>Really? Ever hear of something called "the widening gap between rich and poor" which even my father, a lifelong Republican, has come to recognise?
Yes, the gap between the rich and poor is widening. This is not caused by the poor losing ground, but by the rich getting stupidly rich. Ask yourself, how many countries have fat homeless people?
"RedPhone uses ZRTP, an open source Internet voice cryptography scheme created by Phil Zimmermann, inventor of the widely-used Pretty Good Privacy or PGP encryption."
I recently moved to Seattle and was looking into fios, but freaking Comcast still has some antiquated exclusive franchise deal with the city that won't let Verizon offer it to anyone. How does this make sense in any world?
If you have a real look at those geological records you're so fond of, you'd see that we should be well on our way back into another ice age by now. All of the previous periods between ice ages have been short and sweet, but thousands of years of human agriculture followed by the industrial revolution have stretched this one out far longer than the previous several. Not that I want to live through an ice age - a certain amount of global warming is a good thing, but there is a good chance we've gone too far in the other direction now.
"April this year was the hottest on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has announced.
The combined surface temperatures on land and at sea averaged 14.5 C, some 0.76 C above the 20th century average. Average ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for April and the global land surface temperature was the third warmest on record for the month.
NOAA also says that Arctic sea ice was "below normal for the 11th consecutive April" while "based on NOAA satellite observations, snow cover extent was the fourth-lowest on record" since 1967."
It still sounds like it would be a giant overall savings and would achieve more of the desired effect (lower drug use) than the current system we're stuck in.
>But this is all very fuzzy; importantly, it's just as fuzzy as "everything will be fine." Read this again: the hypothesis that legalizing drugs will result in a Utopian Paradise or even in a complete null operation (i.e. no change) is JUST AS CRAZY as assuming the whole world will slowly fall apart
"The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well."
So, there is not no change when you decriminalize, there is actually a decrease in use. Still no utopia, but a better outcome than the current system by far.
Here in Cleveland, they are taking down all of the red light cameras because, wait for it, they aren't making enough money! So don't let them tell you the cameras have anything at all to do with public safety.
>And in other cultures you do not have to "transact business" or "deal with the government" in any active manner just to survive.
Sure. There are still hunter-gatherer societies out there.
>...all those "choices" being inferior to the standards one would expect in other societies, thanks to governments pandering to businesses, monopolies, runaway cost-cutting and "creative" kinds of outsourcing.
I disagree. If I want to eat twinkies for breakfast lunch and dinner every day, that is one option I have. I can also buy an incredible variety of fresh fruits, vegetables, and meats - either industrially raised or organic - and cook myself dinner every night. Many places don't have nearly this many options. The former Soviet Union certainly didn't.
>...and this is why (plus the above as applied to food) obesity is both common and the most common reason for social ostracism.
I'm not arguing that any of these things are necessarily good or bad, only that they are definitely US culture. Most people don't even consider these things, but they are not constants around the world by any means.
>This is not acceptable in any culture. In US recently arrived foreigners are often late to their appointment because they don't have a car yet (something that in other countries is not strictly necessary to get anywhere).
Nope, see Turkish and Indian cultures, where an hour late is still acceptable. In China, it depends on your sex.
>In USSR the only place one would be haggling is a farmers' market and maybe when buying a used car (from the previous owner).
Yes, but in many cultures, haggling for everything is the norm.
I agree with you to some extent. There are simply so many little things that we take for granted that are what define our culture. See this page for a long list. Here are some examples:
You seriously expect to be able to transact business, or deal with the government, without paying bribes.
You're used to a wide variety of choices for almost anything you buy.
The biggest meal of the day is in the evening.
You don't care very much what family someone comes from.
If you have an appointment, you'll mutter an excuse if you're five minutes late, and apologize profusely if it's ten minutes. An hour late is almost inexcusable.
If you're talking to someone, you get uncomfortable if they approach closer than about two feet.
About the only things you expect to bargain for are houses, cars, and antiques. Haggling is largely a matter of finding the hidden point that's the buyer's minimum.
Salon.com would - especially Glenn Greenwald. He's generally liberal, but still calls out some of the blatant lies of the Obama administration.
Some of his recent headlines:
Obama threatens to veto greater intelligence oversight. Salon Radio: Manipulative use of the term "Terrorism". The Democrats' scam becomes more transparent. Obama sabotages himself with fake "pragmatism".
>That is my understanding. Why does it sicken you that I don't consider things that the military does as part of training to be torture.
It sickens me in the same way as saying that since a woman enjoys sex, she must also enjoy rape. If you choose to do something, it is an entirely different situation from having it inflicted upon you. Either you know this and are being obtuse, or you are actually stupid.
Special forces are forced to go without sleep for weeks at a time? Forced to assume stress positions without reprieve? Kept stripped naked in 50 degree rooms? All without knowing if or when any of it will end?
What terrorists do has nothing to do with whether or not we follow our own laws. Waterboarding is torture. This isn't a matter of opinion. We have prosecuted people in the US for doing it, and brought war crimes charges against others. If the people in the Bush administration thought they had no other choice, they should have no problem standing up before a jury and justifying their actions. Otherwise, they are just cowards with no real convictions. They want to take the easy way out and convince everyone that torture is just fine if the 'good guys' are doing it. It's disgusting, and so is anyone who buys into it.
It doesn't matter at all. Torture is unconditionally wrong. If there is ever a case where a government or individual truly believes that torture is the only way to get some information that is important enough to torture for, everyone involved should be willing to accept that they too are committing a terrible crime and should accept the punishment for it. If President Bush ordered torture, he, along with everyone down the chain of command to the torturer himself, should be prosecuted for war crimes. And they should accept it. Either we live by our laws or we don't. Thinking you have a good reason for breaking them doesn't make you innocent.
>Uh, do car accidents have nuclear weapons? No? Didn't think so.
Nope, but they have been, and will continue to be, far more deadly to Americans than terrorists. You can keep begging for big brother to keep you safe by occupying unrelated countries when that is what actually makes those people want to attack us. No, it's not because they hate our freedoms - it's because of our actions.
Do you believe that any of these enemies have anything close to the ability to make that happen? The Soviet Union couldn't do it, and they had thousands of nukes pointed at us for 40 years. If you fear terrorism more than car accidents, you need to get your head checked out.
>Yet, there this is interpreted that clergy may not talk about a political candidate from the puplit. To me, this is a law abdridging freedom of speech.
Clergy are perfectly free to talk about politics from the pulpit, just not if they want to keep paying no taxes.
>The courts even rules that placing a tracking device on someone was technically NO DIFFERENT than an officer following them, and was thus considered completely acceptable.
Uhh, No. At least not in Massachusetts and New York.
Going about your business, even out in public, is still none of the government's business unless they have some real reason to make it their business - by getting a warrant.
Slashdot Mirror
>If you have never stood at the wrong end of a gun, it's near impossible to imagine being there for days, weeks, or even months.
Like, for instance, every single person in Iraq and Afghanistan? Hell yeah there are terrorists there, because we made them.
First Rule of talking to the police: *Don't talk to the police!*
>Really? Ever hear of something called "the widening gap between rich and poor" which even my father, a lifelong Republican, has come to recognise?
Yes, the gap between the rich and poor is widening. This is not caused by the poor losing ground, but by the rich getting stupidly rich. Ask yourself, how many countries have fat homeless people?
RTFA.
"RedPhone uses ZRTP, an open source Internet voice cryptography scheme created by Phil Zimmermann, inventor of the widely-used Pretty Good Privacy or PGP encryption."
Looks like I picked a bad time to move to Seattle.
I recently moved to Seattle and was looking into fios, but freaking Comcast still has some antiquated exclusive franchise deal with the city that won't let Verizon offer it to anyone. How does this make sense in any world?
If you have a real look at those geological records you're so fond of, you'd see that we should be well on our way back into another ice age by now. All of the previous periods between ice ages have been short and sweet, but thousands of years of human agriculture followed by the industrial revolution have stretched this one out far longer than the previous several. Not that I want to live through an ice age - a certain amount of global warming is a good thing, but there is a good chance we've gone too far in the other direction now.
>because you haven't sufficently proven that CO2 is the cause, thats why. the current 10 year trend is actually cooling.
Oh, Really?
"April this year was the hottest on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has announced.
The combined surface temperatures on land and at sea averaged 14.5 C, some 0.76 C above the 20th century average. Average ocean surface temperature was the warmest on record for April and the global land surface temperature was the third warmest on record for the month.
NOAA also says that Arctic sea ice was "below normal for the 11th consecutive April" while "based on NOAA satellite observations, snow cover extent was the fourth-lowest on record" since 1967."
The continual transdingler?
It still sounds like it would be a giant overall savings and would achieve more of the desired effect (lower drug use) than the current system we're stuck in.
>But this is all very fuzzy; importantly, it's just as fuzzy as "everything will be fine." Read this again: the hypothesis that legalizing drugs will result in a Utopian Paradise or even in a complete null operation (i.e. no change) is JUST AS CRAZY as assuming the whole world will slowly fall apart
Actually, you are completely wrong. Portugal decriminalized all drug possession in 2001, and since then:
"The Cato paper reports that between 2001 and 2006 in Portugal, rates of lifetime use of any illegal drug among seventh through ninth graders fell from 14.1% to 10.6%; drug use in older teens also declined. Lifetime heroin use among 16-to-18-year-olds fell from 2.5% to 1.8% (although there was a slight increase in marijuana use in that age group). New HIV infections in drug users fell by 17% between 1999 and 2003, and deaths related to heroin and similar drugs were cut by more than half. In addition, the number of people on methadone and buprenorphine treatment for drug addiction rose to 14,877 from 6,040, after decriminalization, and money saved on enforcement allowed for increased funding of drug-free treatment as well."
So, there is not no change when you decriminalize, there is actually a decrease in use. Still no utopia, but a better outcome than the current system by far.
Ding ding ding! We have a winner!
Here in Cleveland, they are taking down all of the red light cameras because, wait for it, they aren't making enough money! So don't let them tell you the cameras have anything at all to do with public safety.
>Your garden variety software inventions has little to do with math.
No, all software *is* math. Completely.
>And in other cultures you do not have to "transact business" or "deal with the government" in any active manner just to survive.
Sure. There are still hunter-gatherer societies out there.
>...all those "choices" being inferior to the standards one would expect in other societies, thanks to governments pandering to businesses, monopolies, runaway cost-cutting and "creative" kinds of outsourcing.
I disagree. If I want to eat twinkies for breakfast lunch and dinner every day, that is one option I have. I can also buy an incredible variety of fresh fruits, vegetables, and meats - either industrially raised or organic - and cook myself dinner every night. Many places don't have nearly this many options. The former Soviet Union certainly didn't.
>...and this is why (plus the above as applied to food) obesity is both common and the most common reason for social ostracism.
I'm not arguing that any of these things are necessarily good or bad, only that they are definitely US culture. Most people don't even consider these things, but they are not constants around the world by any means.
>This is not acceptable in any culture. In US recently arrived foreigners are often late to their appointment because they don't have a car yet (something that in other countries is not strictly necessary to get anywhere).
Nope, see Turkish and Indian cultures, where an hour late is still acceptable. In China, it depends on your sex.
>In USSR the only place one would be haggling is a farmers' market and maybe when buying a used car (from the previous owner).
Yes, but in many cultures, haggling for everything is the norm.
I agree with you to some extent. There are simply so many little things that we take for granted that are what define our culture. See this page for a long list. Here are some examples:
You seriously expect to be able to transact business, or deal with the government, without paying bribes.
You're used to a wide variety of choices for almost anything you buy.
The biggest meal of the day is in the evening.
You don't care very much what family someone comes from.
If you have an appointment, you'll mutter an excuse if you're five minutes late, and apologize profusely if it's ten minutes. An hour late is almost inexcusable.
If you're talking to someone, you get uncomfortable if they approach closer than about two feet.
About the only things you expect to bargain for are houses, cars, and antiques. Haggling is largely a matter of finding the hidden point that's the buyer's minimum.
Salon.com would - especially Glenn Greenwald. He's generally liberal, but still calls out some of the blatant lies of the Obama administration.
Some of his recent headlines:
Obama threatens to veto greater intelligence oversight.
Salon Radio: Manipulative use of the term "Terrorism".
The Democrats' scam becomes more transparent.
Obama sabotages himself with fake "pragmatism".
>That is my understanding. Why does it sicken you that I don't consider things that the military does as part of training to be torture.
It sickens me in the same way as saying that since a woman enjoys sex, she must also enjoy rape. If you choose to do something, it is an entirely different situation from having it inflicted upon you. Either you know this and are being obtuse, or you are actually stupid.
Special forces are forced to go without sleep for weeks at a time? Forced to assume stress positions without reprieve? Kept stripped naked in 50 degree rooms? All without knowing if or when any of it will end?
You sicken me.
What terrorists do has nothing to do with whether or not we follow our own laws. Waterboarding is torture. This isn't a matter of opinion. We have prosecuted people in the US for doing it, and brought war crimes charges against others. If the people in the Bush administration thought they had no other choice, they should have no problem standing up before a jury and justifying their actions. Otherwise, they are just cowards with no real convictions. They want to take the easy way out and convince everyone that torture is just fine if the 'good guys' are doing it. It's disgusting, and so is anyone who buys into it.
It doesn't matter at all. Torture is unconditionally wrong. If there is ever a case where a government or individual truly believes that torture is the only way to get some information that is important enough to torture for, everyone involved should be willing to accept that they too are committing a terrible crime and should accept the punishment for it. If President Bush ordered torture, he, along with everyone down the chain of command to the torturer himself, should be prosecuted for war crimes. And they should accept it. Either we live by our laws or we don't. Thinking you have a good reason for breaking them doesn't make you innocent.
>Uh, do car accidents have nuclear weapons? No? Didn't think so.
Nope, but they have been, and will continue to be, far more deadly to Americans than terrorists. You can keep begging for big brother to keep you safe by occupying unrelated countries when that is what actually makes those people want to attack us. No, it's not because they hate our freedoms - it's because of our actions.
Did you forget a sarcasm tag?
No?
Wow.
Do you believe that any of these enemies have anything close to the ability to make that happen? The Soviet Union couldn't do it, and they had thousands of nukes pointed at us for 40 years. If you fear terrorism more than car accidents, you need to get your head checked out.
>Yet, there this is interpreted that clergy may not talk about a political candidate from the puplit. To me, this is a law abdridging freedom of speech.
Clergy are perfectly free to talk about politics from the pulpit, just not if they want to keep paying no taxes.
>The courts even rules that placing a tracking device on someone was technically NO DIFFERENT than an officer following them, and was thus considered completely acceptable.
Uhh, No. At least not in Massachusetts and New York.
Going about your business, even out in public, is still none of the government's business unless they have some real reason to make it their business - by getting a warrant.
Isn't estimating the amount of time it will take to complete any non-trivial programming task just another version of the halting problem?