a little too minimalistic. Searching through their data for the perfect apartment or furniture can be kind of a pain given the limited sorts of information you can specify in a search.
If anyone were to do a better version of craigslist, it would be google. I'd like them to put some of their data mining and search expertise to work to be able to search over every apartment that is going to be on sale when I move.
XP SP2 is ancient, and doesn't have tons of drivers for things as basic as SATA (for your harddrive), or new network interface cards. This makes win XP installation on newer machines a nightmare.
Are they going to be selling win XP SP3 cd's with SP3 and drivers?
As a side note, reading the download page and spec was pretty funny. They must have mentioned "XP SP3 doesn't contain new features" (it actually does contain new features if you read further) like 5 or 6 times. Someone is pretty scared that XP is going to kill Vista.
I agree that China deserves criticism; however, don't get your politics mixed up with your philosophy.
Moral relativism is a fact of life. There is no ultimate moral law that everyone agrees on, because there is no ultimate moral *lawgiver* legislate moral law.
The world doesn't care if you get murdered, eaten, or whatever. If it happens, the only thing that can saw whether it was good or bad are humans, and probably not everyone will agree. Obviously, whoever kills you isn't going to think it's a bad thing.
The canonical example is the value system relationship between predator and prey. A lamb, if it could think, would think that wolves are evil, and that sheep, not doing evil things like eating sheep, are good. A wolf on the other hand thinks that sheep are delicious, and doesn't consider itself evil anymore than I consider myself evil when I eat a hamburger. The world itself doesn't give a damn either way.
I'm not saying that *you* have to agree or even *respect* someone else's values, but I'm saying that *they exist*. You have the right to say those values are stupid, but if you fail to acknowledge that some people think differently from you, you are just sticking your head in the ground and acting like an idiot.
>'Who is abusing human rights? >Who is bringing violence to this world?'
Actually, I wish I knew where to post on some of these blogs so I could respond to some of this ridiculous stuff. Of course the fact that the majority of this is Chinese language stuff causes extra problems.
Sadly, due to massive censorship, many Chinese know very little about their own country's history. Even the (large number) students living in the US typically don't know about things like Tienanmen square. Students at the University of Washington, where I go, held protests last weekend when the Dalai Llama visited which involved flying a plane over the school with a banner insulting him.
I think the best thing anyone could do to get around the massive censorship would be to use the internet to engage Chinese *in China* with information about what is happening in their country that has been kept secret internally.
Additionally, I wish that the large number of students who come to the US would be in some ways engaged by the universities here. It would make sense to require them to take Chinese history classes taught by an education system that is actually free to teach history that actually happened.
Whatever complaints I might have about the US education system, it is true that history is discussed more freely than in other countries where censorship of embarrassing details is rampant. Things the various acts of persecution and extermination that took place against native peoples in the US, plus things like slavery, and the internment of Japanese during the war, and various atrocities committed against civilians WWII and the Vietnam war, and even the current Iraq war are well known and discussed in history classes. This kind of freedom of information is rare even in democratic countries.
>The problem then becomes one of supply - >how do you get the Solar Thermal riches of >the Sahara up to Europe without massive >power losses.
That is the best point I have seen in this thread, which otherwise has been filled with people who don't seem to understand that the reason that solar power isn't widely deployed is that there are real problems with scaling it up, that may not be solvable.
Power lines are just copper and they have a lot of resistance, which means that we lose a lot of power over distance.
Superconductors are the solution to this problem. However, currently the only superconductors we have require that they be cooled to work... and cooling costs more energy than you lose through resistance on the line anyway, and often presents environmental problems.
So, can we develop room temperature superconductors? Maybe someday, but who knows when? 50? 100 years from now? 500? Maybe never, it might be impossible to have a room temperature superconductor. Unfortunately our energy and environmental problems aren't going to wait for this technology to appear.
>You can always store the energy as >something more transportable.
Yeah, we can just store the energy in *batteries* during night time! Brilliant! I here by award you the Nobel prize for *genius*.
Seriously, do you have any idea what the night time energy draw of the united states is? There aren't enough batteries in the country to power *one data center* through the night, let alone the whole country and all of the industry in it that has to run past dusk.
>For example, you can use the generated >electricity to turn water into Hydrogen, >and transport the Hydrogen.
Oh! I see! I thought you were an *idiot* a second ago, but you came up with this *brilliant* idea of turning electricity into *hydrogen* and just carrying it around in, you know, a fucking suitcase. What a brilliant and original idea that *president bush* the genius that *he* is wasn't talking up a few years ago before it turned out to be a totally bullshit idea.
Why didn't that pan out? Maybe it has something to do with hydrogen being an incredibly diffuse and very explosive? Nahhh.
that only 1 or 2% of global power needs are met by solar power at current time! Whereas, power generation techniques such as nuclear, which my hippie buddy Zed assures me are "bad" and will "be totally like Chernoble, like booom man," is account for some 20 odd percent of global power generation and is being expanded in many countries! Some places use nuclear almost entirely!
Apparently a crazy sect of cultists called "scientists" (who I believe live in California and are led by Tom Cruise) are contradicting the knowledgeable and sagely hippies and spreading lies about how nuclear power is actually safe when done right, and waste can be stored safely at Yucca mountain for some 10,000 years. Furthermore, they suggest that spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed so that it will have a significantly shorter half life, on the order of a few hundred years. I think we can safely ignore these crackpots, with their "Phd's" and other cultish paraphernalia, and listen to my friend Zed who works at greenpeace.
These same crazy scientists in an effort to derail solar panel have pointed out some problems with Zed's plans to save the world. Before we can deploy solar power plants of any size, we must address these obstacles. I am not familiar with them myself, as I don't get outside much, but I read about them on wikipedia. They are called: 1. Night time. 2. Clouds.
"Night time", judging by it's title, seems to be some kind of dark temporal force preventing the rays of the sun or "Sol" from reaching the earth. I suspect this does not exist, it even sounds like something out of a science fiction story. If it does exist, I am confident that if we set our best space/time physicists to work on it, we can eradicate this shadowy nemesis.
I'm not sure what clouds are, but according to wikipedia they are "a visible mass of droplets or frozen crystals floating in the atmosphere above the surface of the Earth or another planetary body."
I don't know about you, but this sounds like an unlikely scenario to me. I mean, water "floating in the atmosphere." Water doesn't float in the atmosphere! It stays securely packed in mountain dew bottles. I'm sure we can ignore these hypothetical "cloud" problems when building our solar panels, and they will not cause any problems.
In any case, let's ignore these so called "logistical problems" (a term that sounds like cult speak to me!) and deploy solar power globally. Zed assures me that the primary problems facing global power right now is a lack of positive thinking.
they plan to send a manned mission to Jupiter in 2100? How about a mission to alpha centauri while their at it?
Notice how people come up with fantastic plans to do space stuff in the year 2020? Bush did a similar thing with his plan to go back to the moon.
Whatever date it is, it's a date that the current people in office, will no longer be in office, or if they are, no one will remember what the plans are.
This is just an attempt by politicians to make themselves look "visionary" while actually doing nothing. If, 70 years from now when someone actually gets around to going to mars, no one is going to remember what kind of plans a bunch of jokers with no intention of providing funding pulled out of the ass in 2008.
>If Google has some project that they >estimate to be X million lines of >code to complete, they have some formula >that says "for a project with X million >lines of code, >we need Y developers to write that code, >and Z support people (HR, accounting IT >helpdesk, etc) to support those developers.
I understand that a finite number of people are needed for each software project. My argument was that there are literally an infinite number of possible software projects to develop, and the primary limiting factor is the available talent.
Microsoft can take on a limited number of software projects because of organizational constraints. However; I argue that since there is relatively little cost for making a startup to work on new projects, that money is not the primary constraint on creating new companies.
>there's only a finite amount of IT work >that needs to get done.
This is essentially what I do not agree with, since saying that there is a finite amount of IT work that needs to get done, is essentially saying that there is a finite amount of technology that can ever get invented.
Now, for practical purposes there *is* a finite amount of technology that can get invented in a given year. However, I argue that the primary limiting factor is the number of smart people to invent that technology. There are maybe one million programmers in the states, tops.
I'm glad that more foreign workers will be coming to the US.
Personally, had no trouble finding a good paying job coming out of college, so I can't say I see foreign workers "stealing" American programmers jobs. I've worked with many H1-B's and the like, but I've never felt like they were unskilled people here taking my job for less money. Instead, companies tend to use their *very* limited supply of H1-B's to poach the top talent from the foreign workforce, and it has generally been a joy to work with these people.
People have this knee jerk reaction that "them foreigners is taking our jobs." However, this is stupid when you are talking about high tech work.
First of all, this isn't the steel industry or the construction industry. There aren't a finite number of jobs to go around in high tech. What we see is that in practice, when there are more workers than there are secure jobs in big companies, people create their own startups in new markets that the big companies are too conservative to explore, thus creating more jobs and opening up more markets.
For all practical purposes, there are infinite jobs in the high tech industry, because it has this property of increasing the industry in size in response to excess talent.
The other reason it makes no sense to criticize allowing more foreign workers into the country is that this is part of a larger highly successful strategy that the US has always carried out where we brain drain other countries in order to keep them from competing from us technologically.
It isn't that there aren't any smart people India who couldn't start their own software company. It's that all of those guys get hired by *American* companies, and end up contributing to the *American* software industry instead of the native Indian one.
Bringing the top foreign talent here, means that we have the first pick at top people that the entire *world* has to offer working for American companies, whereas everyone else has to settle for leftovers.
If anything, the criticism that I level against the H1-B program and other temporary work pograms, is that they are temporary. We should be recruiting top foreign workers for *immigration*. Highly educated people are a *boon* to our national economy, not a drag.
Remember, that the national economy is the big picture that the government always has to keep in sight. A rising tide raises all boats, and we can't sacrifice the common welfare because of completely unsubstantiated fears that American born programmers can't get jobs.
is why haven't these things been available for years? It seems obvious that some kind of small remote controlled tread based robot with a machine gun would be extremely useful on the battlefield.
I mean, it would allow you to hit people that are defended by sniper fire and the like, without worrying about getting hit.
Amazon is based in Seattle, so Washington state residents already have to pay the roughly 8% sales tax on Amazon goods. I've always wondered if it would be ever worth it to ship expensive items to an address of a friend outside of Washington, and then just have him ship it back. This would potentially work for small items.
Since you already have to pay for goods shipped in from other states at traditional storefronts, it only makes sense to allow Amazon to be taxed.
That said, I'm generally opposed to sales taxes, as they are regressive, and think that progressive income taxation is the way to go.
>Without artificially high prices, >heroin would be pure, clean, safe
Without high prices, heroin would still destroy your life, and kill you dead, it would just be cheaper to do it.
>Millions of people buy these drugs illegally, >because they think it improves their lives.
Your post should have been titled, "in defense of tweaking." Seriously meth is bad for you, and heroin *will* kill you. Don't try to push this crap on me. I've watched enough people ruin there lives because they thought it was no big deal and they had it under control.
If you don't *need* adderal for a medical condition and you are still taking it, you have a problem. I know plenty of people on that stuff, and I know they wouldn't be if they had much of a choice. Amphetamines aren't recreational drugs (no matter how some people choose to treat them), they will fuck you up hard. Adderal might not be as bad as meth, but you aren't doing yourself any favors.
Maybe you live in too nice a neighborhood to see the effects of hard drugs, but don't spread this bullshit.
"People are either complicit or complacent. It's almost always been the case, and people are either too ignorant or too lazy to truly understand the issues - so they vote with what the media tells them, instead of researching records, facts, and generally going about things in an informed manner."
So you're just going to give up on society and escape into cynicism huh?
That's great. Everyone loves someone who complains, but does nothing.
>>Laws are made when a majority who are elected, >>hold the same philosophical beliefs create >>and vote for them.
>What planet do you live on? >Laws in the US are made when a group of >lobbyists bribe *ahem* I meant, give campaign>contributions to a sufficient number of >politicians to ensure passage of the law.
So you're going to pretend that everyone already agrees with you, and it's just "the man keeping you down" rather than making an actual argument?
The majority of people in the US don't want to see drugs legalized. If you want to make say, marijuana, legal, then you need to convince actual people in the real world instead of just whining about how unfair it is on slashdot.
>Sounds like you actually believed all >that crap in Government Class in High School.
Sounds like you've never actually voted. And yes, that does give me the right to feel contempt for your lazy ass. Cynicism is not a valid replacement for civic responsibility.
Slashdot Mirror
was on a Lenovo X61, which would not run XP outside of emulation mode until I got new SATA drivers.
I guess there are *some* SATA drivers on XP by default, but they were definitely useless to me.
a little too minimalistic. Searching through their data for the perfect apartment or furniture can be kind of a pain given the limited sorts of information you can specify in a search.
If anyone were to do a better version of craigslist, it would be google. I'd like them to put some of their data mining and search expertise to work to be able to search over every apartment that is going to be on sale when I move.
What's the difference? What is significant about a standard that no one implements being standardized fast or slow?
XP SP2 is ancient, and doesn't have tons of drivers for things as basic as SATA (for your harddrive), or new network interface cards. This makes win XP installation on newer machines a nightmare.
Are they going to be selling win XP SP3 cd's with SP3 and drivers?
As a side note, reading the download page and spec was pretty funny. They must have mentioned "XP SP3 doesn't contain new features" (it actually does contain new features if you read further) like 5 or 6 times. Someone is pretty scared that XP is going to kill Vista.
>How many other fast-tracked ISO standards have no conforming implementations?
C++?
Try out the "export" keyword next time you write any C++.
Deal with it.
I agree that China deserves criticism; however, don't get your politics mixed up with your philosophy.
Moral relativism is a fact of life. There is no ultimate moral law that everyone agrees on, because there is no ultimate moral *lawgiver* legislate moral law.
The world doesn't care if you get murdered, eaten, or whatever. If it happens, the only thing that can saw whether it was good or bad are humans, and probably not everyone will agree. Obviously, whoever kills you isn't going to think it's a bad thing.
The canonical example is the value system relationship between predator and prey. A lamb, if it could think, would think that wolves are evil, and that sheep, not doing evil things like eating sheep, are good. A wolf on the other hand thinks that sheep are delicious, and doesn't consider itself evil anymore than I consider myself evil when I eat a hamburger. The world itself doesn't give a damn either way.
I'm not saying that *you* have to agree or even *respect* someone else's values, but I'm saying that *they exist*. You have the right to say those values are stupid, but if you fail to acknowledge that some people think differently from you, you are just sticking your head in the ground and acting like an idiot.
>'Who is abusing human rights?
>Who is bringing violence to this world?'
Actually, I wish I knew where to post on some of these blogs so I could respond to some of this ridiculous stuff. Of course the fact that the majority of this is Chinese language stuff causes extra problems.
Sadly, due to massive censorship, many Chinese know very little about their own country's history. Even the (large number) students living in the US typically don't know about things like Tienanmen square. Students at the University of Washington, where I go, held protests last weekend when the Dalai Llama visited which involved flying a plane over the school with a banner insulting him.
I think the best thing anyone could do to get around the massive censorship would be to use the internet to engage Chinese *in China* with information about what is happening in their country that has been kept secret internally.
Additionally, I wish that the large number of students who come to the US would be in some ways engaged by the universities here. It would make sense to require them to take Chinese history classes taught by an education system that is actually free to teach history that actually happened.
Whatever complaints I might have about the US education system, it is true that history is discussed more freely than in other countries where censorship of embarrassing details is rampant. Things the various acts of persecution and extermination that took place against native peoples in the US, plus things like slavery, and the internment of Japanese during the war, and various atrocities committed against civilians WWII and the Vietnam war, and even the current Iraq war are well known and discussed in history classes. This kind of freedom of information is rare even in democratic countries.
>>Where are the FBI RICO investigators when you need them?
>Not in Sweden!
Yes, they are in a *real* country.
I mean, that cop could have faked all the evidence of *pirated content* being available on pirate bay.
This is obviously a conspiracy! Just like OJ...
until the google trawler starts making it's own first posts.
Are you joking? I can't tell.
>The problem then becomes one of supply -
>how do you get the Solar Thermal riches of
>the Sahara up to Europe without massive
>power losses.
That is the best point I have seen in this thread, which otherwise has been filled with people who don't seem to understand that the reason that solar power isn't widely deployed is that there are real problems with scaling it up, that may not be solvable.
Power lines are just copper and they have a lot of resistance, which means that we lose a lot of power over distance.
Superconductors are the solution to this problem. However, currently the only superconductors we have require that they be cooled to work... and cooling costs more energy than you lose through resistance on the line anyway, and often presents environmental problems.
So, can we develop room temperature superconductors? Maybe someday, but who knows when? 50? 100 years from now? 500? Maybe never, it might be impossible to have a room temperature superconductor. Unfortunately our energy and environmental problems aren't going to wait for this technology to appear.
>You can always store the energy as
>something more transportable.
Yeah, we can just store the energy in *batteries* during night time! Brilliant! I here by award you the Nobel prize for *genius*.
Seriously, do you have any idea what the night time energy draw of the united states is? There aren't enough batteries in the country to power *one data center* through the night, let alone the whole country and all of the industry in it that has to run past dusk.
>For example, you can use the generated
>electricity to turn water into Hydrogen,
>and transport the Hydrogen.
Oh! I see! I thought you were an *idiot* a second ago, but you came up with this *brilliant* idea of turning electricity into *hydrogen* and just carrying it around in, you know, a fucking suitcase. What a brilliant and original idea that *president bush* the genius that *he* is wasn't talking up a few years ago before it turned out to be a totally bullshit idea.
Why didn't that pan out? Maybe it has something to do with hydrogen being an incredibly diffuse and very explosive? Nahhh.
that only 1 or 2% of global power needs are met by solar power at current time! Whereas, power generation techniques such as nuclear, which my hippie buddy Zed assures me are "bad" and will "be totally like Chernoble, like booom man," is account for some 20 odd percent of global power generation and is being expanded in many countries! Some places use nuclear almost entirely!
Apparently a crazy sect of cultists called "scientists" (who I believe live in California and are led by Tom Cruise) are contradicting the knowledgeable and sagely hippies and spreading lies about how nuclear power is actually safe when done right, and waste can be stored safely at Yucca mountain for some 10,000 years. Furthermore, they suggest that spent nuclear fuel can be reprocessed so that it will have a significantly shorter half life, on the order of a few hundred years. I think we can safely ignore these crackpots, with their "Phd's" and other cultish paraphernalia, and listen to my friend Zed who works at greenpeace.
These same crazy scientists in an effort to derail solar panel have pointed out some problems with Zed's plans to save the world. Before we can deploy solar power plants of any size, we must address these obstacles. I am not familiar with them myself, as I don't get outside much, but I read about them on wikipedia. They are called:
1. Night time.
2. Clouds.
"Night time", judging by it's title, seems to be some kind of dark temporal force preventing the rays of the sun or "Sol" from reaching the earth. I suspect this does not exist, it even sounds like something out of a science fiction story. If it does exist, I am confident that if we set our best space/time physicists to work on it, we can eradicate this shadowy nemesis.
I'm not sure what clouds are, but according to wikipedia they are "a visible mass of droplets or frozen crystals floating in the atmosphere above the surface of the Earth or another planetary body."
I don't know about you, but this sounds like an unlikely scenario to me. I mean, water "floating in the atmosphere." Water doesn't float in the atmosphere! It stays securely packed in mountain dew bottles. I'm sure we can ignore these hypothetical "cloud" problems when building our solar panels, and they will not cause any problems.
In any case, let's ignore these so called "logistical problems" (a term that sounds like cult speak to me!) and deploy solar power globally. Zed assures me that the primary problems facing global power right now is a lack of positive thinking.
they plan to send a manned mission to Jupiter in 2100? How about a mission to alpha centauri while their at it?
Notice how people come up with fantastic plans to do space stuff in the year 2020? Bush did a similar thing with his plan to go back to the moon.
Whatever date it is, it's a date that the current people in office, will no longer be in office, or if they are, no one will remember what the plans are.
This is just an attempt by politicians to make themselves look "visionary" while actually doing nothing. If, 70 years from now when someone actually gets around to going to mars, no one is going to remember what kind of plans a bunch of jokers with no intention of providing funding pulled out of the ass in 2008.
>If Google has some project that they
>estimate to be X million lines of
>code to complete, they have some formula
>that says "for a project with X million
>lines of code,
>we need Y developers to write that code,
>and Z support people (HR, accounting IT
>helpdesk, etc) to support those developers.
I understand that a finite number of people are needed for each software project. My argument was that there are literally an infinite number of possible software projects to develop, and the primary limiting factor is the available talent.
Microsoft can take on a limited number of software projects because of organizational constraints. However; I argue that since there is relatively little cost for making a startup to work on new projects, that money is not the primary constraint on creating new companies.
>there's only a finite amount of IT work
>that needs to get done.
This is essentially what I do not agree with, since saying that there is a finite amount of IT work that needs to get done, is essentially saying that there is a finite amount of technology that can ever get invented.
Now, for practical purposes there *is* a finite amount of technology that can get invented in a given year. However, I argue that the primary limiting factor is the number of smart people to invent that technology. There are maybe one million programmers in the states, tops.
I'm glad that more foreign workers will be coming to the US.
Personally, had no trouble finding a good paying job coming out of college, so I can't say I see foreign workers "stealing" American programmers jobs. I've worked with many H1-B's and the like, but I've never felt like they were unskilled people here taking my job for less money. Instead, companies tend to use their *very* limited supply of H1-B's to poach the top talent from the foreign workforce, and it has generally been a joy to work with these people.
People have this knee jerk reaction that "them foreigners is taking our jobs." However, this is stupid when you are talking about high tech work.
First of all, this isn't the steel industry or the construction industry. There aren't a finite number of jobs to go around in high tech. What we see is that in practice, when there are more workers than there are secure jobs in big companies, people create their own startups in new markets that the big companies are too conservative to explore, thus creating more jobs and opening up more markets.
For all practical purposes, there are infinite jobs in the high tech industry, because it has this property of increasing the industry in size in response to excess talent.
The other reason it makes no sense to criticize allowing more foreign workers into the country is that this is part of a larger highly successful strategy that the US has always carried out where we brain drain other countries in order to keep them from competing from us technologically.
It isn't that there aren't any smart people India who couldn't start their own software company. It's that all of those guys get hired by *American* companies, and end up contributing to the *American* software industry instead of the native Indian one.
Bringing the top foreign talent here, means that we have the first pick at top people that the entire *world* has to offer working for American companies, whereas everyone else has to settle for leftovers.
If anything, the criticism that I level against the H1-B program and other temporary work pograms, is that they are temporary. We should be recruiting top foreign workers for *immigration*. Highly educated people are a *boon* to our national economy, not a drag.
Remember, that the national economy is the big picture that the government always has to keep in sight. A rising tide raises all boats, and we can't sacrifice the common welfare because of completely unsubstantiated fears that American born programmers can't get jobs.
to put down the robot rebellion.
Now if only they could do something about *Iraqi* rebellion, we'd be in business.
is why haven't these things been available for years? It seems obvious that some kind of small remote controlled tread based robot with a machine gun would be extremely useful on the battlefield.
I mean, it would allow you to hit people that are defended by sniper fire and the like, without worrying about getting hit.
Amazon is based in Seattle, so Washington state residents already have to pay the roughly 8% sales tax on Amazon goods. I've always wondered if it would be ever worth it to ship expensive items to an address of a friend outside of Washington, and then just have him ship it back. This would potentially work for small items.
Since you already have to pay for goods shipped in from other states at traditional storefronts, it only makes sense to allow Amazon to be taxed.
That said, I'm generally opposed to sales taxes, as they are regressive, and think that progressive income taxation is the way to go.
license the patent from boeing?
>Without artificially high prices,
>heroin would be pure, clean, safe
Without high prices, heroin would still destroy your life, and kill you dead, it would just be cheaper to do it.
>Millions of people buy these drugs illegally,
>because they think it improves their lives.
Your post should have been titled, "in defense of tweaking." Seriously meth is bad for you, and heroin *will* kill you. Don't try to push this crap on me. I've watched enough people ruin there lives because they thought it was no big deal and they had it under control.
If you don't *need* adderal for a medical condition and you are still taking it, you have a problem. I know plenty of people on that stuff, and I know they wouldn't be if they had much of a choice. Amphetamines aren't recreational drugs (no matter how some people choose to treat them), they will fuck you up hard. Adderal might not be as bad as meth, but you aren't doing yourself any favors.
Maybe you live in too nice a neighborhood to see the effects of hard drugs, but don't spread this bullshit.
Starcraft II has been delayed indefinitely again so that blizzard can concentrate on it's more profitable World of Warcraft franchise.
"People are either complicit or complacent. It's almost always been the case, and people are either too ignorant or too lazy to truly understand the issues - so they vote with what the media tells them, instead of researching records, facts, and generally going about things in an informed manner."
So you're just going to give up on society and escape into cynicism huh?
That's great. Everyone loves someone who complains, but does nothing.
>>Laws are made when a majority who are elected,
>>hold the same philosophical beliefs create
>>and vote for them.
>What planet do you live on?
>Laws in the US are made when a group of
>lobbyists bribe *ahem* I meant, give campaign>contributions to a sufficient number of
>politicians to ensure passage of the law.
So you're going to pretend that everyone already agrees with you, and it's just "the man keeping you down" rather than making an actual argument?
The majority of people in the US don't want to see drugs legalized. If you want to make say, marijuana, legal, then you need to convince actual people in the real world instead of just whining about how unfair it is on slashdot.
>Sounds like you actually believed all
>that crap in Government Class in High School.
Sounds like you've never actually voted. And yes, that does give me the right to feel contempt for your lazy ass. Cynicism is not a valid replacement for civic responsibility.