however, average joe blow is going to go to niagara falls in canada, he'll be scanned and scammed as he wanders around, and by the time he drives home to schenectady that evening, someone in russia will be selling his info to someone in china
at times like these, why root against incompetence? it always seems to win
so go with the flow i say
anyone want to rent a 3rd story apt in niagara falls canada with me and point an rfid reader out the window?
seriously, the internet is seriously fucking with the music and movie industry in some really important and earth shattering ways
i for one look forward to a fracturing of culture: where before there were a few number of portals where people can find new music/ movies (a few radio stations, a few movie houses), now we will see a million online portals for all sorts of subgenres
in a way its interesting how this will also reshape culture and a sense of identity: you belong to group a, because everyone in that group shares your interests and knows the same media you consume. everyone knows seinfeld jokes, everyone knows star wars references. whereas in a more fractured world, more subcultres are created, and more borders between groups of people not knowing commonalities between each other evolves
i just broke my fingernail on the edge of my stapler. this is giant enormous tragedy with high costs for my life. it is consuming all of my attention, and is the most important thing for me to consider. i am not in the least acting hysterical or shallow when i say this
i'm denying the validity of the complaints of discomfort of upper middle class people in the west
that in the larger order of things, their concerns are a tempest in a teapot. that there are more important issues in the world to consider
so you go on and on about complaints one way not conflicting with the other way. i agree. but what i am saying is that the complaints, either way, who fucking cares. i'm sick of rich westerners and their piddling problems
yes: to hell with the sleights and discomforts of the middle class in the west when considering the plight of the poor in the world. if you want to bring up that comparison, i am happy to call that shot. were you expecting some other deduction when you made that comparison?
yes, i agree 100%: who cares about the whining pidlling concerns of the middle class in the west. their "concerns", like airport security, are, indeed, a joke, in the larger order of things
anything else i can help you with today? now get back to your starbucks and your suburban mall. you have some complaining to do about the gas prices for your 10 mpg SUV
you know, real middle class problems that require decisive action in this world
like anything, it's costs versus benefits. costs of having to go to the post office if you have a package, costs of not flying with my trusty shotgun: neglible
benefits: also neglible
it's a tempest in teapot, both in terms of more security restrictions, and less security restrictions
no big deal. and yet people get their panties in a twist. it impresses me more that some people just have a psychosomatic need to get upset about neglible things
there are guys who would hijack airplanes. it's rare. so people have to bend over backwards now every time they want to get on an airplane. oh well
but it seems to me the same sort who whine and moan about more security at airports are the same who would whine and moan about the government not doing more to protect us when a terrorist hijacking happens. people like to whine and moan. for the most part, the balance of their "concerns" are stupid. there are a lot of real concerns in the world. there are a lot of people with real problems in the world. but most of the concerns we hear about are the cosmetic paperweight issues of upper middle class busybodies. nonissues
feel free to whine and moan about my post because i see no need to whine and moan about more security at airports
somehow, there must be a tension of powers between shared public wealth, and private corporate wealth. there is no such mechanism to legally reflect this tension in the current world. and so all we have is the the ever increasing encroachment of corporate ownership into what should naturally be public spheres of public ownership. and so none of corporate ownership can be respected. naturally, some of it should, but not the overextended monstrosity that the corporations currently expect
and it is not up to the corporations to restrain themselves. it is their job to squeeze money out of every possible nook and cranny. that is what corporations do, that is their nature, it is not their nature. we should not expect them to restrain themselves. it is our job to restrain them, so they do not become cancerous growths. and we, the legal world and our legal frameworks, are not currently doing that. so we must begin doing that then, so that some of private ownership is respected, not none of it, as currently is the case, because current private ownership laws overreach in time and in venue
as if these means somebody won't still make money, and good money! it is just that the old models won't work anymore, and the corporations are nervous about the unknown
in the current world, the legions of lawyers representing the corporations, and the congressmen they buy (sonny bono, et al) push the scales firmly in the direction of irrational monetization. in a world where i cannot play "happy birthday" without paying someone, something is seriously broken
it is not that we shouldn't respect morality. it is that we shouldn't respect a legal system that is seriously broken, and doesn't reflect morality. current ip law is nothing more than an overextended farce
1. pull out of the treaty, preserve your morals, impoverish your society financially
2. stay in the treaty, have some of your morals challenged, enrich your society financially
go ahead and pick
but you can't sign a treaty with someone then break it when you want to. all or nothing, you don't get to ignore the rules when they hurt you, and insist upon the rules when they hurt someone else
then i have no argument with you. the argument i have is with those who think it should be legalized
unless you think it can be fought, and be legalized, at the same time. which is absurd
if you think fighting heroin and legalization can coexist, you don't understand that what motivates people to take something like heroin is a cheapening of their own lives. everyone cheapens their life at some point in their life. it is in fact normal, to cheapen yourself at one point or another, a sort of psychological experimentation. but if heroin is there during that time of weakness, then at that moment in time, you have been given a gateway to a lifetime of zombiehood, because of a brief time period of experimentation? not morally or tactically expedient then to make heroin freely available
in which case, the primary observation is that you must decrease exposure to heroin anyway possible. legalizing it increases exposure, and so legalization is an impossibility if minimizing harm is your goal
every single other tool you have in fighting something like heroin, every single tool and methodology, real and imagined, falls secondary to the most important method: minimize exposure
exposure to the drug itself is the worst problem, because that's all heroin needs
and so legality is never possible if you indeed agree it should be fought
i said i accept every negative you say about the war on drugs
and then you go and enumerate what i already know
the war on drugs, when it comes to meth, heroin, or coke, is still better than accepting these 3 hardcore addictive drugs into society
if you don't understand or accept or consider what those drugs do to real human lives, you simply do not have a valid opinion
go ahead and enumerate to me the negatives of coke, heroin, or meth on human lives, and then tell me again that the negatives of the war on drugs is still worse, and then i might consider you worthy of talking to
but too many of the type who say "all drugs should be legal" go on and on about the negatives about the war on drugs, and don't say ONE SINGLE BAD THING about the effects of hardcore addictive drugs themselves on human lives and in terms of human suffering
which means their opinions are instantly invalid and flawed and delusional. perhaps the addiction-driven rationalizations of an actual hard core drug addict, in fact
as if society makes some drugs illegal just because uptight social conservatives don't want people to have fun
if only that was reality
in the case of marijuana, society in fact is deeply flawed and racist in the origins of the laws against marijuana (and not alcohol? which is a worse drug than marijuana in addiction and negative effects?)
but when it comes to heroin, coke, and meth, you have to look at what these drugs actually do to people. it frankly zombifies them
and so these substances must be fought. the human toll in misery from marijuana, alcohol: not worse than the misery of a war on these substances. but herion, coke, meth: the human toll in misery of the war on these drugs is LESS WORSE than then human toll in misery of the actual effects of these substances on human lives
to not understand that is to have no real life experience with these drugs
i've seen what these drugs do to lives that would otherwise be rich, and ar enow permanently hobbled
you can't make laws against people cheapening their own lives. people will always go to these hardcore drugs, no matter how much you educate them. and so they must be fought, forever
and this is still cheaper, in actual dollars and in quantities of human nisery, than tolerating heroin/ coke/ meth, in any way
Slashdot Mirror
however, average joe blow is going to go to niagara falls in canada, he'll be scanned and scammed as he wanders around, and by the time he drives home to schenectady that evening, someone in russia will be selling his info to someone in china
at times like these, why root against incompetence? it always seems to win
so go with the flow i say
anyone want to rent a 3rd story apt in niagara falls canada with me and point an rfid reader out the window?
and i don't see drug companies starving
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-1000
i succeeded in the bad part, apologies
i sleep with my head in the microwave oven
a microwave oven emits less radiation density then the amounts used in this study
um...
(looks over shoulder)
that uh...
i'll tell you later, gotta go
movies
seriously, the internet is seriously fucking with the music and movie industry in some really important and earth shattering ways
i for one look forward to a fracturing of culture: where before there were a few number of portals where people can find new music/ movies (a few radio stations, a few movie houses), now we will see a million online portals for all sorts of subgenres
in a way its interesting how this will also reshape culture and a sense of identity: you belong to group a, because everyone in that group shares your interests and knows the same media you consume. everyone knows seinfeld jokes, everyone knows star wars references. whereas in a more fractured world, more subcultres are created, and more borders between groups of people not knowing commonalities between each other evolves
interesting time folks. i look forward to it
electronic > mechanical > paper
voting is not a problem that needs to be solved better. the K.I.S.S. prinniple is something all programmers can appreciate: keep it simple stupid
please lose your technophilia on this question of voting, faith in democracy is way too important in this world
electronic, mechanical even, merely represents a more complicated way to do something
unnecessarily
with marginal benefits outweighed by serious problems
# of attack vectors:
electronic > mechanical > paper
beginning and end of discussion. all other observations you can make fall secondary to this overriding observation and do not modify or reverse it
we should always use paper. forever. in all countries
faith in the democratic process is not something you want to mess with simply because computers are neat-o
it is a seriously dumb idea. increases attack vectors, makes something that is inherently transparent opaque
paper
pencil
optical scanner
end of fucking problem
really
i expect this wisdom to enter the brain of bureaucrats everywhere sometime around 2050
hopefully we won't be a theocracy or fascism by then, hastened along by malignant voting schemes
netscape's death will soon be followed by the death of another relic of the early internet
namely, AOL
as if searching you at the airport imperils your freedom
can i make this anymore clear?
if in your eyes that makes me an ignorant troll, so be it. i'd rather be an ignorant troll than say that which is unimportant is important
i just broke my fingernail on the edge of my stapler. this is giant enormous tragedy with high costs for my life. it is consuming all of my attention, and is the most important thing for me to consider. i am not in the least acting hysterical or shallow when i say this
(snicker)
i'm denying the validity of the complaints of discomfort of upper middle class people in the west
that in the larger order of things, their concerns are a tempest in a teapot. that there are more important issues in the world to consider
so you go on and on about complaints one way not conflicting with the other way. i agree. but what i am saying is that the complaints, either way, who fucking cares. i'm sick of rich westerners and their piddling problems
the tension here is not conservative versus liberal
the tension here is between being petty, and being real. making mountains out of molehills
being petty is an equal opportunity failure of constitution for upper middle class conservatives and upper middle class liberals alike
i couldn't agree with more
yes: to hell with the sleights and discomforts of the middle class in the west when considering the plight of the poor in the world. if you want to bring up that comparison, i am happy to call that shot. were you expecting some other deduction when you made that comparison?
yes, i agree 100%: who cares about the whining pidlling concerns of the middle class in the west. their "concerns", like airport security, are, indeed, a joke, in the larger order of things
anything else i can help you with today? now get back to your starbucks and your suburban mall. you have some complaining to do about the gas prices for your 10 mpg SUV
you know, real middle class problems that require decisive action in this world
one boggles at your word choice then when attempting to quantify the costs of things like drunk driving, the war in iraq, or diabetes
anymore because of the unabomber
like anything, it's costs versus benefits. costs of having to go to the post office if you have a package, costs of not flying with my trusty shotgun: neglible
benefits: also neglible
it's a tempest in teapot, both in terms of more security restrictions, and less security restrictions
no big deal. and yet people get their panties in a twist. it impresses me more that some people just have a psychosomatic need to get upset about neglible things
there are guys who would hijack airplanes. it's rare. so people have to bend over backwards now every time they want to get on an airplane. oh well
but it seems to me the same sort who whine and moan about more security at airports are the same who would whine and moan about the government not doing more to protect us when a terrorist hijacking happens. people like to whine and moan. for the most part, the balance of their "concerns" are stupid. there are a lot of real concerns in the world. there are a lot of people with real problems in the world. but most of the concerns we hear about are the cosmetic paperweight issues of upper middle class busybodies. nonissues
feel free to whine and moan about my post because i see no need to whine and moan about more security at airports
somehow, there must be a tension of powers between shared public wealth, and private corporate wealth. there is no such mechanism to legally reflect this tension in the current world. and so all we have is the the ever increasing encroachment of corporate ownership into what should naturally be public spheres of public ownership. and so none of corporate ownership can be respected. naturally, some of it should, but not the overextended monstrosity that the corporations currently expect
and it is not up to the corporations to restrain themselves. it is their job to squeeze money out of every possible nook and cranny. that is what corporations do, that is their nature, it is not their nature. we should not expect them to restrain themselves. it is our job to restrain them, so they do not become cancerous growths. and we, the legal world and our legal frameworks, are not currently doing that. so we must begin doing that then, so that some of private ownership is respected, not none of it, as currently is the case, because current private ownership laws overreach in time and in venue
as if these means somebody won't still make money, and good money! it is just that the old models won't work anymore, and the corporations are nervous about the unknown
in the current world, the legions of lawyers representing the corporations, and the congressmen they buy (sonny bono, et al) push the scales firmly in the direction of irrational monetization. in a world where i cannot play "happy birthday" without paying someone, something is seriously broken
it is not that we shouldn't respect morality. it is that we shouldn't respect a legal system that is seriously broken, and doesn't reflect morality. current ip law is nothing more than an overextended farce
1. pull out of the treaty, preserve your morals, impoverish your society financially
2. stay in the treaty, have some of your morals challenged, enrich your society financially
go ahead and pick
but you can't sign a treaty with someone then break it when you want to. all or nothing, you don't get to ignore the rules when they hurt you, and insist upon the rules when they hurt someone else
which, if you will note, is a moral philosophy
for "pirates of the caribbean: at world's end" on dvd
i think antigua should give that sucker away for free
simply because, a caribbean nation pirating a movie called pirates of the caribbean is just too f***ing funny
having nothing to do with this subject, but applicable nonetheless
"accelerated decrepitude"
here's another one:
"How much of my long-term health am I willing to sacrifice for the sake of short-term glory?"
from nytimes science section
now enjoy your mind doping
you have been warned
then i have no argument with you. the argument i have is with those who think it should be legalized
unless you think it can be fought, and be legalized, at the same time. which is absurd
if you think fighting heroin and legalization can coexist, you don't understand that what motivates people to take something like heroin is a cheapening of their own lives. everyone cheapens their life at some point in their life. it is in fact normal, to cheapen yourself at one point or another, a sort of psychological experimentation. but if heroin is there during that time of weakness, then at that moment in time, you have been given a gateway to a lifetime of zombiehood, because of a brief time period of experimentation? not morally or tactically expedient then to make heroin freely available
in which case, the primary observation is that you must decrease exposure to heroin anyway possible. legalizing it increases exposure, and so legalization is an impossibility if minimizing harm is your goal
every single other tool you have in fighting something like heroin, every single tool and methodology, real and imagined, falls secondary to the most important method: minimize exposure
exposure to the drug itself is the worst problem, because that's all heroin needs
and so legality is never possible if you indeed agree it should be fought
i said i accept every negative you say about the war on drugs
and then you go and enumerate what i already know
the war on drugs, when it comes to meth, heroin, or coke, is still better than accepting these 3 hardcore addictive drugs into society
if you don't understand or accept or consider what those drugs do to real human lives, you simply do not have a valid opinion
go ahead and enumerate to me the negatives of coke, heroin, or meth on human lives, and then tell me again that the negatives of the war on drugs is still worse, and then i might consider you worthy of talking to
but too many of the type who say "all drugs should be legal" go on and on about the negatives about the war on drugs, and don't say ONE SINGLE BAD THING about the effects of hardcore addictive drugs themselves on human lives and in terms of human suffering
which means their opinions are instantly invalid and flawed and delusional. perhaps the addiction-driven rationalizations of an actual hard core drug addict, in fact
as if society makes some drugs illegal just because uptight social conservatives don't want people to have fun
if only that was reality
in the case of marijuana, society in fact is deeply flawed and racist in the origins of the laws against marijuana (and not alcohol? which is a worse drug than marijuana in addiction and negative effects?)
but when it comes to heroin, coke, and meth, you have to look at what these drugs actually do to people. it frankly zombifies them
and so these substances must be fought. the human toll in misery from marijuana, alcohol: not worse than the misery of a war on these substances. but herion, coke, meth: the human toll in misery of the war on these drugs is LESS WORSE than then human toll in misery of the actual effects of these substances on human lives
to not understand that is to have no real life experience with these drugs
i've seen what these drugs do to lives that would otherwise be rich, and ar enow permanently hobbled
you can't make laws against people cheapening their own lives. people will always go to these hardcore drugs, no matter how much you educate them. and so they must be fought, forever
and this is still cheaper, in actual dollars and in quantities of human nisery, than tolerating heroin/ coke/ meth, in any way
study what hard core addiction does to people
weigh the value of that effect to its proper due