd). European and Central Asian societies have generally benefitted in many tangible ways when they've had effective drug programmes - while I don't like the following example much because I don't think alcohol should be prohibited, during the times when Gorbachev was experimenting with limiting alcohol use in the Soviet Union, suicide rates dropped very markedly. Worth it? By my standards, no, but there were benefits.
I think you're off base on all this "butting heads with reality" thing you're painting me into.
I think you're wrong, and that you're being a bit hysterical by using terms like "entirely evil" and "utterly insane" and claiming that there are "no possible positive results". If your would read this entire discussion thread, you would see careful discussion of facts, motivations, and aims, basically all of it more civil and thoughtful than what you've posted here. If you want to just state your condemnation of my position and think you understand it well enough to do so, you've done so. If you want to have a discussion over the matter, you can and should do better in both understanding everything I've said and replying in ways that are meaningful. I'm still willing to have that discussion.
It's not illogical, it's just possibly ignorant - I don't actually know much about many of the prohibited drugs - I primarily meant to suggest an attitude to approach their legality, and the conclusions on specific drugs are things that people should base on actual research rather than my (admittedly lacking) offhand knowledge of the various substances. If it's reasonably possible for people to use a drug in moderation, then that's at least one strong possible argument for its prohibition sunk.
A dual regime is possible too though - having anonymous needle exchanges can coexist with prohibition. By focusing law enforcement efforts on traffickers, one can limit the raw amount of substance that reaches people, and the pure fact of use of prohibited substances being illegal dissuades people from trying it. All of these can work together to achieve good results (meaning less substance availability and use, and mitigation of as much harm as possible from what use does occur) - we may never reach zero usage of the drugs we would like to entirely block, but things short of that are not a failure.
I guess my point is that I don't think marking activities as illegal means "prohibition and nothing else", nor that prohibition is definitionally incompatible with these other programmes.
What do you mean by "doesn't work"? No effect, or a failure to end demand entirely?
Increased purity could also be explained by improved technology - I don't think price and purity can be argued to give us a clear view on actual usage.
Amsterdam does treat "hard" drug trafficking as a serious crime (for a certain definition of hard drugs that is admittedly narrower than most one might consider).
Turkey has, over the years, experimented with various anti-drug-trafficking laws, some of which have been quite successful.
I think if we use the more reasonable notion of "does or does not work" meaning "significantly reduce occurance/usage/bad effect", drug prohibition, when done carefully and thoughtfully, can work. Wasting funds and time (and sacrificing credibility) fighting drugs that should not be prohibited (like pot and possibly LSD) hampers efforts to work on others though.
I actually have travelled Europe. Which countries are you referring to where hard drugs are legal and drug trafficking is kosher? (If you're thinking of Amsterdam, some "soft drugs" are still illegal but those laws are not enforced - hard drugs are just as illegal but the laws are enforced and trafficking in them will land you in jail).
Calling your conclusions "reality" without providing more than incredibly vague handwavy data is hardly an argument, it's just rude.
Sure it is - if you insist that autonomy is so absolute a call that either people are free to be the barbarians in the woods who raid at their pleasure with no consequences, then the term is meaningless because it can never be applied without terrible consequences. Historical calls for liberty/autonomy have (almost) never been calls for anarchy (either in the political theory sense or the popular meaning) - they've been people who wanted more autonomy/liberty (often a particular set).
All values are on sliding scales where they compete with other values for consideration in implementation.
A large portion of the alcohol market would be cut off were it illegal again though - people like me, who occasionally have a cup of wine with dinner and occasionally bring home a bottle of something mild, would probably not drink it at all were it illegal. There would probably be a lot less consumption of beer here too were it illegal - sure, there would be a black market with some people continuing to drink illegally, but a number of people would comply and stop (and some would shift their values) after some adjustment.
I don't think alcohol *should* be illegal though, nor do I think that tobacco should be (I am undecided about smoking in public places).
I don't see how you reach that conclusion/judgement.
You're using a strange definition of socialism here - at least one different from the traditional political science one.
There really isn't an "ahead" or "behind" per se, just large sets of values, some more important than others, that need to be weighed in political matters. Drugs like marijuana, for example, have a small enough cost to society that we should consider the happiness they bring plus the default happiness that autonomy brings to far outweigh the small benefits of banning them.
Values don't really die anyhow, they just have different relative importance in various societies.
I am detecting a bit of ironic mockery in your phrasing though :)
It's not that the black market is better, but that the system of (potential_for_black_market+illegality) is potentially better than the legal alternative - that illegality has a number of effects that you're not considering.
Using your example, if we for some reason made Big Macs illegal, perhaps McDonalds would become a black market operation and charge what they like (probably much more, because of higher risk), but fewer Big Macs would reach customers, and whatever reason we banned Big Macs for would benefit a bit. Of course, we'd need to weigh all the negatives against the positives there, but for some examples it's worthwhile doing those bans, even if they don't reduce supply to 0.
Deterrence doesn't need to be 100% to be deterrence, and to the extent that the US adheres to "rule of law", the illegality of murder plus presence of cops lead to deterrence (although illegality itself is actually a deterrent for a number of people - the norms of society and the laws of society are more entwined than most people think). There will probably always be a few people who either "snap" or decide to go against societal norms, but for most people these systems work reasonably well.
In no nation is individual autonomy the only value. All societies, all legal systems, all states determine the rights of the individual - they codify societal norms into a system that evolves alongside those norms to shape the autonomies, duties, and things forbidden to each person, group, etc. The US, like other nations, may stress particular values, but none of them is absolute.
Ahh, ok. By this measure, perhaps LSD should be legalised as well, especially if it is possible to use it in moderation and still be productive in society.
It is not meant as a suggestion for moral equivalence - just to support the idea that law and prohibition of some behaviours can be effective, even if not entirely. I realise that it's possible to suggest they're somehow morally on the same par - I don't believe they are.
I don't see much of a mismatch, but I'll rephrase so as to include the world "should" if that makes it feel like more of an appropriate reply to you.
Your health choices are not yours alone, society has a stake as well. They should be willing to look at the consequences of your health choices because they have an interest in your health and how you relate to others in society. If you never had to interact with another member of society, nor was your labour part of society's labour, in short, if you were going to be locked inside of a box for the rest of your life, then they could say that what mind-altering drugs you take are truly none of their business. That is not, however, the case - you are a member of society, you will interact with others with their own interests (some legally protected), you will affect the status of society, and so society/the state's obligation to serve the public good comes into play. Society should recognise a default of autonomy - that when a strong argument is lacking that a type of behaviour is harmful enough to warrant prohibition or control, people are happiest when they may live their life as they choose. The strong argument, to me, is that when a substance is hazardous enough that it cannot reasonably be used in moderation and when its abuse has a broad societal impact, it should be strongly considered for prohibition. Some substances pass this bar, some do not. Society should protect its interests, which includes broad autonomy with structured exceptions for its people, public health, keeping violence and crime down, etc.
I'm not sure if this is exactly what you're asking for. I hope it is.