no, this is just intellectual dishonesty, sophistry, or you're just stupid
marijuana should be legal, but there's drugs out there where the effects are so horrible, they should stay illegal. simply because the effects of those drugs being illegal, while bad, are less than the effects drugs being legal: screwed up lives
methamphetamine. what this shit does to you? permanently? this shit should be legal?
then we get into a discussion about how safe environments and how carefully monitored dosing prevents tragedies
what the fuck?
when did society get in the business of enabling drug use?
if someone has fallen through the cracks and is addicted to drugs, society should treat this person, not put them in jail. but this should be reactive, not proactively enable "safe" use of highly addictive substances that really fuck up your life. addiction is a REAL PROBLEM, not a vague idea that a little application of will power can get over.
of course, some treatment is ineffective. with more resources, they might be effective
well yeah, with inffinite resources, even the most helpless basically suicidal self-destructive addict can be saved
but we don't live in a world of infinite resources
there's a difference between recreational casual use, and a person that is basically trying to kill themselves in slow motion
highly addictive substances have probably destroyed more lives in the history of homo sapiens than all wars combined, by orders of magnitude. making it all legal really just enables a lot of us walking around with the seeds of self-destruction to go full blown self-destructive. there has to be a barrier in society against the use of really vile substances
you have to understand what chronic drug use really is: suicide. society is not interested in enabling suicidal tendencies. therefore, there will always be illegal substances. come to grips with this, naive idealists
don't engage in sophistry and reductive nonsense when you talk about drugs. it is one of the most if not most complicated issues ever to face mankind. there are no easy answers, and there is really just a lot of pain, no matter what the legal approach
all i can say about drug use with certainty is this: as soon as someone says the answer is simple, and that simple answer is complete legalization or complete prohibition, you are dealing with a fucking moron who doesn't understand drugs
you are blaming google for what china is doing, and you are not giving google any credit for being subtle, perhaps because you are a person who doesn't understand anything subtle
china is going to censor the web. with google or without google
now anyone with an iq over 50 can tell why their connection is breaking: it's not google, it's china being a censor
they didn't carefully avoid anything, they didn't say "china is censoring us" because then china would cut off google
well yeah, scientists are always improving their models. this is why you can trust them, because they admit to unavoidable error and correct for it to the best of current abilities. eventually, the gray area is so small that you can trust them within an acceptable margin of error
what are you saying? that because there is a gray area in their model at all, no mattter how small, their model is completely unusable?
what is superior in your mind? just making shit up, covering your ears, and attacking anyone who questions you?
i actually think if someone is engaged in unsafe sex, gay or not, they should be penalized, since this has societal costs. if you have aids, and you know it, and you knowingly have unsafe sex with someone else, gay or not, you should be punished
and you don't have to make fat people pay more for healthcare, nor do you have to ban large sugary drinks
you just have to tax the hell out of it, like cigarettes
go ahead, enjoy your large soda... that'll be $20 please
health insurance is already mandated, by common morality
if you show up at the hospital, unable to pay, we treat you, and pass the bill onto the taxpayer via state bailout of the hospital
all the argument about socialized universal healthcare is a joke: we've already had it, for decades
now all that we ask is all the ignorant freeloaders whargarbbbling about "freedom" (from responsibility), to pay their fair share of the healthcare safety net which they already enjoy
furthermore, i agree: people who make unhealthy choices should pay higher insurance rates
because such a person doesn't exist, unless you are worth 6 figures. and even those people worth 6 figures are smart enough to have health insurance
meanwhile, everyone else bloviating about not being forced to purchase health insurance don't have $50K sitting in their bank account for emergencies
they are one slip and fall away from having a broken arm and avoiding the bill when it comes in the mail
the hilarious irony is that these losers vomit ignorance about not wanting to pay for lazy poor people's insurance. when the truth is THEY are the freeloaders!
we already have socialized universal healthcare: when people can't pay their healthcare bills in the USA, it gets passed to the taxpayer via state bailout so the hospital doesn't go bankrupt
now all we ask is that these ignorant assholes whargarrbbbling about freedom (from responsibility) pay their fucking fair share
or is it that you deserve the "freedom" to be a freeloading douchebag off the rest of us, is that your position?
the teenager definition "i can do whatever i want with no concern for the consequences"
the adult definition "i can do anything i want that doesn't harm someone else"
for example, the "right" to speed is freedom according to a teenager, as a teenager will never crash their car and hurt an innocent driver who had the ill fortune of sharing the road with the idiot
the "right" to smoke is freedom according to a teenager, as a teenager only exhales pure filtered air in the face of fellow pedestrians and housemates and doesn't raise the healthcare insurance costs of anyone else
likewise, the "right" to mainline fructose is freedom according to a teenager, see healthcare argument above
please note: the term "teenager" in the context of this comment is a mental function measurement independent of chronological age. there are plenty of chronological teenagers who are mental adults and morally mature, and there are 40 year old gasbags who still define freedom according to a mental teenager's definition
you're not actually going to tell me that the two highest rated posts right now are two morons wringing their hands about cruelty to cockroaches
if we're going to talk about proportionality, scale, and context in your "morality", do your brains undergo nuclear fission when viewing the youtube video of the kids massacred in houla?
now, of course, a reply to my post will be a lecture about how horrible homo sapiens is, so little kids deserve to be massacred, it doesn't matter, but cockroaches are beautiful creatures full of love and feeling
fuck it, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em:
can we repeat this experiment with the leg of a PETA member?
Of course, if only a handful did it, the lawyer goons would stamp you out mercilessly and put you in something as close to debtors prison as currently legally possible.
But you could also have an "I am Spartacus" moment:
The controversy was further escalated in early May 2007, when aggregate news site Digg received a DMCA cease and desist notice and then removed numerous articles on the matter and banned users reposting the information.[7] This sparked what some describe as a digital revolt[8] or "cyber-riot",[9] in which users posted and spread the key on Digg, and throughout the Internet en masse, thereby leading to the Streisand effect. The AACS LA described this situation as an "interesting new twist".[10]
At first, websites and individuals were bullied into censoring the hex number. But as the outrage grew, a trickle turned into a torrent, and the bullying tactics were turned into a joke: their bullying dynamic turned against them.
I'm wondering if the same dynamic could apply to mirroring TPB?
That is, we aren't talking about something as simple as a hex number, but if the issue can be framed as a simple webpage to cut and paste, or I don't know, a bit of javascript, something that can easily be encapsulated, something simple and small that people can easily cut and paste all over the web, in revolt, then we have the making for the same PR failure dynamic as the HD-DVD hex number.
Their own menace on our freedoms can be harnessed to turn public outrage against bullying tactics into a final verdict in the court of public opinion on these IP law douchebags.
Anyway, just a tactic that might be worth considering, in some form or another.
right, and the SEALs who stormed the compound were given orders to capture, only kill if necessary. not to "kill them all
or is it that you like giving bin laden what he wants?
think of the torture and misery for him to be paraded around as a captured criminal. don't you find that resolution superior? if so, then you agree that "kill them all" sucks as an attitude
if your enemy kills with surprise attacks on civilians, and you respond with surprise attacks on civilians meant to kill, then you and your enemy are the same, and so whomever wins, it makes no difference. no moral progress has been achieved
if your enemy kills with surprise attacks on civilians, and you respond with measured wisdom and forceful lawful action and political agitation, then you are morally superior to your enemy, and if you prevail in the court of public opinion and the resulting political will, then you have achieved moral progress
but killing war merchants and nuclear bomb scientists by surprise in civilian settings only makes you the moral equivalent of war merchants and nuclear bomb scientists
In most countries, you are a citizen of that country, and that's that.
That the UK/ Great Britain/ England/ whatever has a crazy patchwork of overlapping national identities, allegiances, and historical intricacies is your fucking problem, not the world's.
Don't expect us to know about your petty nationalistic bullshit, keep track of it, or fucking care.
cables can be cut, power can be switched off, frequencies can be jammed
the health of the internet is merely a reflection of the health of society. so focus your efforts on the keeping society's attitude healthy. that's your best, and only defense, to keeping the internet truly free
there is no such thing as a technical fix to a sociological problem
yes, it's like arguing crime with gun control haters, they always have amazing statistics to pull out of their arse, that are either outright lies, mistakes, bad studies or extremely misleading ways of looking at the data (purposely designed by think tanks for you to cite your mythology)
Slashdot Mirror
lsd is a drug
caffeine is a drug
therefore, they are the same legal entity
no, this is just intellectual dishonesty, sophistry, or you're just stupid
marijuana should be legal, but there's drugs out there where the effects are so horrible, they should stay illegal. simply because the effects of those drugs being illegal, while bad, are less than the effects drugs being legal: screwed up lives
methamphetamine. what this shit does to you? permanently? this shit should be legal?
then we get into a discussion about how safe environments and how carefully monitored dosing prevents tragedies
what the fuck?
when did society get in the business of enabling drug use?
if someone has fallen through the cracks and is addicted to drugs, society should treat this person, not put them in jail. but this should be reactive, not proactively enable "safe" use of highly addictive substances that really fuck up your life. addiction is a REAL PROBLEM, not a vague idea that a little application of will power can get over.
of course, some treatment is ineffective. with more resources, they might be effective
well yeah, with inffinite resources, even the most helpless basically suicidal self-destructive addict can be saved
but we don't live in a world of infinite resources
there's a difference between recreational casual use, and a person that is basically trying to kill themselves in slow motion
highly addictive substances have probably destroyed more lives in the history of homo sapiens than all wars combined, by orders of magnitude. making it all legal really just enables a lot of us walking around with the seeds of self-destruction to go full blown self-destructive. there has to be a barrier in society against the use of really vile substances
you have to understand what chronic drug use really is: suicide. society is not interested in enabling suicidal tendencies. therefore, there will always be illegal substances. come to grips with this, naive idealists
don't engage in sophistry and reductive nonsense when you talk about drugs. it is one of the most if not most complicated issues ever to face mankind. there are no easy answers, and there is really just a lot of pain, no matter what the legal approach
all i can say about drug use with certainty is this: as soon as someone says the answer is simple, and that simple answer is complete legalization or complete prohibition, you are dealing with a fucking moron who doesn't understand drugs
you are blaming google for what china is doing, and you are not giving google any credit for being subtle, perhaps because you are a person who doesn't understand anything subtle
china is going to censor the web. with google or without google
now anyone with an iq over 50 can tell why their connection is breaking: it's not google, it's china being a censor
they didn't carefully avoid anything, they didn't say "china is censoring us" because then china would cut off google
do you understand now?
who wrote stuxnet
well yeah, scientists are always improving their models. this is why you can trust them, because they admit to unavoidable error and correct for it to the best of current abilities. eventually, the gray area is so small that you can trust them within an acceptable margin of error
what are you saying? that because there is a gray area in their model at all, no mattter how small, their model is completely unusable?
what is superior in your mind? just making shit up, covering your ears, and attacking anyone who questions you?
i actually think if someone is engaged in unsafe sex, gay or not, they should be penalized, since this has societal costs. if you have aids, and you know it, and you knowingly have unsafe sex with someone else, gay or not, you should be punished
and you don't have to make fat people pay more for healthcare, nor do you have to ban large sugary drinks
you just have to tax the hell out of it, like cigarettes
go ahead, enjoy your large soda... that'll be $20 please
"we just need a sliding scale deductible single payer health insurance system"
well, if you feel a need to insult me, go ahead, since you agree with me 100% ideologically
health insurance is already mandated, by common morality
if you show up at the hospital, unable to pay, we treat you, and pass the bill onto the taxpayer via state bailout of the hospital
all the argument about socialized universal healthcare is a joke: we've already had it, for decades
now all that we ask is all the ignorant freeloaders whargarbbbling about "freedom" (from responsibility), to pay their fair share of the healthcare safety net which they already enjoy
furthermore, i agree: people who make unhealthy choices should pay higher insurance rates
because such a person doesn't exist, unless you are worth 6 figures. and even those people worth 6 figures are smart enough to have health insurance
meanwhile, everyone else bloviating about not being forced to purchase health insurance don't have $50K sitting in their bank account for emergencies
they are one slip and fall away from having a broken arm and avoiding the bill when it comes in the mail
the hilarious irony is that these losers vomit ignorance about not wanting to pay for lazy poor people's insurance. when the truth is THEY are the freeloaders!
we already have socialized universal healthcare: when people can't pay their healthcare bills in the USA, it gets passed to the taxpayer via state bailout so the hospital doesn't go bankrupt
now all we ask is that these ignorant assholes whargarrbbbling about freedom (from responsibility) pay their fucking fair share
or is it that you deserve the "freedom" to be a freeloading douchebag off the rest of us, is that your position?
there's two definitions of freedom:
the teenager definition "i can do whatever i want with no concern for the consequences"
the adult definition "i can do anything i want that doesn't harm someone else"
for example, the "right" to speed is freedom according to a teenager, as a teenager will never crash their car and hurt an innocent driver who had the ill fortune of sharing the road with the idiot
the "right" to smoke is freedom according to a teenager, as a teenager only exhales pure filtered air in the face of fellow pedestrians and housemates and doesn't raise the healthcare insurance costs of anyone else
likewise, the "right" to mainline fructose is freedom according to a teenager, see healthcare argument above
please note: the term "teenager" in the context of this comment is a mental function measurement independent of chronological age. there are plenty of chronological teenagers who are mental adults and morally mature, and there are 40 year old gasbags who still define freedom according to a mental teenager's definition
you're not actually going to tell me that the two highest rated posts right now are two morons wringing their hands about cruelty to cockroaches
if we're going to talk about proportionality, scale, and context in your "morality", do your brains undergo nuclear fission when viewing the youtube video of the kids massacred in houla?
now, of course, a reply to my post will be a lecture about how horrible homo sapiens is, so little kids deserve to be massacred, it doesn't matter, but cockroaches are beautiful creatures full of love and feeling
fuck it, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em:
can we repeat this experiment with the leg of a PETA member?
you get the ability you want, and a dog
you want an inert stupid gadget instead?
Oreo-sniffing dogs still useless, and annoying
Of course, if only a handful did it, the lawyer goons would stamp you out mercilessly and put you in something as close to debtors prison as currently legally possible.
But you could also have an "I am Spartacus" moment:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-8h_v_our_Q
Anyone remember this 5 years ago?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy
At first, websites and individuals were bullied into censoring the hex number. But as the outrage grew, a trickle turned into a torrent, and the bullying tactics were turned into a joke: their bullying dynamic turned against them.
I'm wondering if the same dynamic could apply to mirroring TPB?
That is, we aren't talking about something as simple as a hex number, but if the issue can be framed as a simple webpage to cut and paste, or I don't know, a bit of javascript, something that can easily be encapsulated, something simple and small that people can easily cut and paste all over the web, in revolt, then we have the making for the same PR failure dynamic as the HD-DVD hex number.
Their own menace on our freedoms can be harnessed to turn public outrage against bullying tactics into a final verdict in the court of public opinion on these IP law douchebags.
Anyway, just a tactic that might be worth considering, in some form or another.
right, and the SEALs who stormed the compound were given orders to capture, only kill if necessary. not to "kill them all
or is it that you like giving bin laden what he wants?
think of the torture and misery for him to be paraded around as a captured criminal. don't you find that resolution superior? if so, then you agree that "kill them all" sucks as an attitude
Is your country the one where Arold Scharzenegger is from?
Or Croodile Dunee?
if your enemy kills with surprise attacks on civilians, and you respond with surprise attacks on civilians meant to kill, then you and your enemy are the same, and so whomever wins, it makes no difference. no moral progress has been achieved
if your enemy kills with surprise attacks on civilians, and you respond with measured wisdom and forceful lawful action and political agitation, then you are morally superior to your enemy, and if you prevail in the court of public opinion and the resulting political will, then you have achieved moral progress
but killing war merchants and nuclear bomb scientists by surprise in civilian settings only makes you the moral equivalent of war merchants and nuclear bomb scientists
You do realize that by thinking the way you do you are only demonstrating that you are exactly like the people you hate, perhaps worse?
In most countries, you are a citizen of that country, and that's that.
That the UK/ Great Britain/ England/ whatever has a crazy patchwork of overlapping national identities, allegiances, and historical intricacies is your fucking problem, not the world's.
Don't expect us to know about your petty nationalistic bullshit, keep track of it, or fucking care.
1. a scarier version of stuxnet
2. a Facebook smarphone
3. secret backdoors on military chips
4. workplace havoc because of OS fake holidays
I was going to accuse Slashdot of fearmongering, until I doublechecked and found out that, yes, Facebook really is trying to build a smartphone.
The Apocalypse is near.
6 ring carbon is too constrained to link within each other, so pick some other ring structures:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterocyclic_compound
or better yet, a different ring structure for each color (yellow would be cyclo-octasulfur, pyridine for green, etc.)
then build them interlocking
to actually formulate this would win the team a nobel prize, so complex would it be
oh... a nobel, not an olympics gold
cables can be cut, power can be switched off, frequencies can be jammed
the health of the internet is merely a reflection of the health of society. so focus your efforts on the keeping society's attitude healthy. that's your best, and only defense, to keeping the internet truly free
there is no such thing as a technical fix to a sociological problem
but ripe for abuse
they should call it the doomsday machine
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cmCKJi3CKGE
there is only one race, homo sapiens
there are many tribes
poor troll
yes, it's like arguing crime with gun control haters, they always have amazing statistics to pull out of their arse, that are either outright lies, mistakes, bad studies or extremely misleading ways of looking at the data (purposely designed by think tanks for you to cite your mythology)
or, you could just look at the damn ice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northwest_Passage#Effects_of_climate_change
deny the ice, ignorant propagandized motherfucker
http://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/indusclient.php?id=E01