additionally, its easier just to put electricity in a battery, and cheaper, in terms of wasted energy, than to cleave water
this includes all the wasted energy lugging around heavy hatteries (which, with modern lithium ion batteries, are nowhere near as heavy as your lead acid reference point)
hydrogen as a fuel source is just too wasteful in terms of supply creation AND its much more difficult to manage and deliver
hydrogen is a dead end idea, i'm amazed at how much attention and money has been spent on that folly
better battery tech is the future. but even with existing battery tech, batteries are superior to hydrogen. unless you can tell me you can find some way to generate tons of hydrogen directly from some abundant cheap source, hydrogen ain't happening
heck, even methane, which is cheap and dug out of the ground as is, is inferior to batteries, simply as a function of management and delivery
enough with the wasted time and money and effort on hydrogen. the idea is seriously thermodynamically challenged
of posting what you just wrote in english, on a usa-started and hosted website
as a dutchman though, you are very much within the western world, which is even more english dominated than the wider world, and your perfect english is an example of that
but as i a sit here in midtown manhattan staring out at brooklyn (from breukelen in utrecht), read about the yankees baseball team (from jon quesa: "johnny cheese", how the dutch derisively referred to the english dairy farmers), and contemplate all the kills in the area (creeks), and all the roosevelts in our presidencies, i know that linguistic and cultural influence is a very relative thing indeed
i've tried that chrome auto-translate, and it kind of sort of works, and will always just kind of sort of work. language is inextricably human, and no computer will ever be able to understand every nuance of meaning to translate well, never mind perfectly
the only good translator is a human translator, and even they screw up or are fundamentally unable to translate every nuance of meaning. we are all human, so we will always understand each other when it comes to basic motivations and such, but when it comes to various nuances of culture and meaning, different people in different languages are to some small extent permanently incomprehensible to each other
i'm not at all implying that other people care about USA-centric crap, but i'm saying they most definitely are interested in tech that often starts in the usa
more people using a given website simply makes it more compelling, because how many people are in a given social website often defines how useful that site actually is. this renders languages other than english at an automatic, and continuing, disadvantage
even internet tech that started outside the usa, if it gained an international following, say the chan message boards from japan (4chan), icq in israel, or chatroulette in russia, they all migrated to the english web as an inevitable aspect of becoming an international success, and even though they of course have multilanguage abilities and continue to be used in multilanguage ways, their english manifestations are their largest elements
then there is the bizarre phenomenon of paleolithic tech that gets born in the usa, and mostly forgotten there, but continues to live on in other areas
google's orkut started in the usa, but faded, but is huge in brazil, and also india. google relocated orkut from california to belo horizonte
remember friendster? its still alive and well in malaysia, philippines, indonesia. a malaysian company in fact recently purchased friendster
all i'm saying is we're talking about technology, not culture, and no one believes that being usa-centric is the point or even an aspect of being rooted in the english language
currently people are not getting on the internet because its all in english: it serves as a barrier and they see no reason to even try
but when the internet supports their native language, they get on the internet, get a taste of it, like it, want to use more it, and inevitably this drives them to the english web, since there's more of whatever they're looking for over there
in other words, the long term effect of supporting other languages on the web is paradoxically further and faster consolidation to english
people apparently think hydrogen powered cars are great because they only release water as a pollutant
except the amount of energy you are going to use just to make the hydrogen is going to produce significantly more pollutants and waste significant amounts of energy
so the most environmentally friendly and most efficient energy system will always be the system with the least amount of steps from source to use
solar->electricity->hydrogen->electricity->motion
is inherently worse than
solar->electricity->motion
or even
solar->electricity->battery->electricity->motion
the difference between the energy required to free hydrogen as opposed to the energy required to charge a battery is huge
there was never a fabled era where news media was unbiased or high quality. look up the term "yellow journalism" from a century ago. the spanish american war was started with the "bombing" of the uss maine in havana that was just as much bullshit as iraq's supposed nuclear program. the newspaper "reporting" from a century ago makes fox faux news blatant warmongering agenda look like amateur hour
additionally, there never will be such a thing as unbiased news media. ever. here. in russia. in china. in europe. never, anwyhere
all news media has a bias. GET USED TO IT. accept it, and shut up with the bogus complaints
to criticize news media from a judgment of its bias or not simply means you yourself are hopelessly naive and ignorant about the reality of what news media is or ever could be. furthermore, it presupposes a frightening concept: that, in some magical realm, news media actually somehow could be completely unbiased... which means everyone would trust it implicitly. obviously, complete trust in your news media is far more frightening a concept than the fact news media has some bias
so the solution? get your news FROM VARIOUS SOURCES. read nytimes, bbc, npr, msnbc, cnn, hell even fox news, china daily, and the tehran times:
its all propaganda, its all biased, every news source you could ever possibly find. the only error you could ever make is trusting one and only one source of news: then you have failed
in this way, you will train yourself to have a good bullshit meter, and you learn to trust nothing. THAT's the only valid and intellectually coherent approach you could ever possibly have to news media, in this lifetime or any other
so please, shut the fuck up with complaints about quality and bias: such a basis for complaints only reveal your own inadequate grasp of the topic: what news media is, and how it should fit into your life
"smut peddlers" are not interested in forcing people to look at stuff they don't want to look at. in fact, when a delicate social conservative flower DOES see porn, it's usually bad for pornographers, bad for delicate social conservatives who are scared of mammary glands, bad for everyone involved. so its far better for pornographers to have a big red warning sign "DO NOT GO HERE IF YOU TITS SCARE YOU". hmmm... like an xxx domain?
your reasoning supposes that porn is somehow spread by some sort of jump and pounce gotcha! and then people are sucked in against their will. no: if you choose to visit a pornography site, you've made a willful choice on your own, and you and yourself alone are culpable. the "devil made me do it" defense "i didn't mean to the bad man made me do it" doesn't speak very well about social conservative willpower does it (but, since social conservatives are a bunch of hypocrites naive about human nature, that isn't saying much)? it also completely nullifies the concept of personal accountability, which is SUPPOSED to be a social conservative darling of a concept, put seems to disappear as a concept when imposing your will upon others comes up
the only class of people where someone willfully clicks on a porn link and SHOULDN'T be 100% culpable for doing that are the class of people for which informed consent really is a no go: children. and how do you best keep the world of the adult away from minors?
hmmm... howabout an easily identifable and filterable domain? naaaahhh... too easy!
pfffffffft
if you are an adult human being, and you click on a porn link, there's no shame in that. even with the 3 scary christian crosses xxx
sort of like law enforcement giving people heroin in order to arrest them for being drug addicts
law enforcement cannot deal drugs or deal kiddie porn
of course some bad elements of law enforcement do unethical things. but rogue law enforcement can't post tons of kiddie porn for years without the ethical law enforcement (the majority) taking notice
your current thinking seems to be: "given a number of explanations as to why something is, pick the explanation that most matches a plot device of a bad hollywood movie"
believe it or not, what happens in movies is not instructive as to reality
constantly, and ALL of it is purposefully mislabeled as something else. its not labelled "kiddie porn"
if you got a picture group devoted to redheads there will be a picture labelled "on topic: attractive redhead", "mature redhead"... and you get... kiddie porn. and this is 3 out of 7 links, not a random few
it would be as if you went to nytimes.com, clicked on a number of articles purporting to be about breaking news "goldman sachs head defends company", "times square bomber was family man" and you instead got a snuff film on 3 out of 7 stories you clicked
that's the actual http allegory you are searching for. would you consider this more accurate allegory to be a genuine problem?
is all the godawful amounts of east european kiddie porn spam in the alt.binaries area
you would have thought law enforcement would notice and would have shut down nntp on that fact alone. but i guess nntp still inhabits that technical area of the web beyond the average user, so i guess the media and the soccer moms with their awareness of facebook, twitter, and nothing else, they're just unaware there's this horribly huge amount of freely accessible anonymous kiddie porn spamming going on. freely accessible, i guess, if you know how to download a newsgroup reader and enter the name of your internet provider's nntp server in a dialog box. which i guess is all the "technical hurdles" you need to make nntp completely obscure to most people, certainly public awareness, even law enforcement
don't click on ANY images in the alt.binaries area unless you want to unwittingly download child pornography onto your computer. its in completely unrelated groups, and it is purposefully mislabeled as something else
in the new york times comment section under the times square blast, i was floored by the number of people seriously believing the bomber was a fall guy, that he was set up, ostensibly by someone with an agenda in the government, to say something malicious about islam, or pakistan, or immigrants, or obama, or whatever
in other words, even when presented with solid evidence contrary to their beliefs, people will still adhere to their beliefs, and invent outrageous hollywood b grade movie plots to explain away solid evidence contrary to their beliefs. in order to preserve their beliefs, even when their beliefs are being directly challenged. instead of rethinking, people push back, even if it means pushing back against reality, with bizarre paranoid schizophrenic conspiracy theories
if they are in remedial, they are obviously not the most committed of students, and when it comes to lack of commitment to your studies, simple discipline, such as attendance, is often the best, and only, weapon you have against that student drifting completely away
is it that they've already given up, they aren't attending, and remedial courses are a joke?
for example, the argument with wall st is: if a guy loses his cash on a bad investment, that's his problem. why intrude?
and the answer is: because the whole damn economy can go into meltdown in an unregulated marketplace, like it did in 2008
in other words, the argument that any negative consequences of certain behavior is small, or only effects the individual, is bullshit. we regulate anthrax and plutonium because the consequences of using that stuff and screwing up is death and destruction for people besides yourself. we have spped limits because the consequences of crasing is death and destruction to more than just yourself
and free and unfettered access to the THE MOST (enough with the alcohol red herring, asshole) addictive and inebriating substances known to man WILL create an army of zombies that i have to pay to feed and house. so just like the economy, the maleffects of poor personal choices do not affect only the indivudal, they affect society. THAT's the source for regulation, not some social conservative freakout
if you can understand why the economy needs regulation from a personal choice/ societal effect point of view, why can't you understand that also applies to THE MOST addictive and inebriating substances known to man? why can't you see that more access to something like heroin inevitably leads to more addicts who can't house and feed themselves, as a simple consequence of the simple pharamcological facts of what heroin does to the mind and body?
i don't want vast swaths of my society reduced to zombiehood because you somehow erroneously believe you are an island and your bad choices affects no one but yourself
you seem to be taking potshots at a clear and obvious point i making from all over the place
let me restate my thesis, and then you clearly and concisely criticize it, because right now all i get form you is randomness:
corporate money infects government. therefore, we should labor to remove corporate influence from government as best we can. we should redirect the current atmosphere of anger at the government to be instead anger at CORPORATE CORRUPTION of government
that's my point. EXACTLY where do you have a problem with what i am saying
or maybe you are just arguing with me out philosophical longwindedness, and not trying to actually say anything utilitarian and concrete about real world problems?
who needs restrictions on those things? they're just "things", its the person who does bad things with them, not the substances, because everyone is always 100% responsible all the time
so of course, restricting plutonium and anthrax is just a social conservative control freak freak out just trying to make everyone as miserable as they are, right?
oh and speed limits: this is of course the slippery slope to social conservative control and destruction of all freedoms. we should just assume that everyone is completely responsible, that bad things never happen. even with cars going 120 mph and the most addictive substances known to man freely the hands of teenagers. if that teenager becomes an addict, well thats ok. its only the rest of his life he'll have a demon he has to suffer with. the consequences of playing games with the potential for crippling drug addiction are so mild and hardly life altering, it should just be freely released into society at large, because everyone is a superman with unlimited willpower and nobody's subject to the fact sof hard pharmacological science
forcing nonwhites to become addicts for profit then waging war on them when they resists forced addiction?
stop with the red herrings asshole
it should be quite clear to you the source of my opposition to the highly addictive+inebriating substances by now, i've said it repeatedly. it is based on sound science, sound pharmacological facts of addiction. not racism. not nancy reagan
you're smearing my position because you have no logical coherence in your opposition to the simple fucking-obvious-to-a-kindergartener truth. you're grasping at straws, and you've lost the argument because you continually avoid my central thesis:
THE DRUGS THEMSELVES CREATE THE SUFFERING
address that, or you are nonresponsive and avoidant, like any stupid junkie when confronted with the truth of their terrible problem
give it up asshole. the massive wall of denial is no defense against the truth that THE SUBSTANCES THEMSELVES CREATE THE HARM
that's your bizarre interpretation of my words. of course what i am talking about involves government reform. that the government is "beyond reproach" is some bizarre assumption on your part
and anger against the government IS misdirected because the root of the problem is corporate money. and the anger at the government's goals is dissolution of government, which is of course counterproductive. duh
Slashdot Mirror
its a gas
it has to be stored under pressure
additionally, its easier just to put electricity in a battery, and cheaper, in terms of wasted energy, than to cleave water
this includes all the wasted energy lugging around heavy hatteries (which, with modern lithium ion batteries, are nowhere near as heavy as your lead acid reference point)
hydrogen as a fuel source is just too wasteful in terms of supply creation AND its much more difficult to manage and deliver
hydrogen is a dead end idea, i'm amazed at how much attention and money has been spent on that folly
better battery tech is the future. but even with existing battery tech, batteries are superior to hydrogen. unless you can tell me you can find some way to generate tons of hydrogen directly from some abundant cheap source, hydrogen ain't happening
heck, even methane, which is cheap and dug out of the ground as is, is inferior to batteries, simply as a function of management and delivery
enough with the wasted time and money and effort on hydrogen. the idea is seriously thermodynamically challenged
use it in balloons
oh no, wait...
oh, the humanity!
a few years ago, they all used friendster
sometime in the recent past (12 mos?) i noticed they were all on facebook now
yes, exactly as you say, its a dying distinction
spackenkill fresh kills kill van kull fishkill stony kill...
there are hundreds of such place names from harlem(!) to albany (ex-fort orange)
whatever the real derivation, us americans believe this to be a dutch convention, so don't deny us our mythology ;-)
of posting what you just wrote in english, on a usa-started and hosted website
as a dutchman though, you are very much within the western world, which is even more english dominated than the wider world, and your perfect english is an example of that
but as i a sit here in midtown manhattan staring out at brooklyn (from breukelen in utrecht), read about the yankees baseball team (from jon quesa: "johnny cheese", how the dutch derisively referred to the english dairy farmers), and contemplate all the kills in the area (creeks), and all the roosevelts in our presidencies, i know that linguistic and cultural influence is a very relative thing indeed
i've tried that chrome auto-translate, and it kind of sort of works, and will always just kind of sort of work. language is inextricably human, and no computer will ever be able to understand every nuance of meaning to translate well, never mind perfectly
the only good translator is a human translator, and even they screw up or are fundamentally unable to translate every nuance of meaning. we are all human, so we will always understand each other when it comes to basic motivations and such, but when it comes to various nuances of culture and meaning, different people in different languages are to some small extent permanently incomprehensible to each other
i'm not at all implying that other people care about USA-centric crap, but i'm saying they most definitely are interested in tech that often starts in the usa
there's also the network effect
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect
more people using a given website simply makes it more compelling, because how many people are in a given social website often defines how useful that site actually is. this renders languages other than english at an automatic, and continuing, disadvantage
even internet tech that started outside the usa, if it gained an international following, say the chan message boards from japan (4chan), icq in israel, or chatroulette in russia, they all migrated to the english web as an inevitable aspect of becoming an international success, and even though they of course have multilanguage abilities and continue to be used in multilanguage ways, their english manifestations are their largest elements
then there is the bizarre phenomenon of paleolithic tech that gets born in the usa, and mostly forgotten there, but continues to live on in other areas
google's orkut started in the usa, but faded, but is huge in brazil, and also india. google relocated orkut from california to belo horizonte
remember friendster? its still alive and well in malaysia, philippines, indonesia. a malaysian company in fact recently purchased friendster
all i'm saying is we're talking about technology, not culture, and no one believes that being usa-centric is the point or even an aspect of being rooted in the english language
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_City
and i am disappointed at the lack of buildings in the shape of pawns, bishops, and rooks
also, i fully expected murray head's "one night in bangkok" to be piped in by loudspeakers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_(musical)
currently people are not getting on the internet because its all in english: it serves as a barrier and they see no reason to even try
but when the internet supports their native language, they get on the internet, get a taste of it, like it, want to use more it, and inevitably this drives them to the english web, since there's more of whatever they're looking for over there
in other words, the long term effect of supporting other languages on the web is paradoxically further and faster consolidation to english
people apparently think hydrogen powered cars are great because they only release water as a pollutant
except the amount of energy you are going to use just to make the hydrogen is going to produce significantly more pollutants and waste significant amounts of energy
so the most environmentally friendly and most efficient energy system will always be the system with the least amount of steps from source to use
solar->electricity->hydrogen->electricity->motion
is inherently worse than
solar->electricity->motion
or even
solar->electricity->battery->electricity->motion
the difference between the energy required to free hydrogen as opposed to the energy required to charge a battery is huge
hydrogen is a joke
folks:
there was never a fabled era where news media was unbiased or high quality. look up the term "yellow journalism" from a century ago. the spanish american war was started with the "bombing" of the uss maine in havana that was just as much bullshit as iraq's supposed nuclear program. the newspaper "reporting" from a century ago makes fox faux news blatant warmongering agenda look like amateur hour
additionally, there never will be such a thing as unbiased news media. ever. here. in russia. in china. in europe. never, anwyhere
all news media has a bias. GET USED TO IT. accept it, and shut up with the bogus complaints
to criticize news media from a judgment of its bias or not simply means you yourself are hopelessly naive and ignorant about the reality of what news media is or ever could be. furthermore, it presupposes a frightening concept: that, in some magical realm, news media actually somehow could be completely unbiased... which means everyone would trust it implicitly. obviously, complete trust in your news media is far more frightening a concept than the fact news media has some bias
so the solution? get your news FROM VARIOUS SOURCES. read nytimes, bbc, npr, msnbc, cnn, hell even fox news, china daily, and the tehran times:
http://www.tehrantimes.com/
its all propaganda, its all biased, every news source you could ever possibly find. the only error you could ever make is trusting one and only one source of news: then you have failed
in this way, you will train yourself to have a good bullshit meter, and you learn to trust nothing. THAT's the only valid and intellectually coherent approach you could ever possibly have to news media, in this lifetime or any other
so please, shut the fuck up with complaints about quality and bias: such a basis for complaints only reveal your own inadequate grasp of the topic: what news media is, and how it should fit into your life
"smut peddlers" are not interested in forcing people to look at stuff they don't want to look at. in fact, when a delicate social conservative flower DOES see porn, it's usually bad for pornographers, bad for delicate social conservatives who are scared of mammary glands, bad for everyone involved. so its far better for pornographers to have a big red warning sign "DO NOT GO HERE IF YOU TITS SCARE YOU". hmmm... like an xxx domain?
your reasoning supposes that porn is somehow spread by some sort of jump and pounce gotcha! and then people are sucked in against their will. no: if you choose to visit a pornography site, you've made a willful choice on your own, and you and yourself alone are culpable. the "devil made me do it" defense "i didn't mean to the bad man made me do it" doesn't speak very well about social conservative willpower does it (but, since social conservatives are a bunch of hypocrites naive about human nature, that isn't saying much)? it also completely nullifies the concept of personal accountability, which is SUPPOSED to be a social conservative darling of a concept, put seems to disappear as a concept when imposing your will upon others comes up
the only class of people where someone willfully clicks on a porn link and SHOULDN'T be 100% culpable for doing that are the class of people for which informed consent really is a no go: children. and how do you best keep the world of the adult away from minors?
hmmm... howabout an easily identifable and filterable domain? naaaahhh... too easy!
pfffffffft
if you are an adult human being, and you click on a porn link, there's no shame in that. even with the 3 scary christian crosses xxx
really
this would be unethical
sort of like law enforcement giving people heroin in order to arrest them for being drug addicts
law enforcement cannot deal drugs or deal kiddie porn
of course some bad elements of law enforcement do unethical things. but rogue law enforcement can't post tons of kiddie porn for years without the ethical law enforcement (the majority) taking notice
your current thinking seems to be: "given a number of explanations as to why something is, pick the explanation that most matches a plot device of a bad hollywood movie"
believe it or not, what happens in movies is not instructive as to reality
constantly, and ALL of it is purposefully mislabeled as something else. its not labelled "kiddie porn"
if you got a picture group devoted to redheads there will be a picture labelled "on topic: attractive redhead", "mature redhead"... and you get... kiddie porn. and this is 3 out of 7 links, not a random few
it would be as if you went to nytimes.com, clicked on a number of articles purporting to be about breaking news "goldman sachs head defends company", "times square bomber was family man" and you instead got a snuff film on 3 out of 7 stories you clicked
that's the actual http allegory you are searching for. would you consider this more accurate allegory to be a genuine problem?
i could go to something like alt.binaries.pictures.breasts and download a bunch of pictures of tits
i do that now, and i get naked eastern european children
it was accidental, and its not funny
is all the godawful amounts of east european kiddie porn spam in the alt.binaries area
you would have thought law enforcement would notice and would have shut down nntp on that fact alone. but i guess nntp still inhabits that technical area of the web beyond the average user, so i guess the media and the soccer moms with their awareness of facebook, twitter, and nothing else, they're just unaware there's this horribly huge amount of freely accessible anonymous kiddie porn spamming going on. freely accessible, i guess, if you know how to download a newsgroup reader and enter the name of your internet provider's nntp server in a dialog box. which i guess is all the "technical hurdles" you need to make nntp completely obscure to most people, certainly public awareness, even law enforcement
don't click on ANY images in the alt.binaries area unless you want to unwittingly download child pornography onto your computer. its in completely unrelated groups, and it is purposefully mislabeled as something else
baffling and frightening problem
in the new york times comment section under the times square blast, i was floored by the number of people seriously believing the bomber was a fall guy, that he was set up, ostensibly by someone with an agenda in the government, to say something malicious about islam, or pakistan, or immigrants, or obama, or whatever
in other words, even when presented with solid evidence contrary to their beliefs, people will still adhere to their beliefs, and invent outrageous hollywood b grade movie plots to explain away solid evidence contrary to their beliefs. in order to preserve their beliefs, even when their beliefs are being directly challenged. instead of rethinking, people push back, even if it means pushing back against reality, with bizarre paranoid schizophrenic conspiracy theories
sometimes i think we're doomed
if they are in remedial, they are obviously not the most committed of students, and when it comes to lack of commitment to your studies, simple discipline, such as attendance, is often the best, and only, weapon you have against that student drifting completely away
is it that they've already given up, they aren't attending, and remedial courses are a joke?
for example, the argument with wall st is: if a guy loses his cash on a bad investment, that's his problem. why intrude?
and the answer is: because the whole damn economy can go into meltdown in an unregulated marketplace, like it did in 2008
in other words, the argument that any negative consequences of certain behavior is small, or only effects the individual, is bullshit. we regulate anthrax and plutonium because the consequences of using that stuff and screwing up is death and destruction for people besides yourself. we have spped limits because the consequences of crasing is death and destruction to more than just yourself
and free and unfettered access to the THE MOST (enough with the alcohol red herring, asshole) addictive and inebriating substances known to man WILL create an army of zombies that i have to pay to feed and house. so just like the economy, the maleffects of poor personal choices do not affect only the indivudal, they affect society. THAT's the source for regulation, not some social conservative freakout
if you can understand why the economy needs regulation from a personal choice/ societal effect point of view, why can't you understand that also applies to THE MOST addictive and inebriating substances known to man? why can't you see that more access to something like heroin inevitably leads to more addicts who can't house and feed themselves, as a simple consequence of the simple pharamcological facts of what heroin does to the mind and body?
i don't want vast swaths of my society reduced to zombiehood because you somehow erroneously believe you are an island and your bad choices affects no one but yourself
you seem to be taking potshots at a clear and obvious point i making from all over the place
let me restate my thesis, and then you clearly and concisely criticize it, because right now all i get form you is randomness:
corporate money infects government. therefore, we should labor to remove corporate influence from government as best we can. we should redirect the current atmosphere of anger at the government to be instead anger at CORPORATE CORRUPTION of government
that's my point. EXACTLY where do you have a problem with what i am saying
or maybe you are just arguing with me out philosophical longwindedness, and not trying to actually say anything utilitarian and concrete about real world problems?
howabout anthrax
who needs restrictions on those things? they're just "things", its the person who does bad things with them, not the substances, because everyone is always 100% responsible all the time
so of course, restricting plutonium and anthrax is just a social conservative control freak freak out just trying to make everyone as miserable as they are, right?
oh and speed limits: this is of course the slippery slope to social conservative control and destruction of all freedoms. we should just assume that everyone is completely responsible, that bad things never happen. even with cars going 120 mph and the most addictive substances known to man freely the hands of teenagers. if that teenager becomes an addict, well thats ok. its only the rest of his life he'll have a demon he has to suffer with. the consequences of playing games with the potential for crippling drug addiction are so mild and hardly life altering, it should just be freely released into society at large, because everyone is a superman with unlimited willpower and nobody's subject to the fact sof hard pharmacological science
pffffffffffft
you're a seriously deluded asshole
you mean this?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_Wars
forcing nonwhites to become addicts for profit then waging war on them when they resists forced addiction?
stop with the red herrings asshole
it should be quite clear to you the source of my opposition to the highly addictive+inebriating substances by now, i've said it repeatedly. it is based on sound science, sound pharmacological facts of addiction. not racism. not nancy reagan
you're smearing my position because you have no logical coherence in your opposition to the simple fucking-obvious-to-a-kindergartener truth. you're grasping at straws, and you've lost the argument because you continually avoid my central thesis:
THE DRUGS THEMSELVES CREATE THE SUFFERING
address that, or you are nonresponsive and avoidant, like any stupid junkie when confronted with the truth of their terrible problem
give it up asshole. the massive wall of denial is no defense against the truth that THE SUBSTANCES THEMSELVES CREATE THE HARM
that's your bizarre interpretation of my words. of course what i am talking about involves government reform. that the government is "beyond reproach" is some bizarre assumption on your part
and anger against the government IS misdirected because the root of the problem is corporate money. and the anger at the government's goals is dissolution of government, which is of course counterproductive. duh