All kidding aside, you raise a good point. Some real people have some real problems with some real drugs. You don't have to have personal experience to realize that this is true.
You don't have to have personal experience to understand a lot of problems. But you do have to have facts. Experience is not the only way to gather facts, but facts are required.
For some reason, the drug issue is unique in that people don't seem to think that facts are required to solve the real problems that are associated with drug use. "Drugs are bad, m'kay?" is considered a solid enough fact to dictate public policy.
So, you're right, you don't need experience. That said, I certainly haven't seen you or anyone else in your camp offer up and kind of insight or information that contradicts my broader point about the superficiality of anti-drug arguments.
Welcome, fellow smug anti-drug... er... person! I never meant to imply that religion was required to fit in this category! No siree "Bob"! Sorry about the confusion.
No, all that's required it to make judgemental, sweeping statements about experiences you haven't had. For example:
I think drugs... are... an attempt to avoid reality because it 'feels good' to do so.
Now, you can't get in the club unless you openly admit you don't know what you're talking about.
I don't even drink alchohol, except when I take cold medicine. The strongest thing I 'do' is Mt. Dew.
Attaboy!
"I'll tell you something honestly about drugs. Honestly - and I know it's not a very popular idea. You don't hear it very often any more. But it is the truth: I had a great time doing drugs. Never murdered anyone, never robbed anyone, never raped anyone, never beat anyone, never lost a job, a car, a house, a wife, or kids. Laughed my ass off, and went about my day." - Bill Hicks
Although I have no relevant experience with drugs, never having taken them, I feel compelled to indict all those who do use drugs. Despite the fact that all of my information about drugs is either anecdotal or based on biased, often wildly inaccurate propaganda, I think I am completely qualified to label all those who use drugs as unworthy of the full-human status that I claim just for having a beating heart (pumping squeaky-clean blood, no less!)
The boundaries of my experience are the boundaries of a complete and all-encompassing experience. Anything outside of my experience must suck because I haven't deemed it worthy of my effort. Or it's too scary.
I'm not perfect. However, any flaw I do have is fixed by an invisible, magical being to whom I devote a great deal of time and energy. If people would believe that this magical being would fix their lives, they wouldn't be druggy losers.
to not be in the situation so you cant be accused you either have to keep away from women all together (Espically feminists they are all wacked) or become a homosexual..
Hey, how about forming a meaningful, trusting relationship over a period long enough to evaluate whether a woman's playing with a full deck? Can your microscopic brain grasp this concept?
I guess all of us should kill ourselves... espically us Christian/white/conservative/males. we cause all the pain in the world ya know.
I can't speak for the world, but your post has certainly caused me pain.
It is in every person's best interest not to put him or herself in a situation where he or she will be falsely accused. So what? Does anyone do this intentionally? Is it possible to avoid this entirely?
It's not possible to avoid anything entirely, but you can reduce your chances.
How can you know whether someone is going to falsely accuse you of rape? Well, you could get to know them before you have sex. The poster who started this thread had sex with a girl who had a jealous boyfriend. Hmmm... emotionally dysfunctional and dishonest -- this is nature's way of saying "keep it in your pants."
The fact is, you can spot the crazy ones (usually). Trust your intuition, instincts, "gut feelings" or whatever. This "inner voice" has been brought to you by millions of years of evolution to alert you of danger that may not be obvious from first-order analysis.
Would you tell a woman not to put herself in a position where she will be falsely accused?
Of course, but women are rarely accused of rape at all, much less falsely. Ironically, the two women I know who were raped were actually raped by other women. It's actually worse for them, because people don't take their trauma as seriously.
"Rape is a crime so horrible that not even innocence is an adequate defense."
Just as it is in a woman's interests not to put herself in situations where she can be rapes even though no on deserves to be raped, it is in a man's interest not to put himself in a situation where he will be falsely accused.
This is really a story about a sick cop with a chip on his shoulder. The victim should be launching a civil suit.
I think the cautionary aspect of the tale is not so much about rape (don't bring strangers home on the first date, duh). It's about nerds being a new minority for cops to abuse.
When dealing with cops, it's sometime best to follow the Church of The Subgenius motto:"Act like a Dumbshit and they'll treat you as an equal."
I had a few rounds with this guy in email months ago. He loves to post this security thing in talkback. That's where I got into it with him.
He's not an idiot, but you are right, he doesn't know much about computer security. He doesn't understand digital signing or what, user priveledges or secuirty policy. He doesn't understand that sometimes having source code only shows you that something is bullet-proof (knowing the 3DES algorithm doesn't really help you crack it). Yet, he claims to be a lawyer and programmer. Amazing.
Still, I have yet to see a really good answer to his scenario about trojan horses in the code. Bruce Perens raised this issue and there was a trojan horse in something (I forget).
I still use OS/2. I still like OS/2. I've stopped trying to convince other people to start using it. I think you can have a kick-ass SOHO system with a Linux server and OS/2 desktops, but Linux on the desktop doesn't suck (Gnome is no Workplace Shell).
OS/2 is a closed system owned by IBM. IBM's interests do not lie in keeping it current as a desktop OS. My interests, and those of other OS/2 users don't matter. We don't have the source. It would be cool if IBM said,"We don't want this, you take it," but that's not going to happen any time soon...
I want an OS with a future. OS/2 is great now, but in 5 years, it'll be keeping my TRS-80's company in the closet.
have heard the terms "Welcome to the Real World", or "This is Real Life", and it seems to me that those are said to "control the masses"
Gee, Thomas Jefferson, sometimes it's an appeal to practicality based on experience.
Of course, experience also tells us that the Earth is flat and that heavier-than-air craft can't fly and you will never, ever, have a date. But these supposed limitations have been overcome be people who dared to dream! Well, two of them.
On behalf of the small-minded oppressors of progress, I invite you to share your marvelous plan for reducing the noise on slashdot comments in a manner that it totally fair and doesn't require the computing power of the NSA.
Can't think of one? Oh well, Welcome to the Real World.
Here's a potential tweak: what if replies inherited the base score of the parent. This way, the moderation of the root message of a flamewar would kill the whole thread... or does it already work that way?
The downside to this would be the possibility that a brilliant respone to a stupid post would be lost.
It's becoming clear to me that Kippling's largest marketting error is that hackers are so thoroughly devoid of outside lives that they probably have no need for any items one would use to leave their house.
I visited the site and looked around. I found the technical information on it to be pretty accurate, considering it was part of a marketting campaign for a luggage company. I saw the term "cracker" used correctly in one place .
Furthermoe, this VP is correct: "hacker" is in common use when "cracker" is the correct term. Words often change their meaning over time as they are used in varying ways. I guess a community of people who rarely have face-to-face conversations might find this feature of language surprising.
I thought the campaign was a bit patronizing and aimed at wannabees and newbies. Of course, "hacker" lost any meaning for me the first time I heard someone claim to be a hacker when they'd never programmed in assembler. As if.
If you're really offended by Kippling's campaign, maybe you should go out and stage a protest. Oops, I suggested going out. Never mind. Go back to arguing over emacs and vi in IRC.
I would agree that your post deserves a 0 or +1. I also agree that you should start to see more consitancy in moderation.
Personally, I think am neutral towards hate per se, but am intollerant of ignorance. There are people I genuinely hate, but not because of unsupportable beliefs about the color of their skin or whatnot.
That said, the Al Gore bashing on this topic is getting a little under my skin. Al Gore didn't "invent" the Internet I used in college 15 years ago, but he had a lot to do with creating the publicly accessable Intenet I'm using from home today.
This may look like a "Linux Tax" but it may, in part, represent the difference in "economies of scale" for a Linux purchase. The manufacture, software install, and delivery for a Linux system may require extra handling, increasing the cost.
Is it $99 worth of difference? I don't know, I don't think very many people know for sure.
I'd be happy to pay the extra $99 (for a laptop -- I put my own desktop systems together) if and only if Microsoft doesn't get a dime of my purchase.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't have to have personal experience to understand a lot of problems. But you do have to have facts. Experience is not the only way to gather facts, but facts are required.
For some reason, the drug issue is unique in that people don't seem to think that facts are required to solve the real problems that are associated with drug use. "Drugs are bad, m'kay?" is considered a solid enough fact to dictate public policy.
So, you're right, you don't need experience. That said, I certainly haven't seen you or anyone else in your camp offer up and kind of insight or information that contradicts my broader point about the superficiality of anti-drug arguments.
No, all that's required it to make judgemental, sweeping statements about experiences you haven't had. For example:
- I think drugs
... are ... an attempt to avoid reality because it 'feels good' to do so.
Now, you can't get in the club unless you openly admit you don't know what you're talking about.- I don't even drink alchohol, except when I take cold medicine. The strongest thing I 'do' is Mt. Dew.
Attaboy!- Bill Hicks
The boundaries of my experience are the boundaries of a complete and all-encompassing experience. Anything outside of my experience must suck because I haven't deemed it worthy of my effort. Or it's too scary.
I'm not perfect. However, any flaw I do have is fixed by an invisible, magical being to whom I devote a great deal of time and energy. If people would believe that this magical being would fix their lives, they wouldn't be druggy losers.
Well, it's important to me. :-P
The comments might end up looking like this:
- +1 Well Said
- -1 Repeat
- +1 Good
- -1 This guy misses the point entirely
- -1 crapola
- +1 A thoughtful counterpoint
- +1 Excellent post dude!
It kinda sucks to have what you thought was a decent post moderated down to -1, but it would be nice to know why, at least.Hey, how about forming a meaningful, trusting relationship over a period long enough to evaluate whether a woman's playing with a full deck? Can your microscopic brain grasp this concept?
I guess all of us should kill ourselves... espically us Christian/white/conservative/males. we cause all the pain in the world ya know.
I can't speak for the world, but your post has certainly caused me pain.
It's not possible to avoid anything entirely, but you can reduce your chances.
How can you know whether someone is going to falsely accuse you of rape? Well, you could get to know them before you have sex. The poster who started this thread had sex with a girl who had a jealous boyfriend. Hmmm... emotionally dysfunctional and dishonest -- this is nature's way of saying "keep it in your pants."
The fact is, you can spot the crazy ones (usually). Trust your intuition, instincts, "gut feelings" or whatever. This "inner voice" has been brought to you by millions of years of evolution to alert you of danger that may not be obvious from first-order analysis.
Would you tell a woman not to put herself in a position where she will be falsely accused?
Of course, but women are rarely accused of rape at all, much less falsely. Ironically, the two women I know who were raped were actually raped by other women. It's actually worse for them, because people don't take their trauma as seriously.
I didn't think that you could be disbarred for sarcasm.
Just as it is in a woman's interests not to put herself in situations where she can be rapes even though no on deserves to be raped, it is in a man's interest not to put himself in a situation where he will be falsely accused.
I think the cautionary aspect of the tale is not so much about rape (don't bring strangers home on the first date, duh). It's about nerds being a new minority for cops to abuse.
When dealing with cops, it's sometime best to follow the Church of The Subgenius motto:"Act like a Dumbshit and they'll treat you as an equal."
Essentially, MS Word does a type of digital signing on a document. If you release a signed file, well... too bad.
The fact that MS Word doesn't give you the option of turning this off is yet another reason not to use it.
Umm... the stockprice changed due to a split. Essentially, each $180 share from Friday is now two shared worth $92 each or $184 total.
I agree... but she did get me to start watching the show...
He's not an idiot, but you are right, he doesn't know much about computer security. He doesn't understand digital signing or what, user priveledges or secuirty policy. He doesn't understand that sometimes having source code only shows you that something is bullet-proof (knowing the 3DES algorithm doesn't really help you crack it). Yet, he claims to be a lawyer and programmer. Amazing.
Still, I have yet to see a really good answer to his scenario about trojan horses in the code. Bruce Perens raised this issue and there was a trojan horse in something (I forget).
Yeah! And no "Internet" either. All that damn technology! I want to read slashdot on paper, the way God intended.
OS/2 is a closed system owned by IBM. IBM's interests do not lie in keeping it current as a desktop OS. My interests, and those of other OS/2 users don't matter. We don't have the source. It would be cool if IBM said,"We don't want this, you take it," but that's not going to happen any time soon...
I want an OS with a future. OS/2 is great now, but in 5 years, it'll be keeping my TRS-80's company in the closet.
Yup.
It's because of your personal experiences right? They must outweigh mine because you have the gonads to stand up and attack me personally.You're catching on.
That is much better than an intelligent comment, because only wimpy geeks ever have anything intelligent to say, right?.First of all, there was an intelligent comment in there. You just can't get past one humorous dig. Intelligent comments require intelligent readers.
And no, intelligent wimpy geeks are not the only people with intelligent things to say. I post them, after all.
Non-anonymous people post stupid things, too. Consider me a case in point, if you want.
Is that simple enough for you?
Too simple. I don't see how it will have any effect whatsoever. You seem to be of the opinion that AC's are the heart of the problem. Not entirely.
Gee, Thomas Jefferson, sometimes it's an appeal to practicality based on experience.
Of course, experience also tells us that the Earth is flat and that heavier-than-air craft can't fly and you will never, ever, have a date. But these supposed limitations have been overcome be people who dared to dream! Well, two of them.
On behalf of the small-minded oppressors of progress, I invite you to share your marvelous plan for reducing the noise on slashdot comments in a manner that it totally fair and doesn't require the computing power of the NSA.
Can't think of one? Oh well, Welcome to the Real World.
The same people who make sure that everything in life is perfectly fair: nobody.
There will be mistakes made in moderation. That's the price of a managable system. Welcome to Real Life(tm).
The downside to this would be the possibility that a brilliant respone to a stupid post would be lost.
Just an idea.
Drugs.
I visited the site and looked around. I found the technical information on it to be pretty accurate, considering it was part of a marketting campaign for a luggage company. I saw the term "cracker" used correctly in one place .
Furthermoe, this VP is correct: "hacker" is in common use when "cracker" is the correct term. Words often change their meaning over time as they are used in varying ways. I guess a community of people who rarely have face-to-face conversations might find this feature of language surprising.
I thought the campaign was a bit patronizing and aimed at wannabees and newbies. Of course, "hacker" lost any meaning for me the first time I heard someone claim to be a hacker when they'd never programmed in assembler. As if.
If you're really offended by Kippling's campaign, maybe you should go out and stage a protest. Oops, I suggested going out. Never mind. Go back to arguing over emacs and vi in IRC.
Personally, I think am neutral towards hate per se, but am intollerant of ignorance. There are people I genuinely hate, but not because of unsupportable beliefs about the color of their skin or whatnot.
That said, the Al Gore bashing on this topic is getting a little under my skin. Al Gore didn't "invent" the Internet I used in college 15 years ago, but he had a lot to do with creating the publicly accessable Intenet I'm using from home today.
Is it $99 worth of difference? I don't know, I don't think very many people know for sure.
I'd be happy to pay the extra $99 (for a laptop -- I put my own desktop systems together) if and only if Microsoft doesn't get a dime of my purchase.