I get just as tired of "Boycott this! Boycott that!" as the next person, but I think a boycott of BofA would actually be effective in this case.
Dialectizer is not hurting anybody. It's not taking traffic away from BofA's site. If anything, it might *increase* traffic. It's just a fun toy. There is no reason to get the legal department involved.
I am not *calling* for a boycott, but if my bank were to engage in this silliness, I know what I would do. I would transfer my accounts and send them a letter explaining why. As a customer, I prefer not to do business with companies who pay their legal departments to threaten harmless web sites like Dialectizer. There are too many other banks who want my business and have more important things to worry about. It's that simple.
I can't believe this didn't dawn on me until just now....
If a significant part of the FBI's criminal ID database is down, it could affect a lot more than gun sales. I imagine a few criminal investigations are going to be held up pending results from the FBI.
If this is the case, shame on AP for turning it into yet another gun story. This could significantly affect law enforcement agencies across the entire country.
A few posts from people outside the U.S. are wondering how gun sales work here.
The Brady Bill five day waiting period has apparently been replaced with a computer-based background check. Coincidentally, I bought my second firearm in 6 years last month and was a little surprised by the new procedure. I provided the store with quite a bit of personal info, including driver's license data and, IIRC, my social security number. They made a phone call, passed the information along, and had the result within a few minutes.
Please understand too that the United States is just that -- a collection of states. Each of these states has its own laws pertaining to firearms. Different states have different attitudes towards guns and there is no guarantee that what is legal in one state is legal in another.
I'm afraid the popular worldview of the United States leans towards a free-for-all Wild West where you can buy handguns out of vending machines. It's not like that. We all want to make sure that guns don't get into the wrong hands, there's just disagreement about whose hands are "wrong" and how we accomplish this. The aforementioned instant background check was actually championed by the NRA as an alternative to the five day waiting period (which had no background check at all).
Also, the same restrictions do not apply when guns are transferred from one person to another without dealer involvement. The Clinton administration considers this a loophole because it allows private individuals to buy and sell guns without much in the way of federal regulation. FWIW, my state has some strong laws against making firearms accessible to minors and known felons. I imagine most other states are similar.
The timing for this could not be worse. Given the weekend's planned demonstrations and the Clinton administration's professed desire to pass additional gun legislation, this will get a lot of media attention. I imagine a lot of people will have a hard time believing this is just a computer glitch. I tend to believe it, but I also remember that this same administration was caught "accidently" accessing secret FBI files on political opponents. Ask me in a week if I still believe it.
I'm not a lawyer and not nearly as up on firearms laws as I used to be, so corrections/clarifications would be most appreciated.
I'm going to abuse my karma here, because a moderator has blatantly abused their power and marked the above post as Flamebait. My post will start life as a +2. Let's see where it ends up.
Otter's post is one of the most insightful comments on this thread. The fact that the views may hurt your little "free-open-everything" feelings does not change the fact that what he says has value.
As far as the old Slashdot being slowly strangled, I submit that the face is already blue and the tongue is swollen. The old Slashdot is dead. This has quickly become nothing more than a warez site with a radical political agenda. Pushing for better and more open solutions has taken a backseat to "Fight the man! Down with intellectual property! Gimmie what I want for free!"
I'd like to see what happens when some of these brave anti-establishment freedom fighters start posting complete articles from 2600.org and redhat.com. Better yet, maybe Microsoft should do that. Let's see how big Slashdotters are on "Free Speech" when it affects someone on their side of the fence.
Why do people still cling to IQ scores as some sort of measure of their worth?
IQ testing has no basis in real science. "Intelligence" is a highly subjective matter and scoring well on an IQ test indicates nothing other than you scored well on an IQ test. If you take this as proof that you are smarter than the other 99% of the population, I feel sorry for you.
IQ testing belongs in the same category of pseudo-science as Myers-Briggs personality profiles and the Minnesota Multiphasic test. These tests are inevitably skewed by what their creators see as "extrovert", "normal", or "intelligent".
Furthermore, a high IQ score is no guarantee that you are acting on *correct* information. In the matter of Slashdot vs. Microsoft, IQ has very little to do with anything. This is a matter based on law and such intangibles as freedom of speech.
In fact, most articles on Slashdot are sensationalistic "What is is your opinion?" articles. The value of comments is more dependent on the commenter's information than on his/her "intelligence". The alleged high IQ scores of Slashdotters does not give them immunity from being misinformed or irrational.
More Slashdotters would do their arguments a favor by backing them with correct information rather than the flawed assumption they are right because they have a high IQs.
Here is a Slashdot paradox for their high-IQ readership to ponder:
"Comments are owned by the poster." Therefore, Slashdot is not responsible when AC or a user posts copyrighted information on the site.
How, then, is it permitted for Slashdot editors and Jon Katz to reproduce these same works in another copyrighted work (a book) without permission from the poster? The argument, "It's too difficult to do this," is hardly justification. If it's too hard to contact a work's legal copyright holder, the correct thing to do is simply not reproduce the work. I know this is beating a dead horse, but I still don't think Slashdot is being consistent here. Should it come to a lawsuit, this may very well be used against them.
Dear Slashdot, what "Ask Slashdot" question would be most likely to generate a flamewar?
1. What editor should I use? 2. Which window manager should I use? 3. What license should I release my code under? 4. Which programming language should I use for _____? 5. Which Linux distro should I use? 6. Linux or GNU/Linux? 7. Big-endian or little-endian? 8. Buy or lease? 9. Boxers or briefs? 10. Blonde, brunette, or redhead? 11. Paper or plastic? 12. Ginger or Mary Ann? (Ladies: Professor or Gilligan?) 13. Tastes great or less filling? 14. How many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop? 15. Star Trek, ST:TNG, Deep Space Nine, Babylon 5, or...? 16. Shaken or stirred? 17. Color or monochrome? 18. Frames or no frames? 19. Country or western? 20. Walk or Don't Walk? 21. Dr. Drew, Dr. Ruth, Dr. Laura, or Dr. Suess? 22. Joystick, mouse, or keyboard? 23. Cooperative mode or Deathmatch? 24. POP3 or IMAP? 25. Hex, Octal, or binary? 26. WHAAZZZzzzzzUUUUUUuuuuP? 27. Troll or Flamebait?
The question is: Why do software consumers tolerate this?
The compatibility breaking between different versions of Word is well-known and oft-maligned. I have a hard time seeing it as anything more than a forced upgrade cycle, where Word users MUST buy the latest version in order to exchange documents.
There are other document formats which deliver the same power, have been around longer, have not *radically* changed, and are open to implementation by other vendors. HTML and XML-based grammars are only one example of this. PostScript would be an even better example.
So why have business environments settled on a standard which seems clearly to not be in their best interests? Why do they blindly pay for new versions every few years when their current versions do everything they need and more?
I'm all for letting the free market determine the best product, but Word strikes me as a solid example of the free market failing in this regard. Perhaps poor consumer education is preventing software from being a truly free market. The feature set of Word is nice, but the upgrade-insuring file format should cause people to run away. I would be skeptical of a car that used non-standard gasoline and forced me to buy an engine upgrade each year to handle new gas.
It's not a question of whether or not prohibition worked. I'm not sure what "working" would have been. People simply didn't want to give up their booze and it was repealed. It didn't "work" because Americans didn't have the discipline to give up their little luxury. I think we collectively accepted that.
I agree completely that the majority (not all) of the people in the criminal justice system end up there by their own hands. I also agree that they would resort to whatever they could get their hands on to get a buzz. I would even go a step further and suggest that the "forbidden fruit" syndrome of certain drugs gives them a mystique. I drank when I was underage. When I was old enough, the thrill wore off.
My core argument is that legalization of drugs will not cause a net decrease in the prison population. We have many people in there right now because they did things on alcohol which they would not have otherwise done. We have people in there who did things on speed, coke, etc. that they would not have otherwise done. If we give the green light to drugs which are much stronger than alcohol, we have to be prepared for the consequences. Maybe it will work out ok, but we should be prepared in case it doesn't.
You seem to be guessing at what my real position is (hey, I just like to debate sometimes). Ideologically, I think a person should be able to do whatever they want to their own body. If you want to suck down two packs of smokes a day, fine. If you want to power-drink yourself into a coma, fine. If you want to shoot heroin until you waste away, go for it.
Where I draw the line, however, is when a drug user asks the people who choose NOT to do these things to pay for straightening him/her out. Furthermore, if you can't handle your drug and it causes you to hurt someone else, I want to see you out of the gene pool.
You know, the last time I heard that sentence was in a public service video put together by Anheiser-Busch.:)
It's one of those concepts that just gets drilled into the American psyche without being questioned -- "We tried prohibition. It didn't work."
Please consider the number of crimes which are committed as a direct or indirect result of alcohol. The American society pays an enormous price for this legal drug.
Obviously, you have drunk driving deaths. Did you account for the number of assaults where alcohol is a factor? Beaten spouses? Homicides? How about robberies committed after the perpetrator had a few drinks to get his/her courage up? How about accidental deaths where people do things that they shouldn't do in an inebriated state (mow the lawn, work a chainsaw, etc.) It only takes a little while in an emergency room or at a jail booking desk on the weekend to see the cost of the American drug of choice.
I constantly hear the argument that drug legalization will reduce the prison population. If alcohol is your example of what drug legalization will do for society, I'm not impressed. On any given weekend, count the number of people in jail whose stories begin with, "Well, I'd been drinking and...."
The argument that people commit property crimes to get money for drugs because drugs are illegal and therefore expensive doesn't hold water, either. Illegal drugs have in fact become very cheap. Furthermore, we STILL have people committing thefts and robberies to get money for legal booze. How is it going to work when they're using far more addictive substances with more intense physiological effects?
And yes, people DO suggest that drug users should not be punished for their actions. These are the same people saying addiction is a disease. It IS a disease, but it is a disease that you CHOOSE to get.
I don't know if other coutries have these problems. I do know that the US has got a real maturity problem where alcohol and other drugs are concerned. It's just too cool to get smashed and do stupid stuff. Until we collectively grow up, I sincerely believe that legalizing the hard stuff is a bad idea.
This thread received many more replies than I anticipated. Yours struck me with both its mischaracterization and its condescending tone.
Thank you for the review of the Bill of Rights. I simply did not read it enough times in all the law, government, and criminal justice courses I took en route to my diploma.
As I said in nother post, the ACLU uses the opening clause of the Second Amendment to enforce a *narrow* view of the amendment. In all other amendments, however, they take a (sometimes exceptionally) *broad* view. You are correct that we no longer have formal militias. Threats to our citizens' lives and liberties are often internal rather than external today.
However, nowhere does the First Amendment mention the internet. Are we to assume that my words on slashdot are not protected? Of course not. The "spirit" of the First Amendment clearly suggests that they should be protected. We assume that, had the authors of the Bill of Rights foreseen it, they would have included the internet in the First Amendment.
In the same manner, we may assume that these authors intended the Second Amendment to provide protection of an individual's life an liberty. Indeed, the concept may have been so self-evident that they would have found such a statement absurd -- like guaranteeing a right to breathe air.
The part of your reply which galls me the most, however, is your assertion that I am pining for bygone "good old" days of racism and intolerance. Are you sure you replied to the correct post? If you are trying to characterize me as an extreme right-wing "back to the good old days" character, I find THAT truly obnoxious.
What I DID say is that selfishness and disregard for others is the root cause of many problems in America. This problem extends from corporate boardrooms all the way to your county jail. Furthermore, I am not suggesting that this is a new problem. The very abominations you listed had the same cause. What upsets me is that we continually choose to create scapegoats (drugs, television, or corporations) rather than attack the real problem. Maybe it's just too hard to fix.
Thank you to everyone who replied to this post. There were some very valid, well-reasoned points made. I would like to clarify a few of my statements.
First, I am glad that the mention of the Second Amendment did not immediately generate into a pro-gun/anti-gun flamefest. I only intended it to be an example of the ACLU's "selective enforcement" of the Bill of Rights. My own view is that we NEED organizations like the ACLU and the NRA who are known for no-compromise, even extremist stances. When rights we DO care about are threatened, these groups become our friends.
Second, I am neither suggesting that Stallman is a Communist nor that Communism itself is evil. It is a system of government. That's all. It happens to not be the system of government which the United States has chosen. From a pure political science standpoint, the US is a representative democracy with some elements of socialism (i.e. welfare). Furthermore, I do not take the breakup of the Soviet Union as proof that Communism cannot work. One could argue that the system which the Soviet Union employed fell short of the Communist ideal. China also aspires to a Communist system and is still around.
I should point out that my degree is in political science with a minor in criminal justice. Before finding my true calling in software development, I did work in the criminal justice system.
As a result of my experiences, my view on these matters is different from the opinions Mr. Stallman expressed. From my perspective, Stallman is, frankly, a little naive.
The statement about more people being imprisoned in the United States than in communist Russia means very little by itself. We are supposed to draw the conclusion that the US system is therefore more repressive than communist Russia. There is no real evidence on which to base this conclusion, however. You are comparing two very different systems of government with very different levels of individual freedom. Communist Russia was known for "re-education" of people who disagreed with their political philosophy. At various times, people who opposed the people in power were simply executed (rather than imprisoned). Prison conditions in Russia were nowhere near as bearable as they are here.
Having worked with these "repressed" imprisoned individuals, my own conviction is that we have too many people breaking laws in the United States. This is not the fault of the laws, but rather the people. There is a subculture in this country in which going to prison is expected -- kids grow up visting their dad on Tuesdays and their uncle every other Thursday. They expect to be on the other side of that plexiglass themselves someday.
One may argue that we should change the laws to make fewer things illegal. Again, having been there, I am convinced that the majority of people imprisoned SHOULD BE.
(Or, as Richard Pryor once said after visiting a penitentiary, "Thank God we got penitentiaries!")
Regarding drug laws -- I am not in any way convinced that legalization of drugs will reduce imprisonment numbers. While alcohol is legal for many, a huge number of people end up commiting harmful acts as a result of their alcohol consumption. The same applies to currently illegal drugs.
I would happily accept drug legalization as long as people are still held responsible for their actions when they take the drugs. If you commit a murder on PCP, you get locked away for murder. Under such a system, I very much doubt that we will see a net decrease in prison population. The increase in drug use will very likely cause an increase in other punishable offenses. This will offset the decrease in possession/distribution offenses.
(Side note: FWIW, I think marijuana is a less dangerous drug than alcohol. Drunks want to fight. People who are stoned just want to eat and be your friend.)
Again, I highly respect Mr. Stallman and think he has done as much for software developers than any single individual. I just can't align myself with his social views. This is based on my own life experiences and probably doesn't mean anything to anyone else.
In all seriousness, I had no idea that RMS was so ideologically aligned with the far-left in this country.
I agree completely that there is no shame in supporting the efforts of the ACLU to preserve the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights. However, the Second Amendment is one of those freedoms and the ACLU chooses to ignore or "interpret" it in a such a way that it becomes meaningless. Therefore, painting the ACLU as the Grand Defenders of the Bill of Rights omits a pretty important detail.
Furthermore, the attacks on the "War on Drugs" and conservative politicians in general were completely unnecessary in this forum. The same drug policies have continued for eight years under Clinton's administration -- does that make them ok? The high rate of imprisonment in this country continues under a Democratic administration, yet the implication is that it's the fault of Republicans.
Perhaps Stallman should come down from his throne and spend a few months actually working in law enforcement. Perhaps he should see the kind of cruelty and callousness exhibited by elements of our society. Perhaps then he wouldn't be so quick to complain about high rates of imprisonment in the U.S.
Yes, there is something wrong in America, but it is not a legislative problem as much as it is a social one. Parts of our collective culture have given up the Golden Rule. It's not a religious issue (I happen to be an atheist, too), it's a common-sense rule for a society to function.
I respect the work of Stallman. I use and will probably continue to use the GPL. After reading this, though, I see the point of those who criticize him as a stereotypical ivory-tower liberal academic. He simply doesn't see the big picture with regard to social issues.
Thank you for the GPL, Mr. Stallman, but I can't in good conscience align myself with your view of the world.
Slashdot Mirror
Right on! Here's 172 Karma points (probably less after this post) backing you up, AC!
I get just as tired of "Boycott this! Boycott that!" as the next person, but I think a boycott of BofA would actually be effective in this case.
Dialectizer is not hurting anybody. It's not taking traffic away from BofA's site. If anything, it might *increase* traffic. It's just a fun toy. There is no reason to get the legal department involved.
I am not *calling* for a boycott, but if my bank were to engage in this silliness, I know what I would do. I would transfer my accounts and send them a letter explaining why. As a customer, I prefer not to do business with companies who pay their legal departments to threaten harmless web sites like Dialectizer. There are too many other banks who want my business and have more important things to worry about. It's that simple.
ZDNet uses the word "power" several times in their description of Office Assistant.
#define powerful unemcumbered_by_security_restrictions
p.s. -- Guys, the lameness filter is lame. The above string was too long before. I fixed it, then it told me I had to wait 70 seconds before posting.
Yes, I've written some.
Yes, management wanted to ship based on how well it performed at the show.
No, I don't work for them anymore.
The data is not the *least* bit normalized!
:)
DaVinchi has Perl written all over him?
Is that like one of those "This is a Munition" tatoos or something?
Appreciate the info!
I can't believe this didn't dawn on me until just now....
If a significant part of the FBI's criminal ID database is down, it could affect a lot more than gun sales. I imagine a few criminal investigations are going to be held up pending results from the FBI.
If this is the case, shame on AP for turning it into yet another gun story. This could significantly affect law enforcement agencies across the entire country.
"+1 Thoroughly Sarcastic" :)
A few posts from people outside the U.S. are wondering how gun sales work here.
The Brady Bill five day waiting period has apparently been replaced with a computer-based background check. Coincidentally, I bought my second firearm in 6 years last month and was a little surprised by the new procedure. I provided the store with quite a bit of personal info, including driver's license data and, IIRC, my social security number. They made a phone call, passed the information along, and had the result within a few minutes.
Please understand too that the United States is just that -- a collection of states. Each of these states has its own laws pertaining to firearms. Different states have different attitudes towards guns and there is no guarantee that what is legal in one state is legal in another.
I'm afraid the popular worldview of the United States leans towards a free-for-all Wild West where you can buy handguns out of vending machines. It's not like that. We all want to make sure that guns don't get into the wrong hands, there's just disagreement about whose hands are "wrong" and how we accomplish this. The aforementioned instant background check was actually championed by the NRA as an alternative to the five day waiting period (which had no background check at all).
Also, the same restrictions do not apply when guns are transferred from one person to another without dealer involvement. The Clinton administration considers this a loophole because it allows private individuals to buy and sell guns without much in the way of federal regulation. FWIW, my state has some strong laws against making firearms accessible to minors and known felons. I imagine most other states are similar.
The timing for this could not be worse. Given the weekend's planned demonstrations and the Clinton administration's professed desire to pass additional gun legislation, this will get a lot of media attention. I imagine a lot of people will have a hard time believing this is just a computer glitch. I tend to believe it, but I also remember that this same administration was caught "accidently" accessing secret FBI files on political opponents. Ask me in a week if I still believe it.
I'm not a lawyer and not nearly as up on firearms laws as I used to be, so corrections/clarifications would be most appreciated.
Ok, I'm going home with my tail between my legs now. My apologies.
I'm going to abuse my karma here, because a moderator has blatantly abused their power and marked the above post as Flamebait. My post will start life as a +2. Let's see where it ends up.
Otter's post is one of the most insightful comments on this thread. The fact that the views may hurt your little "free-open-everything" feelings does not change the fact that what he says has value.
As far as the old Slashdot being slowly strangled, I submit that the face is already blue and the tongue is swollen. The old Slashdot is dead. This has quickly become nothing more than a warez site with a radical political agenda. Pushing for better and more open solutions has taken a backseat to "Fight the man! Down with intellectual property! Gimmie what I want for free!"
I'd like to see what happens when some of these brave anti-establishment freedom fighters start posting complete articles from 2600.org and redhat.com. Better yet, maybe Microsoft should do that. Let's see how big Slashdotters are on "Free Speech" when it affects someone on their side of the fence.
Why do people still cling to IQ scores as some sort of measure of their worth?
IQ testing has no basis in real science. "Intelligence" is a highly subjective matter and scoring well on an IQ test indicates nothing other than you scored well on an IQ test. If you take this as proof that you are smarter than the other 99% of the population, I feel sorry for you.
IQ testing belongs in the same category of pseudo-science as Myers-Briggs personality profiles and the Minnesota Multiphasic test. These tests are inevitably skewed by what their creators see as "extrovert", "normal", or "intelligent".
Furthermore, a high IQ score is no guarantee that you are acting on *correct* information. In the matter of Slashdot vs. Microsoft, IQ has very little to do with anything. This is a matter based on law and such intangibles as freedom of speech.
In fact, most articles on Slashdot are sensationalistic "What is is your opinion?" articles. The value of comments is more dependent on the commenter's information than on his/her "intelligence". The alleged high IQ scores of Slashdotters does not give them immunity from being misinformed or irrational.
More Slashdotters would do their arguments a favor by backing them with correct information rather than the flawed assumption they are right because they have a high IQs.
Here is a Slashdot paradox for their high-IQ readership to ponder:
"Comments are owned by the poster." Therefore, Slashdot is not responsible when AC or a user posts copyrighted information on the site.
How, then, is it permitted for Slashdot editors and Jon Katz to reproduce these same works in another copyrighted work (a book) without permission from the poster? The argument, "It's too difficult to do this," is hardly justification. If it's too hard to contact a work's legal copyright holder, the correct thing to do is simply not reproduce the work. I know this is beating a dead horse, but I still don't think Slashdot is being consistent here. Should it come to a lawsuit, this may very well be used against them.
So what body part is Grand Prairie then? :)
Slashdot is running articles that clearly belong on Freshmeat... or something.
Is OOG the first Slashdot user to have his own fan club?
Dear Slashdot, what "Ask Slashdot" question would be most likely to generate a flamewar?
1. What editor should I use?
2. Which window manager should I use?
3. What license should I release my code under?
4. Which programming language should I use for _____?
5. Which Linux distro should I use?
6. Linux or GNU/Linux?
7. Big-endian or little-endian?
8. Buy or lease?
9. Boxers or briefs?
10. Blonde, brunette, or redhead?
11. Paper or plastic?
12. Ginger or Mary Ann? (Ladies: Professor or Gilligan?)
13. Tastes great or less filling?
14. How many licks does it take to get to the Tootsie Roll center of a Tootsie Pop?
15. Star Trek, ST:TNG, Deep Space Nine, Babylon 5, or...?
16. Shaken or stirred?
17. Color or monochrome?
18. Frames or no frames?
19. Country or western?
20. Walk or Don't Walk?
21. Dr. Drew, Dr. Ruth, Dr. Laura, or Dr. Suess?
22. Joystick, mouse, or keyboard?
23. Cooperative mode or Deathmatch?
24. POP3 or IMAP?
25. Hex, Octal, or binary?
26. WHAAZZZzzzzzUUUUUUuuuuP?
27. Troll or Flamebait?
(Sorry, I got a little carried away.)
Are you surprised at how many people have nothing better to do than whine about not getting music for free?
(Go ahead, moderators. I've 150+ karma and I'm sick of this same stupid topic.)
The question is: Why do software consumers tolerate this?
The compatibility breaking between different versions of Word is well-known and oft-maligned. I have a hard time seeing it as anything more than a forced upgrade cycle, where Word users MUST buy the latest version in order to exchange documents.
There are other document formats which deliver the same power, have been around longer, have not *radically* changed, and are open to implementation by other vendors. HTML and XML-based grammars are only one example of this. PostScript would be an even better example.
So why have business environments settled on a standard which seems clearly to not be in their best interests? Why do they blindly pay for new versions every few years when their current versions do everything they need and more?
I'm all for letting the free market determine the best product, but Word strikes me as a solid example of the free market failing in this regard. Perhaps poor consumer education is preventing software from being a truly free market. The feature set of Word is nice, but the upgrade-insuring file format should cause people to run away. I would be skeptical of a car that used non-standard gasoline and forced me to buy an engine upgrade each year to handle new gas.
How has this been allowed to happen?
It's not a question of whether or not prohibition worked. I'm not sure what "working" would have been. People simply didn't want to give up their booze and it was repealed. It didn't "work" because Americans didn't have the discipline to give up their little luxury. I think we collectively accepted that.
I agree completely that the majority (not all) of the people in the criminal justice system end up there by their own hands. I also agree that they would resort to whatever they could get their hands on to get a buzz. I would even go a step further and suggest that the "forbidden fruit" syndrome of certain drugs gives them a mystique. I drank when I was underage. When I was old enough, the thrill wore off.
My core argument is that legalization of drugs will not cause a net decrease in the prison population. We have many people in there right now because they did things on alcohol which they would not have otherwise done. We have people in there who did things on speed, coke, etc. that they would not have otherwise done. If we give the green light to drugs which are much stronger than alcohol, we have to be prepared for the consequences. Maybe it will work out ok, but we should be prepared in case it doesn't.
You seem to be guessing at what my real position is (hey, I just like to debate sometimes). Ideologically, I think a person should be able to do whatever they want to their own body. If you want to suck down two packs of smokes a day, fine. If you want to power-drink yourself into a coma, fine. If you want to shoot heroin until you waste away, go for it.
Where I draw the line, however, is when a drug user asks the people who choose NOT to do these things to pay for straightening him/her out. Furthermore, if you can't handle your drug and it causes you to hurt someone else, I want to see you out of the gene pool.
So, are we still arguing?
"Prohibition doesn't work"
:)
You know, the last time I heard that sentence was in a public service video put together by Anheiser-Busch.
It's one of those concepts that just gets drilled into the American psyche without being questioned -- "We tried prohibition. It didn't work."
Please consider the number of crimes which are committed as a direct or indirect result of alcohol. The American society pays an enormous price for this legal drug.
Obviously, you have drunk driving deaths. Did you account for the number of assaults where alcohol is a factor? Beaten spouses? Homicides? How about robberies committed after the perpetrator had a few drinks to get his/her courage up? How about accidental deaths where people do things that they shouldn't do in an inebriated state (mow the lawn, work a chainsaw, etc.) It only takes a little while in an emergency room or at a jail booking desk on the weekend to see the cost of the American drug of choice.
I constantly hear the argument that drug legalization will reduce the prison population. If alcohol is your example of what drug legalization will do for society, I'm not impressed. On any given weekend, count the number of people in jail whose stories begin with, "Well, I'd been drinking and...."
The argument that people commit property crimes to get money for drugs because drugs are illegal and therefore expensive doesn't hold water, either. Illegal drugs have in fact become very cheap. Furthermore, we STILL have people committing thefts and robberies to get money for legal booze. How is it going to work when they're using far more addictive substances with more intense physiological effects?
And yes, people DO suggest that drug users should not be punished for their actions. These are the same people saying addiction is a disease. It IS a disease, but it is a disease that you CHOOSE to get.
I don't know if other coutries have these problems. I do know that the US has got a real maturity problem where alcohol and other drugs are concerned. It's just too cool to get smashed and do stupid stuff. Until we collectively grow up, I sincerely believe that legalizing the hard stuff is a bad idea.
Whoops. You're right, of course. Thanks.
:)
(to further nitpick, I should have said "e.g. welfare"
This thread received many more replies than I anticipated. Yours struck me with both its mischaracterization and its condescending tone.
Thank you for the review of the Bill of Rights. I simply did not read it enough times in all the law, government, and criminal justice courses I took en route to my diploma.
As I said in nother post, the ACLU uses the opening clause of the Second Amendment to enforce a *narrow* view of the amendment. In all other amendments, however, they take a (sometimes exceptionally) *broad* view. You are correct that we no longer have formal militias. Threats to our citizens' lives and liberties are often internal rather than external today.
However, nowhere does the First Amendment mention the internet. Are we to assume that my words on slashdot are not protected? Of course not. The "spirit" of the First Amendment clearly suggests that they should be protected. We assume that, had the authors of the Bill of Rights foreseen it, they would have included the internet in the First Amendment.
In the same manner, we may assume that these authors intended the Second Amendment to provide protection of an individual's life an liberty. Indeed, the concept may have been so self-evident that they would have found such a statement absurd -- like guaranteeing a right to breathe air.
The part of your reply which galls me the most, however, is your assertion that I am pining for bygone "good old" days of racism and intolerance. Are you sure you replied to the correct post? If you are trying to characterize me as an extreme right-wing "back to the good old days" character, I find THAT truly obnoxious.
What I DID say is that selfishness and disregard for others is the root cause of many problems in America. This problem extends from corporate boardrooms all the way to your county jail. Furthermore, I am not suggesting that this is a new problem. The very abominations you listed had the same cause. What upsets me is that we continually choose to create scapegoats (drugs, television, or corporations) rather than attack the real problem. Maybe it's just too hard to fix.
Thank you to everyone who replied to this post. There were some very valid, well-reasoned points made. I would like to clarify a few of my statements.
First, I am glad that the mention of the Second Amendment did not immediately generate into a pro-gun/anti-gun flamefest. I only intended it to be an example of the ACLU's "selective enforcement" of the Bill of Rights. My own view is that we NEED organizations like the ACLU and the NRA who are known for no-compromise, even extremist stances. When rights we DO care about are threatened, these groups become our friends.
Second, I am neither suggesting that Stallman is a Communist nor that Communism itself is evil. It is a system of government. That's all. It happens to not be the system of government which the United States has chosen. From a pure political science standpoint, the US is a representative democracy with some elements of socialism (i.e. welfare). Furthermore, I do not take the breakup of the Soviet Union as proof that Communism cannot work. One could argue that the system which the Soviet Union employed fell short of the Communist ideal. China also aspires to a Communist system and is still around.
I should point out that my degree is in political science with a minor in criminal justice. Before finding my true calling in software development, I did work in the criminal justice system.
As a result of my experiences, my view on these matters is different from the opinions Mr. Stallman expressed. From my perspective, Stallman is, frankly, a little naive.
The statement about more people being imprisoned in the United States than in communist Russia means very little by itself. We are supposed to draw the conclusion that the US system is therefore more repressive than communist Russia. There is no real evidence on which to base this conclusion, however. You are comparing two very different systems of government with very different levels of individual freedom. Communist Russia was known for "re-education" of people who disagreed with their political philosophy. At various times, people who opposed the people in power were simply executed (rather than imprisoned). Prison conditions in Russia were nowhere near as bearable as they are here.
Having worked with these "repressed" imprisoned individuals, my own conviction is that we have too many people breaking laws in the United States. This is not the fault of the laws, but rather the people. There is a subculture in this country in which going to prison is expected -- kids grow up visting their dad on Tuesdays and their uncle every other Thursday. They expect to be on the other side of that plexiglass themselves someday.
One may argue that we should change the laws to make fewer things illegal. Again, having been there, I am convinced that the majority of people imprisoned SHOULD BE.
(Or, as Richard Pryor once said after visiting a penitentiary, "Thank God we got penitentiaries!")
Regarding drug laws -- I am not in any way convinced that legalization of drugs will reduce imprisonment numbers. While alcohol is legal for many, a huge number of people end up commiting harmful acts as a result of their alcohol consumption. The same applies to currently illegal drugs.
I would happily accept drug legalization as long as people are still held responsible for their actions when they take the drugs. If you commit a murder on PCP, you get locked away for murder. Under such a system, I very much doubt that we will see a net decrease in prison population. The increase in drug use will very likely cause an increase in other punishable offenses. This will offset the decrease in possession/distribution offenses.
(Side note: FWIW, I think marijuana is a less dangerous drug than alcohol. Drunks want to fight. People who are stoned just want to eat and be your friend.)
Again, I highly respect Mr. Stallman and think he has done as much for software developers than any single individual. I just can't align myself with his social views. This is based on my own life experiences and probably doesn't mean anything to anyone else.
Sorry for the length of this post.
In all seriousness, I had no idea that RMS was so ideologically aligned with the far-left in this country.
I agree completely that there is no shame in supporting the efforts of the ACLU to preserve the freedoms enumerated in the Bill of Rights. However, the Second Amendment is one of those freedoms and the ACLU chooses to ignore or "interpret" it in a such a way that it becomes meaningless. Therefore, painting the ACLU as the Grand Defenders of the Bill of Rights omits a pretty important detail.
Furthermore, the attacks on the "War on Drugs" and conservative politicians in general were completely unnecessary in this forum. The same drug policies have continued for eight years under Clinton's administration -- does that make them ok? The high rate of imprisonment in this country continues under a Democratic administration, yet the implication is that it's the fault of Republicans.
Perhaps Stallman should come down from his throne and spend a few months actually working in law enforcement. Perhaps he should see the kind of cruelty and callousness exhibited by elements of our society. Perhaps then he wouldn't be so quick to complain about high rates of imprisonment in the U.S.
Yes, there is something wrong in America, but it is not a legislative problem as much as it is a social one. Parts of our collective culture have given up the Golden Rule. It's not a religious issue (I happen to be an atheist, too), it's a common-sense rule for a society to function.
I respect the work of Stallman. I use and will probably continue to use the GPL. After reading this, though, I see the point of those who criticize him as a stereotypical ivory-tower liberal academic. He simply doesn't see the big picture with regard to social issues.
Thank you for the GPL, Mr. Stallman, but I can't in good conscience align myself with your view of the world.