" If drugs were not illegal then those people who become destitute may never even have run into those problems in the first place."
i stopped reading there. its pure ignorance
you can work/ have a relationship while using LSD on the side. LSD is not addictive
you can work/ have a relationship while using nicotine: its not highly inebriating
you CAN'T work/ have a relationship if you use a highly inebriating and addictive substance: the desire to use the drug is greater than the desire to support yourself, and using the drug bltos out your ability to work/ relate. you do see the straightforward logic here, right?
guess what moron: THE ACTUAL SUBSTANCE IS THE PROBLEM. if the country let anyone use whatever they wanted, no drug policy at all, complete freedom to use: there would be addicts (a whole hell of a lot). if the country beheaded drug users and their families at the slightest whiff of nanoseconds of a chemical substance, there would be addicts. why are their addicts in both societies? because the POLICY OF THE SOCIETY DOESN'T MAKE A FUCKING DIFFERENCE, THE SUBSTANCE DOES
can you try to recognize the fucking obvious in your opinions at some point in your life?
the DRUG is the problem, not the POLICY
how do you have a discussion with someone who won't admit or see the blindingly obvious?
many or most addicts can't keep jobs, can't stay in relationships, and wind up on the street, destitute. do you deny that is true?
it is pharmacologically impossible to take highly addictive drugs without risking becoming an addict. when you become an addict, you may need my tax dollars to house and feed you. since i am expected to pay for their care, this gives me every right to prevent the creation of addicts in the first place, by severely curtailing the open trade of highly addictive drugs. obvously i can't prevent the creation of addicts completely, but that never was the point. the point is, i can make a dent in the creation of addicts. and this effort at addict creation prevention may be cheaper than caring for a lot of addicts that are created as simple unavoidable result of easy access to highly addictive drugs
so i'm currently stuck in a rut between what my ego will allow me to release, and what i've done so far and would be stupid to abandon considering all the effort that has gone into it so far. i'll finish it someday, i'm just in a funk about it
meanwhile, meth, coke, and heroin legalization should never be seriously considered
that's just my opinion
but even if you disagree with me, you completely fail at the subject matter as soon as you talk about DRUG legalization. now if you want to talk to me about METH legalization, or MARIJUANA legalization, or COCAINE legalization, then we are having a valid coherent discussion. but there is no such thing, nor will there ever be such a thing as a coherent subject matter called DRUG legalization
every single drug is completely different in its pharmacological effects, and therefore every single drug should have a completely different legal framework around it. this is the most rational logical approach. meanwhile, if you don't understand that or refuse to take the radically different inebriation/ toxicity/ addiction/ etc profiles of different drugs into consideration when you frame your opinions on the subject matter, you are not being serious about the subject matter
if you wish to tell me everything from caffeine to methamphetamine should have the same legal approach, you just announce yourself as a complete idiot who knows absolutely nothing about the subject matter, or you are willfully expressing an utterly naive attitude to an obviously complicated and multivariate issue. which means you fail
this is a solid fact: marijuana will get legalized in the usa. it will be legalized FASTER if the idiots who think ALL drugs should be legalized shut the fuck up, or are shut up and kept out of the discussion. you refrain your opinions to marijuana, and marijuana alone, in the discussion about marijuana legalization, or you are HURTING THE CAUSE. if you try to broaden your remarks to all drugs, you sound like an idiot, and you turn people OFF on the subject of marijuana legalization who might otherwise listen
if you confine your remarks to MARIJUANA legalization and insist that the approach to methamphetamine/ coke/ heroin/ etc should be DIFFERENT (whether or not you think they should be legal or illegal), then you actually win over hearts and minds to a good cause
about great men. i'm sure after struggling with their demons, they would agree with my position: that had they never been exposed to these hard core drugs, their lives would have been even brighter. simple exposure is the deciding factor. limiting exposure is the only way to minimize the damage
i can tell you about great race care drivers i know who can drive 120 mph all day long and never get into an accident. therefore should the speed limit be raised to 120 mph?
for the vast majorty, cocaine, meth, and heroin represent shackles, chains, that completely destroy their ability to function in jobs or relationships. and all that is required for the destruction by these drugs to commence on more lives is to make them easier to access. yes, some people can handle hard core drugs, and some cannot. for those who cannot, simple societal restriction is the only way to preserve the integrity of their lives. in spite of every side effect of the war on drugs that you can demonstrate to me, and that i agree with, the MOST addictive AND MOST inebirating hardcore drugs must remain illegal to minimize individual and societal damage
however, i am merely pointing out that although the thugs on the street corner will extract their pound of flesh, they will not prevail
it is still entirely valid and appropriate to directly confront the thugs, as you insist
but your point, and my point, are complementary points, not mutually exclusive points. i can make my point without hindering yours, and visa versa, so there is no need to assume friction between our two areas of concern
both of our enemies are the thugs. so you fight your short term war, i'll fight my long term war, and we will both prevail (in the long term;-)
who fucking cares? its just so much damage to route around
yes, they could make laws that would end filesharing... laws that would also essentially kill everything that makes the internet worthy our contribution and attention. that's not going to happen, unless media companies have more power than self-destructive military dictatorships
therefore, let them pass all of the half-assed measures that don't essentially kill the joy that is the internet all they want. let them joust with that technological hydra, and waste all their resources, a pool of cash and manpower that just keeps dwindling every day. obfuscation schemes, proxy schemes, encryption schemes, steganographic schemes, etc... some college freshman in his dorm will handle all the complexities, for free, and make it as easy as point and click, and the program will spread like wildfire. and will of course get stamped out, just as the next moronic big media-sponsored law circumventing tool is spreading like wildfire. whack-a-mole is never a game you eternally prevail at
so let them buy as many legislators as they can, pass as many intrusive legal schemes as they want, waste as much of their dwindling reserves as they can
again, who fucking cares?
millions of media hungry, technologically savvy, and most importantly, POOR teenagers
versus a counple thousand lawyers basing their strategy on a philosophically flawed premise: that the internet can be controlled, that the distribution tollbooths that allowed media companies to thrive in the pre-internet age can be preserved
game over, douchebags
it doesn't reflect well on you when you are already defeated, and don't know it or won't admit it
heck, lsd and psilocybin should be legal (not addictive even though highly inebriating)
nicotine is highly addictive, but its not inebriating, so that should stay legal
but there are some drugs: heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, that are so addictive and so inebriating (you can't hold a coherent job or coherent relationship as an addict, unlike, say, a nicotine addict) that casual exposure to them represents more of a devastating threat to the lives of individuals and society than all of the negative side effects of a drug war
its about weighing positives and negatives. with alcohol and marijuana, the positives and negatives obviously balance out on the side of legalization. but the highly addicting+highly inebriating substances do so much damage in their own right, the negatives of declaring them illegal are less negative overall
every website i go to from now on, i need to study the url with a magnifying glass to make sure i am getting the actual site i wanted. not even as a security precaution, but just to avoid phony sites that might be spoofing a real one for all sorts of purposes, even if just humor, not all of them nefarious, but all of them certainly annoying
a with accent mark may be easy to see, but there are some subtle unicode characters that are so completely like the lowercase "L" or upper case "I" or upper and lowercase "O", etc., and each different font might render the different characters in so many subtle variations, that its almost impossible anymore to guarantee that the link you followed actually went to the site you think it did
so we have to type addresses by hand to make sure they are genuine from now on?
its not cultural imperialism to support only 30 or so characters for website addresses. think of it as a universal routing system, that is purposefully limited, simply for the sake of security and peace of mind
characters for website addresses should remain small in number. simplicity means security. now we have opened a can of worms, and i think the spoofing will actually be worst for those who use nonlatin alphabets, as they are more likely to be mixing latin and nonlatin characters in their address bar
"you yourself probably went to buy something at walmart after writing that highminded but empty appeal.
There was nothing empty about my appeal. It's fine if you disagree, but calling it 'empty' because you disagree, once again just makes you come across as a fucking moron.
As for walmart, I've never bought anything there. I think I bought something from target once? I'm not a big fan of the retail stores, and no, I don't shop there. I suppose you had to resort to idiocy like this because you couldn't meaningfully address the original topic."
i will file those words right alongside "if you have sex with me i'll still love you in the morning" and "yes, the extended warranty is completely worth the $60"
you buy what you can afford. the amount of cash in your pocket trumps ideology every fucking day. it's not about me disagreeing with you, its about what is fucking possible with the limited financial resources you have
as an allegory, i could tell you that coal is evil, so i am not ever going to use electricity from that source ever again... and then i am sitting here, in front of my computer, completely breaking my word and being a hypocrite as my computer chugs along on electricity from a coal burning plant. because its impossible NOT to use coal when you flick the switch. it isn't about your PRINCIPLES, it is about what is REALISTICALLY POSSIBLE. and if you had the slightest bit of intellectual honesty about you, you would admit its not possible, due to whatever high minded principle of yours, to go out of your way, waste your time, and spend 200-300% what you normally spend. especially, if you are like everyone else, you're just scraping by in this economy
of course it is possible to do ANYTHING, to never to buy anything from china. but that is COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC if you are trying to just live a normal life. such that demanding that people not by stuff from china, and that's the only way you can have principles, is NEVER going to fly, because the added hassle and expense is simply not worth it for 99% of us
you can call me any names you want. i simply request that you stop LYING. because you are LYING if you believe these so-called "principles" of yours are anything but delusions of a turd who can never actually implement what he says his high-minded principles are. and even if you were some freak like those guys who run 250 mile ultramarathons in death valley or say "i'll never have sex again" and then actually never have sex again, then you are a completely and utterly just a rare fringe case, and not anyone whose lifestyle is instructive or useful for the vast majority of everyone else
so stop trying to trumpet your nuttiness and expect it to have any validity about real people's lives. stop LYING. principles are about applying high minded concepts to real world demands. they aren't about applying impossible restrictions to real world lives. those aren't principles, that's just loony nutbag territory. but of course, loony nutbags will believe they are superior for their nuttiness. but they don't have anything valid to say about real, normal, every day lives
the industrial age is not the end-all be-all economic model for defining wealth. over time, the time and energy of making manufactured goods becomes a marginally value-added effort, not the end-all be-all definition of what it means to be a functioning economy, nevermind rich. hell, the very fact we transport everything from CHINA, as in, half-way around the world, should tell you something about how little is added in manufacturing in terms of making a difference economically
if you really want to preserve american manufacturing, go help al qaeda blow up oil refineries: expensive transport will render chinese goods too pricey
but no, the whole issue of the few percentage points of the economy which is manufacturing is a red herring. the true richness of a society is defined by the robustness and fairness of its institutions. you can have a country like china where everything is made, and still you can have most being desperately poor lorded over by a few megarich technocrats. because how wealth is DISTRIBUTED, how society values simple fairness and is transparent and not corrupt, matters a hell of a lot more than what a society actually does
as the economy evolves, american know-how will adapt and come out on top if it continues to be what it has always been: robust and fair and adaptable. meanwhile, those like you with their panties in a twist because they see in the decline of manufacturing the armageddeon of everything they hold dear simply don't fucking know anything else. your opinion of how desperate things are is a reflection of your mindset, not reality
we shall move beyond the industrial age, and we will only get richer. forget guns, forget butter. know how will make us rich and keep us powerful. your much fetishized manufacturing is but a slight value-added marginal effort
is still practiced by the usa. protectionism is practiced by every single country. protectionism will always be practiced, and used as a threat, regardless of any trade treaty signed by anyone
but SIGNIFICANT protectionism, which most people mean when they talk about the issue, of the kind that would actually make a dent in the flow of jobs overseas, would cripple the american economy, in all sorts of ways, not all of which having to do with job protectionism or consumer behavior. ti woudl cripple the american economy to a greater degree than anything you could possibly gain by retaining american jobs in the industrial sector
you do understand that right?
and please enough with the slave labor propaganda. no american company is selling products made with slave labor. and if they are, they are exposed, shamed, and switch manufacturers. there are watchgroups where all they do is look for these kinds of abuses. the indonesian sweat shops making nike sneakers made for good antiglobalism propaganda in 1998. but its 2009, and nike and anyone else in business is making damn sure they don't run into that kind of business-killing bad PR ever again
now if you want to talk about a genuine issue, talk about environmental degradation. thats real. basically, cheap chinese made products are giving chinese people cancer due to china's complete lack of giving a shit about their abuse of their own environment
but do you really think protectionism is the way to address that?
"So what is more important? That we have consumer goods as cheaply as possible, or that we live our values as a nation?"
that we have consumers goods as cheaply as possible. duh
you yourself probably went to buy something at walmart after writing that highminded but empty appeal. plenty of people will agree with you, pay you lip service, it sounds grand: principles over cheap plastic crap. but absolutely no one will put that into practice. when you are standing in the store, and you have to buy that microwave, the $150 dollar one is not going to be bought. the $50 dollar one is. that $100 is worth a hell of a lot more to you than empty highmindedness
unless you are upper middle class or rich and actually have the disposable income to put your words into action. for everyone else scraping by, the vast majority of us: get real
let them be economic masters. what the hell is really lost? why doesn't the usa worry more about taking care of their own and worry less about taking care of people far outside our borders who don't even like us. seems like a big cash savings there, no?
economic dominance does not equate to quality of life for americans. let some other country take up that mantle
meanwhile, i'd like to see more european style 5 weeks of vacation and more robust safety social nets
the age of market fundamentalists turning our economy into a bubbling overheated mess and economic imperialists driving us to ridiculous workweeks and hours is over. fuck them all and the supposed "fruits" of that thinking. there's nothing in that except misery and a few rich assholes living off our stress
you could preserve american labor, and someone else would use cheaper overseas labor. then american consumers would buy that cheaper product of which nothing, not even company headquarters, gets a cut of that profit. then the next step is protectionism, where you insist everyone buy more expensive american made goods. then people buy far less, or they buy black market goods, because patriotism does not magically put money into your bank account, and you still need to buy a refrigerator. meanwhile, the rest of the world enjoys better products at cheaper prices while the american economy stagnates and shrinks, cut off from the rest of the world because of protectionism
i'm sorry, but in the interest of what is best for the united states, fuck american labor. the industrial age is over, let china pollute itself rather than the usa. and unions seem less like their ancestors, out to protect american labor from predatory management, and more like the new predator: upper middle class incomes at the expense of everyone else, including the health of the company, and the country
goodbye GM, goodbye industrial dinosaurs, good fucking riddance. if that means we are a poorer country for it, fine, no problem. as if the industrial age defines what is best for us, or even the only model for wealth creation possible. no, your lament at the decline of american labor only means that you don't know any better, not that there isn't anything better than what you have unilaterally decided is the come-all be-all of existence. you think the industrial model is only thing that defines wealth creation, and for some reason is fixed in your mind as a golden age, and all that comes after is somehow magically inferior. maybe its superior, and you simply don't see that. superior not in terms of the economic imperialism of past ages, but superior in simple quality of life
japan is coping with ecnomic decline to a far greater extent than the usa, and for a lot longer (since their economy stagnated in 1990). and maybe it means the japanese aren't seen as ubereconomic imperial masters any more, but maybe it also means less salarymen are having heart attacks and that the japanese have a more mellow, easier and happier life. the europeans have months of vacation time and generous social safety nets. so what exactly should we be fighting to retain in your mind? are we at economic war with the world?
fuck your fetishization of the industrial age as all we should aspire to. welcome the poorer, more mellower american age. time to step off the world stage as its master, and fuck you to those of you who think we need to stay in that role for some reason
there are a lot of clueless slashbots here who in their comments equate scientology with other religions
this is like calling a pit viper just a snake or a black widow just a bug:
no, no, no
scientology is a corporate entity designed for greed and slave acquisition. it is refined mind control technique and a specially designed playbook of tactics for outright destroying all and any attempts at holding back their fungal growth. there's a reason why they hate psychologists and psychiatrists: these scientific techniques are the same techniques they use but designed for benevolent purposes instead of zombification
no modern organized religion, NO modern organized religion rises to the level of specifically directed and coherently organized malevolent behavior aimed at anything that holds them back from making further inroads into free societies
all organized religion is a threat to a free mind. but traditional religions are mellowed and incoherent. scientology is a disciplined focused corporate effort at destruction and slaveholding/ acquisition. scientology actively and consciously commits crimes against freedom that other older organized religions do incoherently and randomly
the vulture will eat you just as readily as the wolf, but the wolf tends to be a little more focused, aggressive, intelligent and speedier in its attempts to turn you into food. so you worry more about the wolf than the vultures
or at least you would, if you correctly recognized that scientology rises above all other religions in its virulence and viciousness and purposeful, directed maliciousness
"So YES, the government of France has effectively decided that the tenets of Scientology are somehow LESS TRUE than the tenets of every recognized religion.
IT IS hypocritical, and we SHOULD be having the "its not weirder than any other religion" debate."
its not hypocritical, because scientology is demonstrably, objectively worse than any other religion in the shit it tries to pull, and gets away with
what would happen to a christian, muslim, or jewish sect that tried to do this?:
the "church" of scientology is a slaveholding corporation run by thugs who pay lip service to a playbook of procedures to continue their existence and expansion into the minds of more clueless weak souls. this is what their "religion" is
i have no love for ANY organized religion. all of organized religion, to me, is something to be fought in the name of freedom
however, i recognize that scientology is particularly nasty strain of the phenomenon of religion and requires resistance of a higher order. scientology is the virus-like aspects of religion boiled down to a, pun intended, a science, and it is used in purely greed-oriented criminal ways to spread and devour society like a cancer. in a way, all religions do this, but all of the other religions are rather old and mellowed and weaker and less cohesive in their mind control abilities. scientology meanwhile is a brand new virulent disease, a focused coherent corporate entity which makes no pretense at anything except devouring people and turning them into slaves
its anthrax while traditional religions are the common cold. its the borg while traditional religions are the klingons and romulans
whatever islam, christianity, and judaism do to people that we both consider criminal, none of it rises to the stink this cohesive bunch of zombies and their zombie lords do
you need to accept and recognize that in the pantheon (pun intended) of the vile memetic viruses we call religions, scientology is a new and SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED virulent and extraordinary plague. it reuiqres of you special consideration asd especially dangerous as compared to all other religions
i am no friend of organized religion, like you. but unlike you, i recognize those organized religions that are especially heinous, and scientology is without peer in the world in its virulence and viciousness and disgusting perfection of slaveholding and acquisition
you really need to think about the tactics and history of scientology and consider its attributes and realize this scourge is a new step in the evolution of the mind control and freedom destruction that is organized religion
it's like comparing volunteering to clean up the highway median of garbage, and being forced to clean it up, and your income from the job goes to your crew boss
yes, there is plenty of monotheistic religions you should skewer and condemn
but to not recognize that for all the crimes of judaism, christianity, islam, etc., that scientology outdoes those religions and adds a few more crimes, is to not understand the subject matter you are injecting yourself into
i dislike organized religion. but i dislike slavery even more. and that's what scientology is
you really should read up on how especially vicious this nasty cult is
Slashdot Mirror
" If drugs were not illegal then those people who become destitute may never even have run into those problems in the first place."
i stopped reading there. its pure ignorance
you can work/ have a relationship while using LSD on the side. LSD is not addictive
you can work/ have a relationship while using nicotine: its not highly inebriating
you CAN'T work/ have a relationship if you use a highly inebriating and addictive substance: the desire to use the drug is greater than the desire to support yourself, and using the drug bltos out your ability to work/ relate. you do see the straightforward logic here, right?
guess what moron: THE ACTUAL SUBSTANCE IS THE PROBLEM. if the country let anyone use whatever they wanted, no drug policy at all, complete freedom to use: there would be addicts (a whole hell of a lot). if the country beheaded drug users and their families at the slightest whiff of nanoseconds of a chemical substance, there would be addicts. why are their addicts in both societies? because the POLICY OF THE SOCIETY DOESN'T MAKE A FUCKING DIFFERENCE, THE SUBSTANCE DOES
can you try to recognize the fucking obvious in your opinions at some point in your life?
the DRUG is the problem, not the POLICY
how do you have a discussion with someone who won't admit or see the blindingly obvious?
"why do you interpret 'legalize drugs' as 'legalize anything and everything that can be addictive'"
because that's exactly what many people actually mean when they say 'legalize drugs'
many people out there actually believe all drugs should be legal, period, end of story
yes, they are that naive/ ignorant on the subject matter, and they are very loud and assertive about their naivete/ ignorance
i am not arguing with phantom opponents in my mind, i am arguing with a large vocal contingent of idiots
many or most addicts can't keep jobs, can't stay in relationships, and wind up on the street, destitute. do you deny that is true?
it is pharmacologically impossible to take highly addictive drugs without risking becoming an addict. when you become an addict, you may need my tax dollars to house and feed you. since i am expected to pay for their care, this gives me every right to prevent the creation of addicts in the first place, by severely curtailing the open trade of highly addictive drugs. obvously i can't prevent the creation of addicts completely, but that never was the point. the point is, i can make a dent in the creation of addicts. and this effort at addict creation prevention may be cheaper than caring for a lot of addicts that are created as simple unavoidable result of easy access to highly addictive drugs
ego bruising is slightly less
so i'm currently stuck in a rut between what my ego will allow me to release, and what i've done so far and would be stupid to abandon considering all the effort that has gone into it so far. i'll finish it someday, i'm just in a funk about it
http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/07/24/california.marijuana/index.html
and marijuana should be 100% legal
meanwhile, meth, coke, and heroin legalization should never be seriously considered
that's just my opinion
but even if you disagree with me, you completely fail at the subject matter as soon as you talk about DRUG legalization. now if you want to talk to me about METH legalization, or MARIJUANA legalization, or COCAINE legalization, then we are having a valid coherent discussion. but there is no such thing, nor will there ever be such a thing as a coherent subject matter called DRUG legalization
every single drug is completely different in its pharmacological effects, and therefore every single drug should have a completely different legal framework around it. this is the most rational logical approach. meanwhile, if you don't understand that or refuse to take the radically different inebriation/ toxicity/ addiction/ etc profiles of different drugs into consideration when you frame your opinions on the subject matter, you are not being serious about the subject matter
if you wish to tell me everything from caffeine to methamphetamine should have the same legal approach, you just announce yourself as a complete idiot who knows absolutely nothing about the subject matter, or you are willfully expressing an utterly naive attitude to an obviously complicated and multivariate issue. which means you fail
this is a solid fact: marijuana will get legalized in the usa. it will be legalized FASTER if the idiots who think ALL drugs should be legalized shut the fuck up, or are shut up and kept out of the discussion. you refrain your opinions to marijuana, and marijuana alone, in the discussion about marijuana legalization, or you are HURTING THE CAUSE. if you try to broaden your remarks to all drugs, you sound like an idiot, and you turn people OFF on the subject of marijuana legalization who might otherwise listen
if you confine your remarks to MARIJUANA legalization and insist that the approach to methamphetamine/ coke/ heroin/ etc should be DIFFERENT (whether or not you think they should be legal or illegal), then you actually win over hearts and minds to a good cause
i never changed my attitude towards hard core drugs, nor was i ever pro-copyright
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1424363&cid=29925269
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/1/28/31758/7402
about great men. i'm sure after struggling with their demons, they would agree with my position: that had they never been exposed to these hard core drugs, their lives would have been even brighter. simple exposure is the deciding factor. limiting exposure is the only way to minimize the damage
i can tell you about great race care drivers i know who can drive 120 mph all day long and never get into an accident. therefore should the speed limit be raised to 120 mph?
for the vast majorty, cocaine, meth, and heroin represent shackles, chains, that completely destroy their ability to function in jobs or relationships. and all that is required for the destruction by these drugs to commence on more lives is to make them easier to access. yes, some people can handle hard core drugs, and some cannot. for those who cannot, simple societal restriction is the only way to preserve the integrity of their lives. in spite of every side effect of the war on drugs that you can demonstrate to me, and that i agree with, the MOST addictive AND MOST inebirating hardcore drugs must remain illegal to minimize individual and societal damage
you are of course absolutely correct
however, i am merely pointing out that although the thugs on the street corner will extract their pound of flesh, they will not prevail
it is still entirely valid and appropriate to directly confront the thugs, as you insist
but your point, and my point, are complementary points, not mutually exclusive points. i can make my point without hindering yours, and visa versa, so there is no need to assume friction between our two areas of concern
both of our enemies are the thugs. so you fight your short term war, i'll fight my long term war, and we will both prevail (in the long term ;-)
who fucking cares? its just so much damage to route around
yes, they could make laws that would end filesharing... laws that would also essentially kill everything that makes the internet worthy our contribution and attention. that's not going to happen, unless media companies have more power than self-destructive military dictatorships
therefore, let them pass all of the half-assed measures that don't essentially kill the joy that is the internet all they want. let them joust with that technological hydra, and waste all their resources, a pool of cash and manpower that just keeps dwindling every day. obfuscation schemes, proxy schemes, encryption schemes, steganographic schemes, etc ... some college freshman in his dorm will handle all the complexities, for free, and make it as easy as point and click, and the program will spread like wildfire. and will of course get stamped out, just as the next moronic big media-sponsored law circumventing tool is spreading like wildfire. whack-a-mole is never a game you eternally prevail at
so let them buy as many legislators as they can, pass as many intrusive legal schemes as they want, waste as much of their dwindling reserves as they can
again, who fucking cares?
millions of media hungry, technologically savvy, and most importantly, POOR teenagers
versus a counple thousand lawyers basing their strategy on a philosophically flawed premise: that the internet can be controlled, that the distribution tollbooths that allowed media companies to thrive in the pre-internet age can be preserved
game over, douchebags
it doesn't reflect well on you when you are already defeated, and don't know it or won't admit it
heck, lsd and psilocybin should be legal (not addictive even though highly inebriating)
nicotine is highly addictive, but its not inebriating, so that should stay legal
but there are some drugs: heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine, that are so addictive and so inebriating (you can't hold a coherent job or coherent relationship as an addict, unlike, say, a nicotine addict) that casual exposure to them represents more of a devastating threat to the lives of individuals and society than all of the negative side effects of a drug war
its about weighing positives and negatives. with alcohol and marijuana, the positives and negatives obviously balance out on the side of legalization. but the highly addicting+highly inebriating substances do so much damage in their own right, the negatives of declaring them illegal are less negative overall
So We Use Terahertz"
i'm sorry, but for the sake of just beautifully rhyming government supported advertising jingles, we just can't stop using these waves
could be chàse.com or cháse.com
every website i go to from now on, i need to study the url with a magnifying glass to make sure i am getting the actual site i wanted. not even as a security precaution, but just to avoid phony sites that might be spoofing a real one for all sorts of purposes, even if just humor, not all of them nefarious, but all of them certainly annoying
a with accent mark may be easy to see, but there are some subtle unicode characters that are so completely like the lowercase "L" or upper case "I" or upper and lowercase "O", etc., and each different font might render the different characters in so many subtle variations, that its almost impossible anymore to guarantee that the link you followed actually went to the site you think it did
so we have to type addresses by hand to make sure they are genuine from now on?
its not cultural imperialism to support only 30 or so characters for website addresses. think of it as a universal routing system, that is purposefully limited, simply for the sake of security and peace of mind
characters for website addresses should remain small in number. simplicity means security. now we have opened a can of worms, and i think the spoofing will actually be worst for those who use nonlatin alphabets, as they are more likely to be mixing latin and nonlatin characters in their address bar
"you yourself probably went to buy something at walmart after writing that highminded but empty appeal.
There was nothing empty about my appeal. It's fine if you disagree, but calling it 'empty' because you disagree, once again just makes you come across as a fucking moron.
As for walmart, I've never bought anything there. I think I bought something from target once? I'm not a big fan of the retail stores, and no, I don't shop there. I suppose you had to resort to idiocy like this because you couldn't meaningfully address the original topic."
i will file those words right alongside "if you have sex with me i'll still love you in the morning" and "yes, the extended warranty is completely worth the $60"
you buy what you can afford. the amount of cash in your pocket trumps ideology every fucking day. it's not about me disagreeing with you, its about what is fucking possible with the limited financial resources you have
as an allegory, i could tell you that coal is evil, so i am not ever going to use electricity from that source ever again... and then i am sitting here, in front of my computer, completely breaking my word and being a hypocrite as my computer chugs along on electricity from a coal burning plant. because its impossible NOT to use coal when you flick the switch. it isn't about your PRINCIPLES, it is about what is REALISTICALLY POSSIBLE. and if you had the slightest bit of intellectual honesty about you, you would admit its not possible, due to whatever high minded principle of yours, to go out of your way, waste your time, and spend 200-300% what you normally spend. especially, if you are like everyone else, you're just scraping by in this economy
of course it is possible to do ANYTHING, to never to buy anything from china. but that is COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC if you are trying to just live a normal life. such that demanding that people not by stuff from china, and that's the only way you can have principles, is NEVER going to fly, because the added hassle and expense is simply not worth it for 99% of us
you can call me any names you want. i simply request that you stop LYING. because you are LYING if you believe these so-called "principles" of yours are anything but delusions of a turd who can never actually implement what he says his high-minded principles are. and even if you were some freak like those guys who run 250 mile ultramarathons in death valley or say "i'll never have sex again" and then actually never have sex again, then you are a completely and utterly just a rare fringe case, and not anyone whose lifestyle is instructive or useful for the vast majority of everyone else
so stop trying to trumpet your nuttiness and expect it to have any validity about real people's lives. stop LYING. principles are about applying high minded concepts to real world demands. they aren't about applying impossible restrictions to real world lives. those aren't principles, that's just loony nutbag territory. but of course, loony nutbags will believe they are superior for their nuttiness. but they don't have anything valid to say about real, normal, every day lives
commenced, when the ARPAnet was born, and someone immediately started a query for music by Kenny Loggins
informative
the industrial age is not the end-all be-all economic model for defining wealth. over time, the time and energy of making manufactured goods becomes a marginally value-added effort, not the end-all be-all definition of what it means to be a functioning economy, nevermind rich. hell, the very fact we transport everything from CHINA, as in, half-way around the world, should tell you something about how little is added in manufacturing in terms of making a difference economically
if you really want to preserve american manufacturing, go help al qaeda blow up oil refineries: expensive transport will render chinese goods too pricey
but no, the whole issue of the few percentage points of the economy which is manufacturing is a red herring. the true richness of a society is defined by the robustness and fairness of its institutions. you can have a country like china where everything is made, and still you can have most being desperately poor lorded over by a few megarich technocrats. because how wealth is DISTRIBUTED, how society values simple fairness and is transparent and not corrupt, matters a hell of a lot more than what a society actually does
as the economy evolves, american know-how will adapt and come out on top if it continues to be what it has always been: robust and fair and adaptable. meanwhile, those like you with their panties in a twist because they see in the decline of manufacturing the armageddeon of everything they hold dear simply don't fucking know anything else. your opinion of how desperate things are is a reflection of your mindset, not reality
we shall move beyond the industrial age, and we will only get richer. forget guns, forget butter. know how will make us rich and keep us powerful. your much fetishized manufacturing is but a slight value-added marginal effort
is still practiced by the usa. protectionism is practiced by every single country. protectionism will always be practiced, and used as a threat, regardless of any trade treaty signed by anyone
but SIGNIFICANT protectionism, which most people mean when they talk about the issue, of the kind that would actually make a dent in the flow of jobs overseas, would cripple the american economy, in all sorts of ways, not all of which having to do with job protectionism or consumer behavior. ti woudl cripple the american economy to a greater degree than anything you could possibly gain by retaining american jobs in the industrial sector
you do understand that right?
and please enough with the slave labor propaganda. no american company is selling products made with slave labor. and if they are, they are exposed, shamed, and switch manufacturers. there are watchgroups where all they do is look for these kinds of abuses. the indonesian sweat shops making nike sneakers made for good antiglobalism propaganda in 1998. but its 2009, and nike and anyone else in business is making damn sure they don't run into that kind of business-killing bad PR ever again
now if you want to talk about a genuine issue, talk about environmental degradation. thats real. basically, cheap chinese made products are giving chinese people cancer due to china's complete lack of giving a shit about their abuse of their own environment
but do you really think protectionism is the way to address that?
"So what is more important? That we have consumer goods as cheaply as possible, or that we live our values as a nation?"
that we have consumers goods as cheaply as possible. duh
you yourself probably went to buy something at walmart after writing that highminded but empty appeal. plenty of people will agree with you, pay you lip service, it sounds grand: principles over cheap plastic crap. but absolutely no one will put that into practice. when you are standing in the store, and you have to buy that microwave, the $150 dollar one is not going to be bought. the $50 dollar one is. that $100 is worth a hell of a lot more to you than empty highmindedness
unless you are upper middle class or rich and actually have the disposable income to put your words into action. for everyone else scraping by, the vast majority of us: get real
let them be economic masters. what the hell is really lost? why doesn't the usa worry more about taking care of their own and worry less about taking care of people far outside our borders who don't even like us. seems like a big cash savings there, no?
economic dominance does not equate to quality of life for americans. let some other country take up that mantle
meanwhile, i'd like to see more european style 5 weeks of vacation and more robust safety social nets
the age of market fundamentalists turning our economy into a bubbling overheated mess and economic imperialists driving us to ridiculous workweeks and hours is over. fuck them all and the supposed "fruits" of that thinking. there's nothing in that except misery and a few rich assholes living off our stress
you could preserve american labor, and someone else would use cheaper overseas labor. then american consumers would buy that cheaper product of which nothing, not even company headquarters, gets a cut of that profit. then the next step is protectionism, where you insist everyone buy more expensive american made goods. then people buy far less, or they buy black market goods, because patriotism does not magically put money into your bank account, and you still need to buy a refrigerator. meanwhile, the rest of the world enjoys better products at cheaper prices while the american economy stagnates and shrinks, cut off from the rest of the world because of protectionism
i'm sorry, but in the interest of what is best for the united states, fuck american labor. the industrial age is over, let china pollute itself rather than the usa. and unions seem less like their ancestors, out to protect american labor from predatory management, and more like the new predator: upper middle class incomes at the expense of everyone else, including the health of the company, and the country
goodbye GM, goodbye industrial dinosaurs, good fucking riddance. if that means we are a poorer country for it, fine, no problem. as if the industrial age defines what is best for us, or even the only model for wealth creation possible. no, your lament at the decline of american labor only means that you don't know any better, not that there isn't anything better than what you have unilaterally decided is the come-all be-all of existence. you think the industrial model is only thing that defines wealth creation, and for some reason is fixed in your mind as a golden age, and all that comes after is somehow magically inferior. maybe its superior, and you simply don't see that. superior not in terms of the economic imperialism of past ages, but superior in simple quality of life
japan is coping with ecnomic decline to a far greater extent than the usa, and for a lot longer (since their economy stagnated in 1990). and maybe it means the japanese aren't seen as ubereconomic imperial masters any more, but maybe it also means less salarymen are having heart attacks and that the japanese have a more mellow, easier and happier life. the europeans have months of vacation time and generous social safety nets. so what exactly should we be fighting to retain in your mind? are we at economic war with the world?
fuck your fetishization of the industrial age as all we should aspire to. welcome the poorer, more mellower american age. time to step off the world stage as its master, and fuck you to those of you who think we need to stay in that role for some reason
they arrived within 9/10th of a second of each other
which indicates the opposite of the story's summary
and tell me we didn't interbreed with neanderthals
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_CM1pqhodMRQ/STVQv5XO3BI/AAAAAAAABU8/2Iw4dL9R6Kg/s1600-h/pablo_picasso_58.png
there are a lot of clueless slashbots here who in their comments equate scientology with other religions
this is like calling a pit viper just a snake or a black widow just a bug:
no, no, no
scientology is a corporate entity designed for greed and slave acquisition. it is refined mind control technique and a specially designed playbook of tactics for outright destroying all and any attempts at holding back their fungal growth. there's a reason why they hate psychologists and psychiatrists: these scientific techniques are the same techniques they use but designed for benevolent purposes instead of zombification
no modern organized religion, NO modern organized religion rises to the level of specifically directed and coherently organized malevolent behavior aimed at anything that holds them back from making further inroads into free societies
all organized religion is a threat to a free mind. but traditional religions are mellowed and incoherent. scientology is a disciplined focused corporate effort at destruction and slaveholding/ acquisition. scientology actively and consciously commits crimes against freedom that other older organized religions do incoherently and randomly
the vulture will eat you just as readily as the wolf, but the wolf tends to be a little more focused, aggressive, intelligent and speedier in its attempts to turn you into food. so you worry more about the wolf than the vultures
or at least you would, if you correctly recognized that scientology rises above all other religions in its virulence and viciousness and purposeful, directed maliciousness
"So YES, the government of France has effectively decided that the tenets of Scientology are somehow LESS TRUE than the tenets of every recognized religion.
IT IS hypocritical, and we SHOULD be having the "its not weirder than any other religion" debate."
its not hypocritical, because scientology is demonstrably, objectively worse than any other religion in the shit it tries to pull, and gets away with
what would happen to a christian, muslim, or jewish sect that tried to do this?:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Snow_White
the "church" of scientology is a slaveholding corporation run by thugs who pay lip service to a playbook of procedures to continue their existence and expansion into the minds of more clueless weak souls. this is what their "religion" is
i have no love for ANY organized religion. all of organized religion, to me, is something to be fought in the name of freedom
however, i recognize that scientology is particularly nasty strain of the phenomenon of religion and requires resistance of a higher order. scientology is the virus-like aspects of religion boiled down to a, pun intended, a science, and it is used in purely greed-oriented criminal ways to spread and devour society like a cancer. in a way, all religions do this, but all of the other religions are rather old and mellowed and weaker and less cohesive in their mind control abilities. scientology meanwhile is a brand new virulent disease, a focused coherent corporate entity which makes no pretense at anything except devouring people and turning them into slaves
its anthrax while traditional religions are the common cold. its the borg while traditional religions are the klingons and romulans
whatever islam, christianity, and judaism do to people that we both consider criminal, none of it rises to the stink this cohesive bunch of zombies and their zombie lords do
you need to accept and recognize that in the pantheon (pun intended) of the vile memetic viruses we call religions, scientology is a new and SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED virulent and extraordinary plague. it reuiqres of you special consideration asd especially dangerous as compared to all other religions
i am no friend of organized religion, like you. but unlike you, i recognize those organized religions that are especially heinous, and scientology is without peer in the world in its virulence and viciousness and disgusting perfection of slaveholding and acquisition
you really need to think about the tactics and history of scientology and consider its attributes and realize this scourge is a new step in the evolution of the mind control and freedom destruction that is organized religion
it's like comparing volunteering to clean up the highway median of garbage, and being forced to clean it up, and your income from the job goes to your crew boss
yes, there is plenty of monotheistic religions you should skewer and condemn
but to not recognize that for all the crimes of judaism, christianity, islam, etc., that scientology outdoes those religions and adds a few more crimes, is to not understand the subject matter you are injecting yourself into
i dislike organized religion. but i dislike slavery even more. and that's what scientology is
you really should read up on how especially vicious this nasty cult is
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_snow_white