I believe that your router IS supported by OpenWRT depending on the hardware version you have. I highly recommend OpenWRT. It's a bit more difficult to set up than most commercial offerings, but it's flexible and safe.
Well who does that? I believe it is the government. It is still the government coming down from on high and telling people what to do.
It means that the company that owns the wires that lead to my house (Oncore Electric delivery) is a different company than I buy my electric power from (TXU). I have the choice of retail electric providers, all of which pay Oncore for the use of the electric distribution network, but offer varying rate plans and terms.
I don't hear anybody suggesting that what we need is multiple pipes into my home, but competition for the service that comes over the pipes we already have. So, I suggesting that it's not a good idea to have the government *own* the infrastructure, but provide a regulatory framework where multiple providers can use the existing infrastructure while leaving it in private hands.
My druthers is for the government to stay the heck out of broadband infrastructure development, and discussing a regulation scheme where cooperatives similar to how we got telephone and electricity into rural areas if we really think we need to push broadband in the boonies.
Neither of which is enabled on our TP-Link router.
As far as you know.... Unfortunately there are some (dare we say MOST) people out there which don't know enough to turn off such nonsense, not to mention ISP's (like Verizon) who actually open ports unbeknownst to the end user so they can remotely manage your router when you call them with a technical support issue...
We've had success with these types of infrastructure problems in the past using the cooperative approach. This was a regulatory thing and not direct government activity or take over to build and maintain this infrastructure. I suggest we stick with what's worked for Telecommunications and Electrification of rural areas in the past over the idea that local governments just do their own thing.
This approach keeps private investment and innovation flowing while providing incentives for the private sector and doesn't make local government the owner/manager of the infrastructure. It's also tried and true, we know how to historically make it work, idea that harks back to the 1930's.....
Like I've said in previous posts today... I'm willing to discuss regulations that make it possible for private industry to build out the infrastructure.... Just don't put government in the driver's seat...
Of course I'm discussing the worst of the government, but I won't hesitate to make the blanket claim private companies are better at efficiency than just about ANY government effort. They have to be, or they won't survive very long. That's not to say there are not things that only the government can and should do, only that one must recognize that the use of government should be limited as much as possible.
You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that private enterprise is *always* bad, that they all pursue profits over ethical and moral concerns. This is not true. The vast majority of private companies are run by people with excellent ethical and moral standing, yet they make lots of money. Profit is NOT always made by taking unfair advantage of others. In fact, doing unethical and immoral things to one's customers is an excellent way of loosing said customers and ending up in jail (as you point out sometimes happens.)
No economic system is without it's problems, but letting the government take over parts of the economic systems of a country has historically been universally bad. Case in point? Venezuela perhaps? The government there has been slowing taking over all parts of the economy and the country has been in a rapid decline, despite HUGE amounts of income from oil. Other historical instances are Soviet Russia and related countries, where the people are still paying for being under total government control.
IMHO - I prefer capitalism's problems over the alternatives...
Anything that runs OpenWRT..... Even a consumer model... In fact, I think your existing hardware is supported, albeit it's not being claimed as "stable" yet.
What? Host file security? Not unless you fully disable NSLOOKUP, which is not that easy to do.... Why not just bypass all this and use DNS servers that you control and block DNS services for everything else? Much more secure than hosts files....
The "Verizon" problem was about link speeds... Verizon was asking for more money to provide a larger pipe into their network. It got worked out quickly...
How long does it take to build a road? I've lived in a house for 15 years and the local city has had plans since BEFORE I moved in to widen the main road though town from the two lane blacktop it had been for more than 40 years. Traffic was horrible, making it impossible to ever make a left turn out of my subdivision onto this road during daylight hours and had been that way since I moved in. Plans and money where around, but not until the last two years have we seen any progress.
I don't know about you, but waiting 15 years to get my Netflix fixed is not something I want to do.
Most cases of what? Infrastructure? Government is the ONLY practical solution for a wide array of infrastructure projects. Roads, airports, passenger rail, ports, are all done primarily through governments. Telecom companies and utilities are typically private but heavily regulated. Power generation? Regulated. Bridges and dams? Regulated and contracted out. The blanket assertion that government is never the best option is not supported by the actual facts. Governments are often the best solution for when market incentives fail and they often fail in infrastructure which is what the internet has become.
Didn't I just say "in most cases" and you go try and claim I'm wrong by citing the cases where government IS the normally used solution? We didn't have the government take over Telcom, nor do we depend on it for Electric distribution and generation. Yes we highly regulate some industries, and perhaps internet service providers need better regulation, but we DON'T need to have a government take over of it.
Having government manage a rapidly change highly technical bit of infrastructure does not seem like a good idea to me.
That's why governments rarely do such things themselves. What happens is you pay taxes to the government and the government contracts out the services to a competitive bidding process among private companies. The government doesn't pave your roads (usually), it manages the company that does. The advantage of this is that the government's incentives are (more) aligned with the taxpayer and it provides a means to accomplish things that otherwise either wouldn't get done or would be done insufficiently or badly if profit motives were the only factor in play.
So you want to let the government pick the winners and losers in the industry? Government has a horrible track record in this department and putting politicians in charge of yet another segment of the economy is only going to be asking for trouble. I see kickbacks, bribes and campaign money in the future if we do what you are suggesting.
Personally, I'd choose to avoid all this garbage, keep government smaller and cheaper and let the private sector take care of this. Now if you want to suggest REGULATION, I'm game for that, but not a government take over.
Yea, letting the government manage the high tech infrastructure is a recipe for success, not!
Why do you presume that the government would be any less effective than corporations?
The VA is a prime example of inefficiency of government, as is MOST of what government dabbles in. Ever heard of the Department of Defense? Department of Education? Department of Energy? The EPA? NONE of these are efficient organizations, but HUGE money sucking entities that literally waste billions.... Now there are things only the government can do, but you want to add another thing to their job jar? It's really not a good idea.
Government should NEVER be used in place of private enterprise.... Trust me...
Government is NOT the answer in most cases....That's why we have a Constitution that limits government's power over it's citizens and not the other way around.
Having government manage a rapidly change highly technical bit of infrastructure does not seem like a good idea to me. My local city government has a hard time maintaining even their simple IT infrastructure so they can keep balancing their checking account.... I don't want them running some distributed network infrastructure that I depend on for my internet...
Oh, and large corporations are not "evil" just because they have a profit motive. There is nothing wrong with making money in a business. Where there are companies that make money in less than ethical ways, you cannot argue that companies that make money are ALWAYS unethical. In Fact... I'd argue that MOST companies are not out cheating their customers, even the most profitable. Cheating and doing unethical things are NOT long term winning strategies, and most people who run companies understand that, especially people who have been running companies for a long time. The people who play to win, generally do work within the bounds of ethics and law and are not out defrauding their customers.
IF they are lying about you to prospective employers and you can prove it, hire a lawyer and sue. I'm serious, don't mess around with these types, MAKE THEM STOP. If the company is worth anything, you will find it easy to get a lawyer to take the case on commission and I suggest you do, even if you have to give the lawyer 100%.
I had a former employer do this to me too. I had them on tape saying untrue things about my job performance to someone they believed was a prospective employer, so I threatened to claim damages, lost wages and the like. Now, they will only say that I'm ineligible to be rehired by them and confirm the dates I worked for them. I know, because I've checked.
Your reputation is most important here... Don't let them mess it up for you.
Germany started out with a non-aggression agreement with Russia because they needed to be free to engage the bulk of Europe without having to worry about getting stopped from the east. Hitler's intent was to conquer Europe and possibly Brittan before turning to the east, break his agreement with Russia and move into Asia.
Of course Hitler eventually broke his agreement with Russia and invaded, which really was his undoing. He got caught with his preverbal pants down when winter came and his logistical support for the advance wasn't there. Had he concentrated his forces and consolidated his gains in Europe, there'd be a whole lot more German spoken in the world, and/or WW2 would have lasted a LOT longer. As it was, he wasted resources trying to take Russia when he really should have dug into Europe and went for the long haul, even though it would have been a war of attrition where he would have lost eventually, but there would have been a chance to sue for peace with the Allies along the way, and he might have been able to spare the homeland and perhaps some of the territory he'd taken along the way. It certainly would have made for an interesting post war world, with a stronger Russia that wasn't burning with anger towards Germany.
My view is they should split up the infrastructure and the content providers.
Perhaps the municipal governments having control of the infrastructure, and we can have a choice of ISPs and other content providers.
Yea, letting the government manage the high tech infrastructure is a recipe for success, not! Can you imagine how responsive a government run infrastructure would have been to say the Netflix issues that plagued Verizon customers? Yea, its got to be better to let the government run stuff... (sarcasm off)...
Where I think you are onto something, government is not the answer. Maybe what's needed is to separate the "providers" from the companies that own the infrastructure. Sort of like the electric distribution companies are separate from the "retail providers" here in Texas. Then you have competition between providers, but don't have government running the infrastructure.
Look at how many websites require you to enter your name, address, date of birth, security question and security answer just to sign up for an account these days.
No, they require you to enter "A" name, address, date of birth, security question and security answer... Damn few actually verify a thing. But keeping track of all that data is hard without a good keyminder (like keypassX) and keeping track of a keyminder is a lot of work itself. Too many people would rather just give FaceBook all there infos. So you get the inevitable result of people being lazy with security.
How hard is it to keep a fictional identity? Just pick one, birth day, legal name and the like. Use your made up identity for everybody by default, until you are faced with situations where the REAL information is legally required. Unless you are just crazy about not being tracked and think you need to keep everything separate... In which case you need to make sure you never use your internet connection from your cellphone or at home (Not to mention you need to be careful to use only public WiFi connections in various geographic areas too... ) At that point, you just need to deal with keeping track of your lies as the price you pay for being nuts....
Look at how many websites require you to enter your name, address, date of birth, security question and security answer just to sign up for an account these days. This is not a social media problem, this is a business problem. Corporate America made this problem in name of profit and is trying to pass the dangers of it onto the government/taxpayers like usual.
Which is why I ALWAYS lie to such sites... The only businesses who get my legal name and birthday are ones that legally require it, everybody else gets a standard fictional set of data that's somewhat related, but not my real information. Yea, I get facebook "Happy Birthday's" on the wrong day and a lot of my friends don't know my real birthday isn't what they think, but my data isn't at risk of accidental exposure this way.
Yea, so? It doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to help because you never know if that addict really is at the end of themselves and ready to get clean, or just saying what they have to in order to stay out of jail. Going clean should ALWAYS be an option, and staying clean should be the requirement to stay out of jail, but we should offer to help anyone who is willing to do rehab... (We being the government.. Personally, a whole lot of addicts are enabled by their loved ones to remain addicts and that should stop... But government should never give up trying.)
Never said they didn't. I'm saying that it's about how you THINK about money that really matters in most cases... Drop a boat load of money on somebody and how they think about money determines where they will be in 10 years, not how much you dumped on them in the first place. So, if you are wrong headed about money, it doesn't matter if you make a bunch of it, you will still be poor. If you are wrong headed, you won't manage your money the correct way, you will just spend it. So hiring somebody to manage your assets is really an example of the mindset you need to stay rich, and it is the mindset is what keeps you that way.
I'm not necessarily a avid supporter of "Think and Grow Rich" but the guy pushing all that stuff is right about one of the major differences between the "rich" and the "not so rich" is mind set.
How many stories have you heard about people who won large sums of money but ended up bankrupt a few short years later? How does this happen? It's how you think about money, and how you choose to live. Change the way you think and manage your money instead of letting your money manage you.
Haven't you seen the news stories of the guy that dies and leaves millions to charity but nobody suspected he had money? One story is about a guy who worked as a janitor all his life, invested wisely and lived modestly and retired with nearly 10 million. How can this guy do this? Was he just lucky? I don't think so, I think the difference was his attitude about money.
I knew an older gentleman in my pre-teen years. He was rich, literally worth tens of millions in today's dollars but you'd never would have known. He drove an old pickup, lived in a log cabin with two bare electric lights and a small wood stove for heat. He spent his days working his ranch, moving cows, cutting and bailing hay and the like. He died about 15 years after I knew him, worth millions, but he lived happy. His secret? Don't let money define you, don't make it the measure of your success, manage it instead of letting it manage you.
Perhaps not, but addiction treatment for users and prison for producers/distributors seems like a good thing to try, even if we don't seem to have an epidemic of long term thinking going on in the country. I believe in giving multiple chances and upping the anti each time.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that your router IS supported by OpenWRT depending on the hardware version you have. I highly recommend OpenWRT. It's a bit more difficult to set up than most commercial offerings, but it's flexible and safe.
"separate ..."
Well who does that? I believe it is the government. It is still the government coming down from on high and telling people what to do.
It means that the company that owns the wires that lead to my house (Oncore Electric delivery) is a different company than I buy my electric power from (TXU). I have the choice of retail electric providers, all of which pay Oncore for the use of the electric distribution network, but offer varying rate plans and terms.
I don't hear anybody suggesting that what we need is multiple pipes into my home, but competition for the service that comes over the pipes we already have. So, I suggesting that it's not a good idea to have the government *own* the infrastructure, but provide a regulatory framework where multiple providers can use the existing infrastructure while leaving it in private hands.
My druthers is for the government to stay the heck out of broadband infrastructure development, and discussing a regulation scheme where cooperatives similar to how we got telephone and electricity into rural areas if we really think we need to push broadband in the boonies.
Remote management login+password. Telnet connection.
Neither of which is enabled on our TP-Link router.
As far as you know.... Unfortunately there are some (dare we say MOST) people out there which don't know enough to turn off such nonsense, not to mention ISP's (like Verizon) who actually open ports unbeknownst to the end user so they can remotely manage your router when you call them with a technical support issue...
We've had success with these types of infrastructure problems in the past using the cooperative approach. This was a regulatory thing and not direct government activity or take over to build and maintain this infrastructure. I suggest we stick with what's worked for Telecommunications and Electrification of rural areas in the past over the idea that local governments just do their own thing.
This approach keeps private investment and innovation flowing while providing incentives for the private sector and doesn't make local government the owner/manager of the infrastructure. It's also tried and true, we know how to historically make it work, idea that harks back to the 1930's.....
Like I've said in previous posts today... I'm willing to discuss regulations that make it possible for private industry to build out the infrastructure.... Just don't put government in the driver's seat...
Man, do YOU have the cart before the horse...
Of course I'm discussing the worst of the government, but I won't hesitate to make the blanket claim private companies are better at efficiency than just about ANY government effort. They have to be, or they won't survive very long. That's not to say there are not things that only the government can and should do, only that one must recognize that the use of government should be limited as much as possible.
You, on the other hand, seem to be saying that private enterprise is *always* bad, that they all pursue profits over ethical and moral concerns. This is not true. The vast majority of private companies are run by people with excellent ethical and moral standing, yet they make lots of money. Profit is NOT always made by taking unfair advantage of others. In fact, doing unethical and immoral things to one's customers is an excellent way of loosing said customers and ending up in jail (as you point out sometimes happens.)
No economic system is without it's problems, but letting the government take over parts of the economic systems of a country has historically been universally bad. Case in point? Venezuela perhaps? The government there has been slowing taking over all parts of the economy and the country has been in a rapid decline, despite HUGE amounts of income from oil. Other historical instances are Soviet Russia and related countries, where the people are still paying for being under total government control.
IMHO - I prefer capitalism's problems over the alternatives...
Anything that runs OpenWRT..... Even a consumer model... In fact, I think your existing hardware is supported, albeit it's not being claimed as "stable" yet.
What? Host file security? Not unless you fully disable NSLOOKUP, which is not that easy to do.... Why not just bypass all this and use DNS servers that you control and block DNS services for everything else? Much more secure than hosts files....
The "Verizon" problem was about link speeds... Verizon was asking for more money to provide a larger pipe into their network. It got worked out quickly...
How long does it take to build a road? I've lived in a house for 15 years and the local city has had plans since BEFORE I moved in to widen the main road though town from the two lane blacktop it had been for more than 40 years. Traffic was horrible, making it impossible to ever make a left turn out of my subdivision onto this road during daylight hours and had been that way since I moved in. Plans and money where around, but not until the last two years have we seen any progress.
I don't know about you, but waiting 15 years to get my Netflix fixed is not something I want to do.
Government is NOT the answer in most cases
Most cases of what? Infrastructure? Government is the ONLY practical solution for a wide array of infrastructure projects. Roads, airports, passenger rail, ports, are all done primarily through governments. Telecom companies and utilities are typically private but heavily regulated. Power generation? Regulated. Bridges and dams? Regulated and contracted out. The blanket assertion that government is never the best option is not supported by the actual facts. Governments are often the best solution for when market incentives fail and they often fail in infrastructure which is what the internet has become.
Didn't I just say "in most cases" and you go try and claim I'm wrong by citing the cases where government IS the normally used solution? We didn't have the government take over Telcom, nor do we depend on it for Electric distribution and generation. Yes we highly regulate some industries, and perhaps internet service providers need better regulation, but we DON'T need to have a government take over of it.
Having government manage a rapidly change highly technical bit of infrastructure does not seem like a good idea to me.
That's why governments rarely do such things themselves. What happens is you pay taxes to the government and the government contracts out the services to a competitive bidding process among private companies. The government doesn't pave your roads (usually), it manages the company that does. The advantage of this is that the government's incentives are (more) aligned with the taxpayer and it provides a means to accomplish things that otherwise either wouldn't get done or would be done insufficiently or badly if profit motives were the only factor in play.
So you want to let the government pick the winners and losers in the industry? Government has a horrible track record in this department and putting politicians in charge of yet another segment of the economy is only going to be asking for trouble. I see kickbacks, bribes and campaign money in the future if we do what you are suggesting.
Personally, I'd choose to avoid all this garbage, keep government smaller and cheaper and let the private sector take care of this. Now if you want to suggest REGULATION, I'm game for that, but not a government take over.
Yea, letting the government manage the high tech infrastructure is a recipe for success, not!
Why do you presume that the government would be any less effective than corporations?
The VA is a prime example of inefficiency of government, as is MOST of what government dabbles in. Ever heard of the Department of Defense? Department of Education? Department of Energy? The EPA? NONE of these are efficient organizations, but HUGE money sucking entities that literally waste billions.... Now there are things only the government can do, but you want to add another thing to their job jar? It's really not a good idea.
Government should NEVER be used in place of private enterprise.... Trust me...
Government is NOT the answer in most cases....That's why we have a Constitution that limits government's power over it's citizens and not the other way around.
Having government manage a rapidly change highly technical bit of infrastructure does not seem like a good idea to me. My local city government has a hard time maintaining even their simple IT infrastructure so they can keep balancing their checking account.... I don't want them running some distributed network infrastructure that I depend on for my internet...
Oh, and large corporations are not "evil" just because they have a profit motive. There is nothing wrong with making money in a business. Where there are companies that make money in less than ethical ways, you cannot argue that companies that make money are ALWAYS unethical. In Fact... I'd argue that MOST companies are not out cheating their customers, even the most profitable. Cheating and doing unethical things are NOT long term winning strategies, and most people who run companies understand that, especially people who have been running companies for a long time. The people who play to win, generally do work within the bounds of ethics and law and are not out defrauding their customers.
UM.. Wasn't the FCC that nixed the last merger attempt? I know the FTC has to approve them too, but....
IF they are lying about you to prospective employers and you can prove it, hire a lawyer and sue. I'm serious, don't mess around with these types, MAKE THEM STOP. If the company is worth anything, you will find it easy to get a lawyer to take the case on commission and I suggest you do, even if you have to give the lawyer 100%.
I had a former employer do this to me too. I had them on tape saying untrue things about my job performance to someone they believed was a prospective employer, so I threatened to claim damages, lost wages and the like. Now, they will only say that I'm ineligible to be rehired by them and confirm the dates I worked for them. I know, because I've checked.
Your reputation is most important here... Don't let them mess it up for you.
Which they DID, initially...
Germany started out with a non-aggression agreement with Russia because they needed to be free to engage the bulk of Europe without having to worry about getting stopped from the east. Hitler's intent was to conquer Europe and possibly Brittan before turning to the east, break his agreement with Russia and move into Asia.
Of course Hitler eventually broke his agreement with Russia and invaded, which really was his undoing. He got caught with his preverbal pants down when winter came and his logistical support for the advance wasn't there. Had he concentrated his forces and consolidated his gains in Europe, there'd be a whole lot more German spoken in the world, and/or WW2 would have lasted a LOT longer. As it was, he wasted resources trying to take Russia when he really should have dug into Europe and went for the long haul, even though it would have been a war of attrition where he would have lost eventually, but there would have been a chance to sue for peace with the Allies along the way, and he might have been able to spare the homeland and perhaps some of the territory he'd taken along the way. It certainly would have made for an interesting post war world, with a stronger Russia that wasn't burning with anger towards Germany.
My view is they should split up the infrastructure and the content providers.
Perhaps the municipal governments having control of the infrastructure, and we can have a choice of ISPs and other content providers.
Yea, letting the government manage the high tech infrastructure is a recipe for success, not! Can you imagine how responsive a government run infrastructure would have been to say the Netflix issues that plagued Verizon customers? Yea, its got to be better to let the government run stuff... (sarcasm off)...
Where I think you are onto something, government is not the answer. Maybe what's needed is to separate the "providers" from the companies that own the infrastructure. Sort of like the electric distribution companies are separate from the "retail providers" here in Texas. Then you have competition between providers, but don't have government running the infrastructure.
I thought we had that with HIPPA.... Did I miss something?
Maybe it's enforcement that's lacking? Actually, take them to civil court, recover damages... That will fix them..
Look at how many websites require you to enter your name, address, date of birth, security question and security answer just to sign up for an account these days.
No, they require you to enter "A" name, address, date of birth, security question and security answer... Damn few actually verify a thing. But keeping track of all that data is hard without a good keyminder (like keypassX) and keeping track of a keyminder is a lot of work itself. Too many people would rather just give FaceBook all there infos. So you get the inevitable result of people being lazy with security.
How hard is it to keep a fictional identity? Just pick one, birth day, legal name and the like. Use your made up identity for everybody by default, until you are faced with situations where the REAL information is legally required. Unless you are just crazy about not being tracked and think you need to keep everything separate... In which case you need to make sure you never use your internet connection from your cellphone or at home (Not to mention you need to be careful to use only public WiFi connections in various geographic areas too... ) At that point, you just need to deal with keeping track of your lies as the price you pay for being nuts....
Look at how many websites require you to enter your name, address, date of birth, security question and security answer just to sign up for an account these days. This is not a social media problem, this is a business problem. Corporate America made this problem in name of profit and is trying to pass the dangers of it onto the government/taxpayers like usual.
Which is why I ALWAYS lie to such sites... The only businesses who get my legal name and birthday are ones that legally require it, everybody else gets a standard fictional set of data that's somewhat related, but not my real information. Yea, I get facebook "Happy Birthday's" on the wrong day and a lot of my friends don't know my real birthday isn't what they think, but my data isn't at risk of accidental exposure this way.
Shaking head.... Our education system has failed you...
So....they're bringing back MCI?
Not that far back.. It's WORLDCOM to you buddy....
Yea, so? It doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try to help because you never know if that addict really is at the end of themselves and ready to get clean, or just saying what they have to in order to stay out of jail. Going clean should ALWAYS be an option, and staying clean should be the requirement to stay out of jail, but we should offer to help anyone who is willing to do rehab... (We being the government.. Personally, a whole lot of addicts are enabled by their loved ones to remain addicts and that should stop... But government should never give up trying.)
Never said they didn't. I'm saying that it's about how you THINK about money that really matters in most cases... Drop a boat load of money on somebody and how they think about money determines where they will be in 10 years, not how much you dumped on them in the first place. So, if you are wrong headed about money, it doesn't matter if you make a bunch of it, you will still be poor. If you are wrong headed, you won't manage your money the correct way, you will just spend it. So hiring somebody to manage your assets is really an example of the mindset you need to stay rich, and it is the mindset is what keeps you that way.
I'm not necessarily a avid supporter of "Think and Grow Rich" but the guy pushing all that stuff is right about one of the major differences between the "rich" and the "not so rich" is mind set.
How many stories have you heard about people who won large sums of money but ended up bankrupt a few short years later? How does this happen? It's how you think about money, and how you choose to live. Change the way you think and manage your money instead of letting your money manage you.
Haven't you seen the news stories of the guy that dies and leaves millions to charity but nobody suspected he had money? One story is about a guy who worked as a janitor all his life, invested wisely and lived modestly and retired with nearly 10 million. How can this guy do this? Was he just lucky? I don't think so, I think the difference was his attitude about money.
I knew an older gentleman in my pre-teen years. He was rich, literally worth tens of millions in today's dollars but you'd never would have known. He drove an old pickup, lived in a log cabin with two bare electric lights and a small wood stove for heat. He spent his days working his ranch, moving cows, cutting and bailing hay and the like. He died about 15 years after I knew him, worth millions, but he lived happy. His secret? Don't let money define you, don't make it the measure of your success, manage it instead of letting it manage you.
Perhaps not, but addiction treatment for users and prison for producers/distributors seems like a good thing to try, even if we don't seem to have an epidemic of long term thinking going on in the country. I believe in giving multiple chances and upping the anti each time.
How do you stop people from making sour dough? Yeast is literally everywhere...