but be warned using Access as a front-end to another database type. I have a few users that have Access 97 setup as a front-end to our Oracle8 and SQL Server 7 databases, and Access will start giving ODBC errors whenever the tables get sufficiently large, and then the whole thing shuts down.
I'll drink to that. I don't know what exactly Access does, but it fails miserably with even moderately-sized tables. We use Oracle, and figured it would be nice to provide an easy-to-use interface for staff. So we bought Access, installed the drivers, and linked the tables. It would take as much as 20 minutes for windows to open; searches and so on would take longer than anyone wanted to wait. None of the tables in question is more than a few million records, which in any case should be immaterial since you'd expect the front end to use the back end to do the heavy lifting. My best guess was that Access rolls through all the data itself, totally missing the point of why there's a real database at the other end of the line.
Anyway, I ended up having them whip up a PHP/web interface instead, and everyone's happy now.
Then why don't I get a faceful of pr0n every time I type in some random URL like www.whateverifeelliketyping.com? Why can I be guaranteed of coming up with a pr0n site if I type in www.somevariationontits.com, but not somecombinationofrandomwords.com?
I am not arguing that porn operators have an infinite supply of money with which to register every possible domain. If they had anything less than an infinite supply of money (which they do), that would be a stupid course of action, since some domains are obviously more likely to attract users than others.
What you will find, however - and this should have been clear from my post coupled with perhaps a morsel of common sense - is that given the opportunity to get some traffic at a reasonable cost, they will do so, regardless of the potential for surprise or offense.
I for one agree that material which is obviously pornographic and unsuitable for minors should be placed within a seperate name space which could be easily blocked such as:.xxx,.sex,.pr0n,.porn,.adult, etc. then we wouldn't have to put up with such stupid laws as have just been passed in Austrailia - That all content published on the net should be suitable for children - subject to the judgement of police officers and not courts, judges or a jury of ones peers.
If ICANN had got off their butts and allowed for such a TLD ages ago I would have less contempt for them.
One of the few smart things they did was reject these proposals. They are pointless. It is very clear (as evidenced by sites such as whitehouse.com) that porn operators perceive a disadvantage to pigeonholing themselves in obviously-porny domains.
So creating.xxx would achieve one thing and one thing only: Make it easier for people at unfiltered locations to find porn. Meanwhile, it would still proliferate at other domains (there is, after all, no real cost to making the same content available at multiple addresses).
The real answer is for people to grow the fuck up and stop worrying about it. At a certain age kids develop an interest in this stuff, and all the filters in the world aren't going to stop them from finding it, whether online or off. Before that, they don't care, they think it's gross, and they won't dwell on it or look at it any longer than they need to figure out that it doesn't interest them; no harm done.
Actually, I think it's a bad one. There is no single hierarchy into which you can fit everything and make sense to everyone.
Rather than a tree, I think a multidimensional web is a better physical model. Let things exist in the context of their relationship to other things. Sure, that eliminates the possibility of true random access, but on the other hand, it makes everything a few steps from something you know.
Looking for a hardware store? Go to any store. Zoom out to "all types of stores". Zoom in to "hardware stores". Zoom in to your neighborhood.
Or find it a different way. Start at your house. Zoom out to "my neighborhood". Zoom in to "stores". Zoom in to "hardware stores".
Or find it a different way. Start with any old object sitting on your desk (presumably it will have a barcode or something). Zoom out to "all consumer products." Zoom in to "hardware".
Or find it a different way. Start with "my trusted places". Zoom in to "better business bureau". Zoom in to "hardware stores".
And so on.
With a conceptual mapping, on as many different levels and criteria as people can imagine, you can find anything quickly, rather than having to guess your way around a fixed, rigid one-dimensional hierarchy that is clearly showing its inability to scale.
Will I have time to go to school & work a full time job at the same time?
That depends entirely on you. I worked full-time, but it took me almost 6 years to finish. Then again I know people who worked 25-30 hours/week and finished in three.
I spent a fair amount of time on extra-curricular activities and just having fun, and I'm not at all sorry. I could think of plenty of worse ways to spend the time.
Bear in mind that the bang-for-buck ratio with colleges varies drastically. Unless you have hangups that rule out one or another type of school (small vs large, urban vs small-town), you may face a pretty wide range of opportunities and costs. If you're paying your own way, then not a chance in hell is it worthwhile to go to Harvard for $22k vs Wisconsin for $6k. If you're looking at scholarship money that narrows the gap, that may change things.
my ISP, @home, has a proxy installed as my default proxy for web traffic and I am wondering if this could cause a problem--eg: they watching everything I do
If they cared what you do, they could watch your traffic with roughly equal ease whether or not you used the proxy.
Imagine being a programmer developing a dynamically generated page. Frankly, I'm more interested in seeing if the output is correct -- the last thing I want is to have the page not render at all because it's "invalid". What if you actually did produce a valid document, and the browser's validator was buggy? It's much easier for everyone if the browser just renders the damn page.
But that leads to the worst outcome of all: unpredictable results.
The one way you can be sure that a web page will work properly everywhere, is if all browsers follow the standard (any standard; I don't particularly care whose). Otherwise there are going to be pages that break some places and not others, and that means higher development costs, testing costs, and lost visitors. An awful thing for the industry (though perhaps a great thing for amateur-hour FrontPage mavens).
(By the way, most of your suggestions are based on style and not fact. There's a big difference between style and spelling.)
I didn't claim otherwise. But that's all part of proofreading. I am always amazed at the sloppiness of documents people will prepare for formal situations (I'm not talking about your resume anymore; that's pristine by comparison). An unfortunate side-effect of the apparent empowerment provided by laser printers and home-perm DTP software.
If you want to see a resume that was headed in the right direction but isn't there yet, you can check out my resume from three years ago. Since I've got a job, I haven't spent any time updating it. (Yes, it's in PDF format. That's far better than the MS Word or even Word Perfect formats I often see.)
The corner triangles are needless ornamentation. Plus, when printed, they won't go to the edge of the page (unless someone prints on tabloid with crop marks and trims it - what's the chane of that?). Since most printers have different physical margins on the top and bottom vs. sides, they will look uneven.
The name/address block is not visually centered because the weight of the section beneath is to the right. Normally the name/address block should be moved slightly to the right to counter that. However, with the triangles, that would look strange. So the page looks unbalanced.
The 'M' and 'S' in your name are too bold. Either use a typeface with purpose-built small caps (like one of Adobe's Expert Collections) or use one with a reasonable number of weights, and use a weight one less for the caps than the smaller letters.
The tiny indentation of 2nd-and-following lines in the experience area is weird. Get rid of it, or indent enough that it doesn't look like a mistake. Since the indenting serves no particular purpose, getting rid of it is preferable.
Your right tabs (employer name) are not aligned with the horizontal rule above. The tab should be out as far as the rule's right edge.
Why are "Experience:," etc., in Courier?
You failed to italicize publication names such as The Palm Beach Post
You used the wrong dashes for time ranges ("March 1997 - Present"). They should be en dashes.
"WebMaster" is one word or two words, but correctly presented it does not have an internal cap.
What is with this "no fewer than 45," "no more than 70" stuff? It was awkward the first time, downright strange when it showed up again.
"Quark" is a company. "QuarkXPress" is the product.
"Novell" has two L's.
"QuattroPro" is one word. I suspect that there are other similar product name errors as well. It only takes a second to check the box, the "about" screen, or the vendor web site.
"References:" is aligned differently from the parallel headers above.
"PowerMac" is not the name of any product that I'm aware of. Apple's "Power Macintosh" line ran on the "PowerPC" chip.
Anyway, I'm sure you got hired, but with that many problems leaping out in a 30-second scan, I wonder whether you should be preaching about proofreading!
Another thing i too live in a third world country... That is why I and others like me love to create virusses,pirate software and attack servers of big companies,just to cause as much damage as possible to the western economy,because we really hate the west for all the bad things they have done and still do to us. It is why i am glad with california`s energy crisis,that quake in seattle and mad cow disease in europe.
I think you owe the people of third-world countries around the world an apology for trying to give them a bad name. Most of them are not childish idiots who see fulfullment in the downfall of others, but rather sensible people who look for constructive solutions in which everybody wins.
Quick maturity test: If your brother takes your lunch, which would make you happier: (A) if he gets run over by a car, or (B) if you get a job and earn enough money that you don't have to care whether he takes your lunch?
But it's sheer inanity to protest that customers should be forced to buy from minority access providers (read: Mr. Heins), as Mr. Heins so valiantly tries to do.
That's not what he's protesting. He's protesting that minority access providers aren't allowed to buy last-mile carriage from the monopsonist suppliers (i.e., the ILECs and cable companies) on fair-market terms.
The concept of the "economy of scale" has been one of the most significant ideas to come out of the Industrial Revolution, and I'm amused that so many people consistently forget its implications. The idea is that the more you do something, the more cheaply you can do it. So, yes, of course Mr. Heins' competitors do a better job than he does, because they've got more of the job to do.
What this doesn't address is the relationship between scale and quality. Can McDonalds produce a commodity - say, 2500-Calorie, three-food-group meals - more cheaply than a little gourmet restaurant? Without a doubt. Is it desirable that McDonalds be the only purveyor of food in the marketplace? No. Would it be a good situation if McDonalds controlled all the dining room seats in the country? Probably not.
I remember reading somewhere(5 years ago) that by 2000, that all payphones will be changed over to broadband web terminals, what happened to that?
I think you blinked and missed it. In Amsterdam there were high-speed all-weather web stations clustered with pay phones all over town for the past couple years. Now most of them are gone. I don't think they got a lot of use - I saw lots of people staring at them and taking pictures, but not many actually sidling up to do some surfing.
Likewise the web kiosks that were placed in shopping malls all over Malaysia have vanished (no great loss, as half of them were displaying BSOD at any given moment).
Yet both countries have thriving internet cafe cultures. In Amsterdam they've now got what seems to be the largest internet café on earth, and it's been packed every time I've been there (and with its high speeds, ludicrously low charges, comfy workstations with nice LCD screens, and well-kept machines, I'm there quite often).
I just think people didn't want to do their webbing standing up. And a fair number of them wanted to be able to run telnet, IRC clients, etc., which most of the kiosks don't offer.
I know I said this before, but CUSTOMIZE your resume for the particular position you're applying for! I don't care about every OS and word processor you know how to use...
This is exactly it. The easiest way is to keep it as a great big file, and just make a copy and delete the irrelevant sections when applying for a specific position.
And never rule out the power of powerful typographic tools when you really have to get a few extra lines in. With QuarkXPress you can pull in the tracking a little, monkey with 1/10-point leading, change the type size from 10-point to 9.752, and change those full blank lines between sections into 3-mm gaps.
And I repeat, there is no right to clean air, never has been, and never will. It is impossible to guarantee. Do I think government should encourage clean air? Yes, and by any means except misusing its monopoly on legal force.
There you go again with the loaded language. What's "misusing"? Is this like "rational" a few posts ago: they're "misusing" it if they use it in a way you don't approve of?
Because I sure do think the government should use its monopoly on legal force to keep the air clean. As one of the most egregious externalities around, that's one thing the market sure isn't going to address, so the government's really the only force left. In the long run, the environment is more important than the GDP, the stock market, or even whether we eat filet mignon in mansions or boiled potatoes in shacks.
Simple fact is, an economy alone isn't enough to keep the world going round for more than a couple of generations. After that time, without a government whose prerogatives trump the economic goals of market participants, we end up with a handful of giant monopolies and no breathable air. Or have you forgotten history?
IANAL but I've been reading the Copyright Act as part of my Law 1 tute problems. The modifications to the Act defines "effective technological protection measure" to be one which the intent is to protect, and would protect in the normal use of the product.
Then we're back to me putting DeCSS on my web site but rot-13'ing the URL. Do I get to have the RIAA lawyers prosecuted for downloading it?
circumvention device:
A device (including a computer program) having no, or only a limited, commercially significant purpose or use other than the circumvention, or facilitating the circumvention, of an effective technological protection measure
I don't get this at all. How is something "an effective technological protection measure" if a circumvention device exists?
I mean, a strip of stickytape is an effective way to lock your car door - if nobody is allowed to have a finger to peel it off with.
there will always be some nations who will not go along. But these are likely to be places such as Iraq or Afghanistan (or whosoever happens to be a Pariah state at the time). Not the sort of places one would care to do business perhaps.
I guess I just have to disagree. Look at why Iraq and Afghanistan are regarded as pariahs. The Iraqi army has forcefully invaded another country for the sole purpose of robbing it. Afghanistan executes people for wearing the wrong clothing.
As far as I can tell (firsthand observation and interviews in the case of Iraq, and secondhand information from devout Muslim Pakistanis I trust in the case of Afghanistan) these things are true. It's not like someone made these stories up because the Taliban wouldn't play ball on DVD piracy.
I highly doubt it would be possible to successfully demonize, say, the Bahamas if they choose to create a competitive position for themselves by allowing freedom of communications. The worst they have to fear is exclusion from the low-duties club, which won't matter if they're the only ones selling what they're selling.
australians gave up the right to have guns 2 or 3 years ago - home invasions have risen by 800% or some vulgar amount since then
No they haven't. This is part of a totally fictional story sent around by US gun-nuts who are sad because one more country has become lost to their deadly cause.
No, I skipped it, because it's pointless. In this context, it just means "In a world that behaves as eric17 would like it to."
Besides, the constitution specifies only regulation of interstate commerce.
Yup, that's what I was talking about when I said "regulating commerce in many situations," since a large number of commercial transactions are interstate. This was set out by the framers to contrast it from the States' power to regulate commerce internally, not to suggest that intrastate commerce was to be unregulated.
You are clearly confused about what the bill of rights in the constitution was about.
No, I'm simply pointing out that there are all sorts of other "rights" beyond those enumerated in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. Some have been validated by legislation, some by social consensus, and others are just preferences held by one or another segment of the population. This subthread began when you wrote "nowhere in the constitution does it say you have a right to clean air!" as if that was some sort of a reason for the government not to work to provide clean air, an absurd point on its face. The government is enjoined from certain behaviors, but promoting clean air is not one of them, unless Congrefs shall go about it by quartering soldiers in your home.
You can ramble on about Rousseau and Locke all you like (if you want, I'll even send a note to your philosophy teacher) but that's rather distant from what is a simple and basically universaly-understood point.
And there's the old truism that "you can't regulate the internet, it's global". The problem is that when every country in the world has passed the DMCA there's nowhere left to go
I doubt that'll happen.
Once it gets down to a few, then suddenly freedom of communication will become a viable competitive factor for nations - as it is, the number of people who really care about this isn't significant when spread out among all the countries where for all practical purposes they can more or less do as they please. If all but a handful of nations have legislated it away, then the number of people who care will be a sufficiently concentrated market to justify a nation going out on a limb.
Plenty of nations make good money allowing things that are illegal elsewhere, and nobody's invaded them yet, because the moral argument for forceful intervention is just too weak. Look at half the Caribbean with banking and gambling. The Netherlands with drug tourism (yeah, that's not their intention, but I suspect they break even or better on the deal). All sorts of places with prostitution, with nude beaches, with lower public health standards allowing for like cheap and tasty street food - all of these are regulated in countries like the US but create a draw for American tourists in the places where they're found.
Neal Stephenson wrote a fairly entertaining (if ultimately muddled) book (fiction) that started out dealing with this very thing. Worth a read.
Slashdot Mirror
I'll drink to that. I don't know what exactly Access does, but it fails miserably with even moderately-sized tables. We use Oracle, and figured it would be nice to provide an easy-to-use interface for staff. So we bought Access, installed the drivers, and linked the tables. It would take as much as 20 minutes for windows to open; searches and so on would take longer than anyone wanted to wait. None of the tables in question is more than a few million records, which in any case should be immaterial since you'd expect the front end to use the back end to do the heavy lifting. My best guess was that Access rolls through all the data itself, totally missing the point of why there's a real database at the other end of the line.
Anyway, I ended up having them whip up a PHP/web interface instead, and everyone's happy now.
I am not arguing that porn operators have an infinite supply of money with which to register every possible domain. If they had anything less than an infinite supply of money (which they do), that would be a stupid course of action, since some domains are obviously more likely to attract users than others.
What you will find, however - and this should have been clear from my post coupled with perhaps a morsel of common sense - is that given the opportunity to get some traffic at a reasonable cost, they will do so, regardless of the potential for surprise or offense.
Everyone supporting it happen sooner if you supported it. Assuming you're part of "everyone," that is.
One of the few smart things they did was reject these proposals. They are pointless. It is very clear (as evidenced by sites such as whitehouse.com) that porn operators perceive a disadvantage to pigeonholing themselves in obviously-porny domains.
So creating .xxx would achieve one thing and one thing only: Make it easier for people at unfiltered locations to find porn. Meanwhile, it would still proliferate at other domains (there is, after all, no real cost to making the same content available at multiple addresses).
The real answer is for people to grow the fuck up and stop worrying about it. At a certain age kids develop an interest in this stuff, and all the filters in the world aren't going to stop them from finding it, whether online or off. Before that, they don't care, they think it's gross, and they won't dwell on it or look at it any longer than they need to figure out that it doesn't interest them; no harm done.
Actually, I think it's a bad one. There is no single hierarchy into which you can fit everything and make sense to everyone.
Rather than a tree, I think a multidimensional web is a better physical model. Let things exist in the context of their relationship to other things. Sure, that eliminates the possibility of true random access, but on the other hand, it makes everything a few steps from something you know.
Looking for a hardware store? Go to any store. Zoom out to "all types of stores". Zoom in to "hardware stores". Zoom in to your neighborhood.
Or find it a different way. Start at your house. Zoom out to "my neighborhood". Zoom in to "stores". Zoom in to "hardware stores".
Or find it a different way. Start with any old object sitting on your desk (presumably it will have a barcode or something). Zoom out to "all consumer products." Zoom in to "hardware".
Or find it a different way. Start with "my trusted places". Zoom in to "better business bureau". Zoom in to "hardware stores".
And so on.
With a conceptual mapping, on as many different levels and criteria as people can imagine, you can find anything quickly, rather than having to guess your way around a fixed, rigid one-dimensional hierarchy that is clearly showing its inability to scale.
That depends entirely on you. I worked full-time, but it took me almost 6 years to finish. Then again I know people who worked 25-30 hours/week and finished in three.
I spent a fair amount of time on extra-curricular activities and just having fun, and I'm not at all sorry. I could think of plenty of worse ways to spend the time.
Bear in mind that the bang-for-buck ratio with colleges varies drastically. Unless you have hangups that rule out one or another type of school (small vs large, urban vs small-town), you may face a pretty wide range of opportunities and costs. If you're paying your own way, then not a chance in hell is it worthwhile to go to Harvard for $22k vs Wisconsin for $6k. If you're looking at scholarship money that narrows the gap, that may change things.
Oops, she must have had a little too much to drink, because the actual URL is this.
Yup, and then she leaned over, rested her hand on my thigh, and whispered this URL into my ear.
If they cared what you do, they could watch your traffic with roughly equal ease whether or not you used the proxy.
But that leads to the worst outcome of all: unpredictable results.
The one way you can be sure that a web page will work properly everywhere, is if all browsers follow the standard (any standard; I don't particularly care whose). Otherwise there are going to be pages that break some places and not others, and that means higher development costs, testing costs, and lost visitors. An awful thing for the industry (though perhaps a great thing for amateur-hour FrontPage mavens).
At least in Los Angeles they've started using it. Not sure about other places.
I didn't claim otherwise. But that's all part of proofreading. I am always amazed at the sloppiness of documents people will prepare for formal situations (I'm not talking about your resume anymore; that's pristine by comparison). An unfortunate side-effect of the apparent empowerment provided by laser printers and home-perm DTP software.
Anyway, I'm sure you got hired, but with that many problems leaping out in a 30-second scan, I wonder whether you should be preaching about proofreading!
I think you owe the people of third-world countries around the world an apology for trying to give them a bad name. Most of them are not childish idiots who see fulfullment in the downfall of others, but rather sensible people who look for constructive solutions in which everybody wins.
Quick maturity test: If your brother takes your lunch, which would make you happier: (A) if he gets run over by a car, or (B) if you get a job and earn enough money that you don't have to care whether he takes your lunch?
That's not what he's protesting. He's protesting that minority access providers aren't allowed to buy last-mile carriage from the monopsonist suppliers (i.e., the ILECs and cable companies) on fair-market terms.
What this doesn't address is the relationship between scale and quality. Can McDonalds produce a commodity - say, 2500-Calorie, three-food-group meals - more cheaply than a little gourmet restaurant? Without a doubt. Is it desirable that McDonalds be the only purveyor of food in the marketplace? No. Would it be a good situation if McDonalds controlled all the dining room seats in the country? Probably not.
I think you blinked and missed it. In Amsterdam there were high-speed all-weather web stations clustered with pay phones all over town for the past couple years. Now most of them are gone. I don't think they got a lot of use - I saw lots of people staring at them and taking pictures, but not many actually sidling up to do some surfing.
Likewise the web kiosks that were placed in shopping malls all over Malaysia have vanished (no great loss, as half of them were displaying BSOD at any given moment).
Yet both countries have thriving internet cafe cultures. In Amsterdam they've now got what seems to be the largest internet café on earth, and it's been packed every time I've been there (and with its high speeds, ludicrously low charges, comfy workstations with nice LCD screens, and well-kept machines, I'm there quite often).
I just think people didn't want to do their webbing standing up. And a fair number of them wanted to be able to run telnet, IRC clients, etc., which most of the kiosks don't offer.
This is exactly it. The easiest way is to keep it as a great big file, and just make a copy and delete the irrelevant sections when applying for a specific position.
And never rule out the power of powerful typographic tools when you really have to get a few extra lines in. With QuarkXPress you can pull in the tracking a little, monkey with 1/10-point leading, change the type size from 10-point to 9.752, and change those full blank lines between sections into 3-mm gaps.
There you go again with the loaded language. What's "misusing"? Is this like "rational" a few posts ago: they're "misusing" it if they use it in a way you don't approve of?
Because I sure do think the government should use its monopoly on legal force to keep the air clean. As one of the most egregious externalities around, that's one thing the market sure isn't going to address, so the government's really the only force left. In the long run, the environment is more important than the GDP, the stock market, or even whether we eat filet mignon in mansions or boiled potatoes in shacks.
Simple fact is, an economy alone isn't enough to keep the world going round for more than a couple of generations. After that time, without a government whose prerogatives trump the economic goals of market participants, we end up with a handful of giant monopolies and no breathable air. Or have you forgotten history?
Then we're back to me putting DeCSS on my web site but rot-13'ing the URL. Do I get to have the RIAA lawyers prosecuted for downloading it?
I don't get this at all. How is something "an effective technological protection measure" if a circumvention device exists?
I mean, a strip of stickytape is an effective way to lock your car door - if nobody is allowed to have a finger to peel it off with.
I guess I just have to disagree. Look at why Iraq and Afghanistan are regarded as pariahs. The Iraqi army has forcefully invaded another country for the sole purpose of robbing it. Afghanistan executes people for wearing the wrong clothing.
As far as I can tell (firsthand observation and interviews in the case of Iraq, and secondhand information from devout Muslim Pakistanis I trust in the case of Afghanistan) these things are true. It's not like someone made these stories up because the Taliban wouldn't play ball on DVD piracy.
I highly doubt it would be possible to successfully demonize, say, the Bahamas if they choose to create a competitive position for themselves by allowing freedom of communications. The worst they have to fear is exclusion from the low-duties club, which won't matter if they're the only ones selling what they're selling.
No they haven't. This is part of a totally fictional story sent around by US gun-nuts who are sad because one more country has become lost to their deadly cause.
For more information check here.
No, I skipped it, because it's pointless. In this context, it just means "In a world that behaves as eric17 would like it to."
Yup, that's what I was talking about when I said "regulating commerce in many situations," since a large number of commercial transactions are interstate. This was set out by the framers to contrast it from the States' power to regulate commerce internally, not to suggest that intrastate commerce was to be unregulated.
No, I'm simply pointing out that there are all sorts of other "rights" beyond those enumerated in the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. Some have been validated by legislation, some by social consensus, and others are just preferences held by one or another segment of the population. This subthread began when you wrote "nowhere in the constitution does it say you have a right to clean air!" as if that was some sort of a reason for the government not to work to provide clean air, an absurd point on its face. The government is enjoined from certain behaviors, but promoting clean air is not one of them, unless Congrefs shall go about it by quartering soldiers in your home.
You can ramble on about Rousseau and Locke all you like (if you want, I'll even send a note to your philosophy teacher) but that's rather distant from what is a simple and basically universaly-understood point.
I doubt that'll happen.
Once it gets down to a few, then suddenly freedom of communication will become a viable competitive factor for nations - as it is, the number of people who really care about this isn't significant when spread out among all the countries where for all practical purposes they can more or less do as they please. If all but a handful of nations have legislated it away, then the number of people who care will be a sufficiently concentrated market to justify a nation going out on a limb.
Plenty of nations make good money allowing things that are illegal elsewhere, and nobody's invaded them yet, because the moral argument for forceful intervention is just too weak. Look at half the Caribbean with banking and gambling. The Netherlands with drug tourism (yeah, that's not their intention, but I suspect they break even or better on the deal). All sorts of places with prostitution, with nude beaches, with lower public health standards allowing for like cheap and tasty street food - all of these are regulated in countries like the US but create a draw for American tourists in the places where they're found.
Neal Stephenson wrote a fairly entertaining (if ultimately muddled) book (fiction) that started out dealing with this very thing. Worth a read.