in charge of the movie, music, television, book, and print media industries, you have these guys who clawed their way to the top in an era of typewriters and cassette tapes and celluloid and NTSC and stopping the presses. the golden age of media
which the internet has killed
but these guys have invested decades of their lives in a status quo which went **POOF**, just when they get the point where they are at the helm
naturally, they are bitter. they've been screwed by history. they call it disruptive technology for a reason
so the rest of us will have to suffer awhile while these media dinosaurs hem and haw and throw chairs and grow purple faced and otherwise rage against the dying if the light. and then they're dead, and then those working in the media trenches now with a firm grasp of what the internet actually means will finally move into power, and maybe we can put all of this clashing of the eras behind us, and all these absolutely moronic laws and policies we keep making fun of here on slashdot, for good reason
for breeding the most industrial strength bomb proof P2P possible
oh, you had some other goal in mind? you really thought draconian legislation would somehow stop filesharing? you're that fucking stupid?
here's some intellectual charity for you assholes: making a fancy law is meaningless without enforceability. i will gladly make a bet on who wins this contest-
1. your legion of lawyer diplomats
versus
2. tens of millions of media hungry, technically skilled, and most importantly, POOR teenagers
all that time generating content, looking for feedback, and getting back nothing: its debilitating. then they find out they've been tricked. a second negative dose: even more discouragement
the point is to discourage the troll, stop them in their tracks, get them to think before posting. the rubber room is a huge dose of poison for their behavior. of course they will find out what happened, but you've given them a big amount of grief, to make them think about their behavior
and that's really the best you could ever hope to do with some of these cranks
for a moment there i thought you were advocating for extreme authoritarianism: a government that doles out addictive drugs to its citizens. talk about mind control. what an orwellian nightmare (shudder)
drug use results in a degeneration of the mind. often times this can be a pleasant experience. but how can a mind degenerated of its abilities make great creative works? you need all your faculties to make a great artistic creation
lsd users often report seeing the mind of god, or understanding the entire scope of their lives. they even aim to draw what they see or write it down. and, in the throes of their trip, they are indeed seeing the face of god as they transcribe it. then they sober up the next day, and see that all they drew were three wavy lines and a stick, or their great poem reads "catz in europe. seeds. mr. hufflntn. snnr"
no, drug use does not increase creativity. i don't know where this stupid pop culture assumption comes from
were it not for the fact that when drug addicts destroy their lives, they often destroy other lives too
in other words, drug addiction is not something that occurs in a vacuum, with ill effects only for the user. drug addiction impacts society in general in a number of ways, in tangible (social services) and intangible (crime increase) costs, and it impacts relationships and jobs in a myriad of tragic ways, large and small
i would love to turn off my human empathy and just walk by drug addicts rotting in the street. but i understand the cost that addict has on society, and for that addict's family/ employer. not to mention, finally, the cost to that addict's own life (which you say we shouldn't care about)
so you want the GOVERNMENT to hand out addictive drugs?
think about that for a second, moron
in the name of the fight for freedom from oppressive government policy, you want to hand government the greatest tool of oppression possible: addictive drugs
i'm sorry, but in a world where the government is doling out heroin, freedom really is dead
people worry about the government having national id cards or keeping tabs on your internet posting. people complain about the opiates of the masses: television and entertainment news, killing our minds
and here you sit, advocating that the government become the drug dealer!
how much does it cost to prevent the creation of the addict in the first place?
yes: there is a committed hardcore group of slow motion suicide types who will always get drugs, no matter what
but there is a much larger group of casual idiots who, if denied easy access, simply don't take the drug. and then don't become addicts. and then mature. and then live addiction free lives
it is for the sake of the second group that the war on drugs is waged, and is cost effective
then i fully support it as a valid tactic in the war on drugs
because portugal, of course, understands that drugs are destructive and the goal is to reduce their use, despite the fact that some deluded fools think portugal's experiment means something else
i only have a problem with the fools who believe drugs are harmless, or worse, as you suggest, that they are good for you, good for your creativity
no: a creative person needs no drugs to be creative. drug use in creative people is a contemporaneous phenomenon. creative people, because of the way they see the world, often live on the edges of society. and this puts them in the same company as other people who live on the edge of society, like drug addicts. there are plenty of drug addicts who are not creative. there are plenty of creative people who do not take drugs. there's no connection, not a cause and effect relationship. if the beatles never had a drop of a drug in their entire lives, they'd still make great music, because the source of their creativity is their fertile minds, not the temporary reduction of that mind into a drug stupor now and then, for reasons of recreation, not creation
you aren't dealing with sophisticated tor and proxy users and ip spoofing, you're dealing with the local technically barely literate cranks. so just enforce ip bans. or even cookies. these guys are sitting at home on one computer, not even in a coffee shop. and you're probably only dealing with 12-24 committed griefers only, so its not an endless problem
finally, i was always a fan of the rubber room (there may be a better term for this technique):
once you've flagged the committed griefer, make it so his comments only appear to him. oftentimes these hacks will comment freely and continually for months on end, completely oblivious to the fact that no one is reading their comments except themselves
of course, the committed slow motion suicide loser is going to get any drug he wants. drugs will always be available, but policy has a real effect on ease of access
meanwhile, there is a much larger class of casual idiot who, when denied easy access, simply just don't take the drug. then they mature and grow up... unaddicted
it is in the name of saving the casual idiot, not the committed unredeemable slow motion suicide loser, that heroin, meth, cocaine are illegal
marijuana should be legal. heck, psilocybin, lsd, hallucinogens: these should also be legal because they aren't addictive. well, except for the whole walk out a window part... hmmm... requires some thought. how do you enforce the "use with a babysitter" part? people are by nature irresponsible
however, the hardcore inebriating highly addictive drugs like cocaine, meth, heroin: easier access simply means more addicts, more destroyed lives. that's why they should be illegal
the worst jail in the most orwellian government authoritarian nightmare you can imagine, doesn't begin to compare to the bars drug addiction places in the mind. unless of course, that government destroyed people's freedom by force addicting them to heroin
where before a mind might contemplate philosophy, literature, art, now you have an interrupt cycle which turns this person into a drug seeking zombie
in the entire history of mankind, no entity has destroyed more freedom than drug use. governments are a far second place also ran
i argue with people about drug policy all the time, and it just absolutely floors me how all of the harm is from governmental policy, and no one ever admits to the harm the actual drug does on human lives. its amazing. the arguments against drug policy, are, in a way, the classic rationalization of the average addict: "its the world's fault, not mine"
in a world where drug addicts only hurt themselves. if only
there's a saying: when you have a hammer in your hand, every problem begins to look like a nail
with easy access to drug euphorias, people being to "solve" (aka, avoid) the problems in their lives with drugs, rather than make difficult and painful life changes for their own good. so with free and easy access to highly addictive drugs, all you get is a horde of zombies who can't hold down a relationship or a job (and you have to feed and clothe them)
of course marijuana should be legal. that marijuana is illegal is fucking retarded. but cocaine, heroin, meth: no, way too inebriating and addictive. if you really understand these drugs (not: "i know some guy who knew somebody who said it wasn't a problem" anecdotal bullshit) you understand why they should never be legal
have you happened to notice the number of starbucks around town?
is it because people just love hot bitter drinks first thing in the morning? is it because we prohibited coffee?
what prohibition does is increase mafia involvement. and for things like alcohol, marijuana, caffiene, nicotine, etc., the negative side effects of prohibition outweigh the negative effects of the drug. but for things like cocaine, heroin, meth: the addictive effects of the drugs themselves are worse than any prohibition effects
Slashdot Mirror
where pedophilia isn't real, its just a propagandistic fearmongering tool to control people and remove their freedoms
you can't possibly be suggesting that pedophilia actually happens and that pedophiles must be caught and punished, are you?
you have no rights whatsoever about what is done with that post
you act like it's your property, and that you have certain rights about how your post is treated
which is obviously insane, and i have no idea why you have this silly idea
why do you think an internet forum owns you any warranty about how your post is treated? what is the basis for this premise in your mind?
so the irish are asserting that there are financial benefits in adapting this prismatic fibre optic technology?
in other words, there is a pot of gold, at the end of the rainbow?
where did the irish get such an idea?
in charge of the movie, music, television, book, and print media industries, you have these guys who clawed their way to the top in an era of typewriters and cassette tapes and celluloid and NTSC and stopping the presses. the golden age of media
which the internet has killed
but these guys have invested decades of their lives in a status quo which went **POOF**, just when they get the point where they are at the helm
naturally, they are bitter. they've been screwed by history. they call it disruptive technology for a reason
so the rest of us will have to suffer awhile while these media dinosaurs hem and haw and throw chairs and grow purple faced and otherwise rage against the dying if the light. and then they're dead, and then those working in the media trenches now with a firm grasp of what the internet actually means will finally move into power, and maybe we can put all of this clashing of the eras behind us, and all these absolutely moronic laws and policies we keep making fun of here on slashdot, for good reason
one can hope, anyways
enlighten us
(crickets)
against drug control than comparing it to completely unrelated issues
i can't really respond to you because you're all over the place and quite ridiculous
this is what you are asking me to argue against:
"you can't pass laws against burglary because people will still burgle, and why don't you pass laws against selfishness since that's the same thing!"
whu?
for breeding the most industrial strength bomb proof P2P possible
oh, you had some other goal in mind? you really thought draconian legislation would somehow stop filesharing? you're that fucking stupid?
here's some intellectual charity for you assholes: making a fancy law is meaningless without enforceability. i will gladly make a bet on who wins this contest-
1. your legion of lawyer diplomats
versus
2. tens of millions of media hungry, technically skilled, and most importantly, POOR teenagers
ding, ding, ding!
round 1, place your bets
all that time generating content, looking for feedback, and getting back nothing: its debilitating. then they find out they've been tricked. a second negative dose: even more discouragement
the point is to discourage the troll, stop them in their tracks, get them to think before posting. the rubber room is a huge dose of poison for their behavior. of course they will find out what happened, but you've given them a big amount of grief, to make them think about their behavior
and that's really the best you could ever hope to do with some of these cranks
is that you don't like the uneducated, the lazy, and religious evangelists. good for you, neither do i
but what any of that rant has to do with drug addiction, is beyond me
for a moment there i thought you were advocating for extreme authoritarianism: a government that doles out addictive drugs to its citizens. talk about mind control. what an orwellian nightmare (shudder)
and i pride myself on my creativity
but none of that matters
please describe to me the mechanism by which drug use makes someone more creative. there is none. its just an ignorant pop culture meme
drug use results in a degeneration of the mind. often times this can be a pleasant experience. but how can a mind degenerated of its abilities make great creative works? you need all your faculties to make a great artistic creation
lsd users often report seeing the mind of god, or understanding the entire scope of their lives. they even aim to draw what they see or write it down. and, in the throes of their trip, they are indeed seeing the face of god as they transcribe it. then they sober up the next day, and see that all they drew were three wavy lines and a stick, or their great poem reads "catz in europe. seeds. mr. hufflntn. snnr"
no, drug use does not increase creativity. i don't know where this stupid pop culture assumption comes from
were it not for the fact that when drug addicts destroy their lives, they often destroy other lives too
in other words, drug addiction is not something that occurs in a vacuum, with ill effects only for the user. drug addiction impacts society in general in a number of ways, in tangible (social services) and intangible (crime increase) costs, and it impacts relationships and jobs in a myriad of tragic ways, large and small
i would love to turn off my human empathy and just walk by drug addicts rotting in the street. but i understand the cost that addict has on society, and for that addict's family/ employer. not to mention, finally, the cost to that addict's own life (which you say we shouldn't care about)
so you want the GOVERNMENT to hand out addictive drugs?
think about that for a second, moron
in the name of the fight for freedom from oppressive government policy, you want to hand government the greatest tool of oppression possible: addictive drugs
i'm sorry, but in a world where the government is doling out heroin, freedom really is dead
people worry about the government having national id cards or keeping tabs on your internet posting. people complain about the opiates of the masses: television and entertainment news, killing our minds
and here you sit, advocating that the government become the drug dealer!
so you like being a slave, huh?
hilarious!
how much does it cost to prevent the creation of the addict in the first place?
yes: there is a committed hardcore group of slow motion suicide types who will always get drugs, no matter what
but there is a much larger group of casual idiots who, if denied easy access, simply don't take the drug. and then don't become addicts. and then mature. and then live addiction free lives
it is for the sake of the second group that the war on drugs is waged, and is cost effective
i tremble at the power of 4chan
i give up. 4chan wins
my taxes don't go to support social services?
i think its cheaper for society to prevent the creation of the drug addict then support a zombie, no?
then i fully support it as a valid tactic in the war on drugs
because portugal, of course, understands that drugs are destructive and the goal is to reduce their use, despite the fact that some deluded fools think portugal's experiment means something else
i only have a problem with the fools who believe drugs are harmless, or worse, as you suggest, that they are good for you, good for your creativity
no: a creative person needs no drugs to be creative. drug use in creative people is a contemporaneous phenomenon. creative people, because of the way they see the world, often live on the edges of society. and this puts them in the same company as other people who live on the edge of society, like drug addicts. there are plenty of drug addicts who are not creative. there are plenty of creative people who do not take drugs. there's no connection, not a cause and effect relationship. if the beatles never had a drop of a drug in their entire lives, they'd still make great music, because the source of their creativity is their fertile minds, not the temporary reduction of that mind into a drug stupor now and then, for reasons of recreation, not creation
if they aren't in eastern MA or RI, deny them the ability to comment
yes, the attleboro expat in san francisco will be severely saddened at being unable to comment on a story from back home
but that sounds like a fair trade off for effectively blocking a stumbleupon or 4chan trollpocalypse
decriminalization is for users, not dealers, in portugal
therefore, prohibition is alive and well in portugal, today
and yet you point to portugal as some sort of lesson about prohibition
which simply means you don't even understand what the hell you are talking about
you aren't dealing with sophisticated tor and proxy users and ip spoofing, you're dealing with the local technically barely literate cranks. so just enforce ip bans. or even cookies. these guys are sitting at home on one computer, not even in a coffee shop. and you're probably only dealing with 12-24 committed griefers only, so its not an endless problem
finally, i was always a fan of the rubber room (there may be a better term for this technique):
once you've flagged the committed griefer, make it so his comments only appear to him. oftentimes these hacks will comment freely and continually for months on end, completely oblivious to the fact that no one is reading their comments except themselves
you create less addicts
of course, the committed slow motion suicide loser is going to get any drug he wants. drugs will always be available, but policy has a real effect on ease of access
meanwhile, there is a much larger class of casual idiot who, when denied easy access, simply just don't take the drug. then they mature and grow up... unaddicted
it is in the name of saving the casual idiot, not the committed unredeemable slow motion suicide loser, that heroin, meth, cocaine are illegal
marijuana should be legal. heck, psilocybin, lsd, hallucinogens: these should also be legal because they aren't addictive. well, except for the whole walk out a window part... hmmm... requires some thought. how do you enforce the "use with a babysitter" part? people are by nature irresponsible
however, the hardcore inebriating highly addictive drugs like cocaine, meth, heroin: easier access simply means more addicts, more destroyed lives. that's why they should be illegal
the worst jail in the most orwellian government authoritarian nightmare you can imagine, doesn't begin to compare to the bars drug addiction places in the mind. unless of course, that government destroyed people's freedom by force addicting them to heroin
where before a mind might contemplate philosophy, literature, art, now you have an interrupt cycle which turns this person into a drug seeking zombie
in the entire history of mankind, no entity has destroyed more freedom than drug use. governments are a far second place also ran
i argue with people about drug policy all the time, and it just absolutely floors me how all of the harm is from governmental policy, and no one ever admits to the harm the actual drug does on human lives. its amazing. the arguments against drug policy, are, in a way, the classic rationalization of the average addict: "its the world's fault, not mine"
in a world where drug addicts only hurt themselves. if only
there's a saying: when you have a hammer in your hand, every problem begins to look like a nail
with easy access to drug euphorias, people being to "solve" (aka, avoid) the problems in their lives with drugs, rather than make difficult and painful life changes for their own good. so with free and easy access to highly addictive drugs, all you get is a horde of zombies who can't hold down a relationship or a job (and you have to feed and clothe them)
of course marijuana should be legal. that marijuana is illegal is fucking retarded. but cocaine, heroin, meth: no, way too inebriating and addictive. if you really understand these drugs (not: "i know some guy who knew somebody who said it wasn't a problem" anecdotal bullshit) you understand why they should never be legal
increases use of a substance. duh
have you happened to notice the number of starbucks around town?
is it because people just love hot bitter drinks first thing in the morning? is it because we prohibited coffee?
what prohibition does is increase mafia involvement. and for things like alcohol, marijuana, caffiene, nicotine, etc., the negative side effects of prohibition outweigh the negative effects of the drug. but for things like cocaine, heroin, meth: the addictive effects of the drugs themselves are worse than any prohibition effects
please, stop with the idiotic rationalizations