Microsoft never advertised Aero, though. They advertised Windows Vista, and showed how pretty it looked. The vast majority of consumers barely know there are different versions of Vista, much less the differences between them, and if something has a sticker saying it'll run Vista, then it should be able to run what is advertised as Vista.
Vista has three editions: Basic, Premium and Ultimate. If you know what "Vista" is when you're shopping for a new notebook, you should also know about the options related to the purchase of the said product. If you're a consumer that "barely knows the options of buying Vista" then you should not be using the Vista characteristic as a defining factor of your purchase option, as you're obviously misinformed about the subject. It's all about personal responsability.
Honda is advertising sporty-like Civics on TV all the time. Yet everybody knows that the base price listed at the ad will not allow you to purchase the exciting and pretty version that's being shown at that specific ad. It's a fact of life that products have cheap + simple and expensive + full-featured versions.
This lawsuit only exists because the lawyers mediating it are going to make shitloads of cash in the process. Not because people were hurt as consumers.
Going with your example, Crysis will run as a full game with all the features on any system with at least the minimum specs. You get to play every level, every enemy, nothing is left out. That is not what happened with Vista... you can't run all of the Vista content with a "Vista Capable" PC, even slowed down. It's just impossible. And that's the issue.
Crysis will not look as good as in the back of the game box when running on a PC that meets the recommended specs, let alone a PC comparable only to the minimum specs. This is not a problem because consumers are expected to know that PC games are prone to restrictions when their machine is not good enough.
Knowing that your PC must be really good to run a brand new game is part of being a well-informed consumer for that market. People should be responsible for their actions.
You are incorrect. I have an HP Entertainment laptop with WinXP Mediacenter edition. This was 3 months prior to Vista's release. This laptop has a sticker which states "Windows Vista Capable" it does not specify a certain version of Vista. I am sure that Vista Basic is not equal to XP Mediacenter. So this laptop cannot be upgraded to an equivalent Vista version without hardware upgrades.
It's your fault for reading "Capable of running a version of Vista comparable to XP Media Center" instead of "Capable of running Windows Vista".
You can't expect to get the sporty-like Honda Civic from the TV Ad for the basic price. It's your duty to act like an educated consumer and make informed decisions. If you really cared about the "Vista thingy" on that specific notebook, it means that you knew, in fact, what was this Vista thing all about. Is it a single product or has it different versions with different capabilities? It's up to you to check that out.
In addition, a friend purchased a similar HP laptop with Vista and some of the hardware simply did not work. It took about 6 months for HP to get him drivers that would operate the built in web cam.
There is no addition here. This is just an anecdote about a defective product line.
So yea I think the lawsuit is valid and people should be compensated.
So you're condemning them for their lack of freedoms and for their tendency towards oppression while advocating further suppressing their freedoms as a solution?
I'm not advocating anything, actually. I was just pointing out that naive solutions based on "just talking to people" will not solve the problem at all. People need to be inclined to talking for this kind of solution to be an option in the first place.
That makes you more similar to them than you are willing to admit.
No, it doesn't. That's just a PETA-like simplification of the process. No armchair expert suggestion from a civilizated westerner will ever make the said person similar to a hate-filled and ignorant citizen from a stone age region.
You need to get all the arguments out in the open and have a leader who can address the concerns of the people logically and convince them not to fight.
Yes, because we're actually talking about the population of Zurich, Switzerland. They're all going to gather at public places like schools and universities, and discuss this very important matter, along with all the arguments and facts that you've brought to them. At the end, they'll apologize for all the violence and actually look for solutions to stop all that injustice that they were preaching for.
Oh no, wait... We're talking about a place where half of the population (women) is forbidden of participating in any kind of educational process and the other half only goes to school to learn religious aspects of life, with a disturbing share of time being dedicated to hate speech against whoever is their current enemy.
Oh, sure. They will actually listen to a lot of arguments, think about them and then all unite and assemble to make peace and live a wonderful and rich life. Keep dreaming.
Not at all, all the activists want is the ability to get rid of the government, like we do. And the activists in the far east wouldn't be so violent if they didn't keep geting bombed with US made phosphorus bombs.
They were not being bombed with anything at all since 2000. But they kept sending rockets and acting violent. What's the excuse, then?
There is no such thing as "they're violent only because (put punctual reason here)". They actually have an agenda that includes the extermination of their neighbour. They're not just as bunch of nice and educated folks looking for justice. Once you get them what they want now, they'll just find a new reason to keep doing what they're doing.
You give them land, they'll want more land. You give more land, they'll want you to leave the region. You leave, they'll want you dead. You die, they'll look for another enemy.
Left-wing people like you tend to politically sponsor terrorist organizations as a way to "get back to the man". It's some kind of sick and twisted way of getting things even at those who sponsor the state of Israel: the government and rich people from all around the globe.
But what you people don't get is that antisemitism is the most profitable business at places like Palestine, Lebanon and even Iran. Having an enemy to blame for all the people's problems so you can use public money and support to build powerful and rich institutions is a really good strategy. Arafat was a very rich man by the time he died, because he kept a substantial part of the salary of millions of palestinians. You know, to "fight the big enemy".
Most terrorist leaders are living at the richest parts of middle east. They have big and nice houses with gold-plated stuff all over the place. These organizations need a scapegoat to allow them to keep the people united against a virtual threat that allows their leaders to keep them as slaves. At Palestine, the system is simple: a large part of Palestinians work at job positions inside Israel. When they come home with their salary, part of it belongs to the ones "helping" the people by "fighting the enemy". The next is step is obvious:
4. Profit!!!!!
The best way of stealing from the people is making them believe that you're actually helping them. An atmosphere of hate and injustice is a good way of doing this.
The only complaint of this frivolous lawsuit is the fact that Vista Basic does not contain "the actual features considered as Vista-defining such as Aero and other features". This is just about a bunch of lawyers trying to get shitloads of money from a class action suit.
There is no deception here. The computers labeled as "Vista Capable" were, in fact, able of running Vista Basic. They were not labeled "Aero Capable" or anything like that.
I used to own a "Designed for Microsoft Windows 2000" workstation. Should I sue Microsoft for not being able to run Windows 2000 Advanced Server at full clustering capabilities? Anyone buying any piece of hardware is responsible of knowing that they might not be able to run the most advanced version any product family. What's next? Suing EA or Valve for not being able to run Crysis at full settings using the minimum system specs? I mean, 1900x1200 with 4xAA and advanced shading is what I consider "the Crysis defining features".
Even if the computers were labeled as "Aero compatible" and Microsoft called the new Windowing theme as "Aero" (with or without the transparency), there would be no reason for a lawsuit. But they didn't. They called these computers "Vista Capable" and they were, in fact, capable of running a version of Windows Vista.
I'm sorry but even though sometimes Microsoft gives me the creeps, lawyers can be even worse. And class action suit lawyers are the worst ones of all, they're just looking for a jackpot suit so they can retire and buy a boat.
It's great that you have a bunch of proprietary tools to allow you access the proprietary binary file after using a set of proprietary recovery disks you can't make yourself.
Yes, we get it. Windows is closed-source. So what? Only commies care about that.
With previous versions of windows, and with current versions of linux, it's easy for a saavy computer user to make changes, and implement fixes to a broken system from outside the system via bootdisk. It's effectively impossible to implement such fixes to a broken Windows system because of the inherently broken nature of having configuration values stored in a proprietary binary file.
No, it's not impossible. There are several tools that allow reading and writinh the registry of a disk installation. In fact, any Windows PE disk can do that with three or four small command line tools and the old ERD Commander (now Microsoft Diagnostics and Recovery Toolset) has graphical tools to achieve the same task.
Windows and the underlying OS have been moving progressively from a system where you pretty much needed to understand the underlying architecture to effectively set up your machine, to a system where you cannot understand the underlying architecture because it goes out of it's way to stop you from figuring it out.
It is still entirely possible to understand the underlying architecture of Windows. The problem is you: you gave up on Windows and you're now happier at your new OS religion. For the rest of us, MSDN is still there and OSes are still just tools.
Slashdot has an irrational hatred of the Registry. They'll promote this as the solution to everything from security holes, to bowel cancer. Just ignore it, there's no point trying to argue.
You are correct. And they only do that because they heard of it somewhere else and just keep repeating the same argument over and over again.
I don't see how editing 300 different sintaxes at/etc is much better than having a standard repository of folders and values.
If that's the reason for Windows' success, then how do you explain the fact that so many of the biggest Windows users (i.e. major companies) explicitly go out of their way to prevent that kind of behaviour? Most places these days have a horribly bureaucratic process required to get access to the most trivial of utilities. Many companies even use programs designed to sniff out unauthorised software, to ensure that nothing they don't know about ever gets run on their computers.
That is just a policy that restricts the employee to a set of approved applications. But they're approved by the actual user of the infrastructure: the company.
The company is still making use of the giant market of applications that surrounds the Windows OS. The employees of that specific company might not be good targets for the market, but the rest of the planet is. There is no need to wait for Microsoft to include the application into a repository as the Windows market is more flexible (and may I say - to enrage you all - more open) than that. That way, the application will get acceptance somewhere else, and the company will benefit from having more choices.
And of course it's worth noting that since Vista, Microsoft have been doing everything they can to move towards the Linux/Unix style, where even home users need to use an administrator password to install software. So apparently even Microsoft disagrees with you about what makes Windows successful...
Microsoft is not moving to a central, linux-distribution-like, repository for applications. They only programmed Windows to ask the user "is that what you really asked for? did you just tried to install an application?". That is not crippling Windows's capability of installing applications, only protecting the user from silent installation of malware.
What? My Linux apps launch just as easily as Windows apps do.
I take it you mean the ease of installing non-repository software?
Yes, that's what I mean. By saying "running random applications" I actually mean "Installing applications not supported by a central authority".
I don't either, but it does simplify installing to the user's private directories. I can run whatever I want within my/home directory without compromising the rest of the system (FreeCol alpha and Minefield). A side effect of this is that most Linux apps ported to Windows run just fine from a flash drive or other portable media (BZFlag, Firefox, Blender, OpenOffice...), whereas many Windows app will not.
Yes, application portability is really important for me too. I believe that a system that relies on the registry API but allows applications to contain their settings on a local file would be great. It can work just like a virtual filesystem for Linux, with individual settings files being linked to the central registry repository. That way we can have all application data on a single place but keeping registry compatibility and ease of access (or just standardization - some people don't consider the registry API easy).
Understand the difference between a "virus", a "worm" and a "trojan".
Who needs to understand that? That's not actualy a solution, it's just criticism towards a specific person.
#2. Take a hint from Ubuntu and have NO open ports on the DEFAULT installation. That will pretty much wipe out worm attacks. Do NOT depend upon a firewall to do that. The firewall is a SINGLE POINT OF FAILURE that is often disabled because it interferes with legitimate apps that the user wants to run. I can put a default installation of Ubuntu directly on the 'Web and it will NOT be cracked.
While I agree that Windows contains an unnecessary set of open (and public) ports by default, the built-in firewall is rarely disabled because of legitimate apps. In fact, it's one of the most permissive firewalls (considering its interaction with third-party apps) available for Windows. Even the majority of old applications that are unaware of that specific firewall will function properly.
But you're correct on that one: removing unnecessary services is something that needs to be done. But Vista is already much better than XP on that one.
#3. Provide a "known good" list of files (names, date/time, multiple checksums) for ALL of the OS files. This way, at least infections can be removed easier. It's easier to find a file that is NOT on the known good and remove it than it is to find a file that MAY be a newly obfuscated version of an old virus.
Assymetric code-signing already does that. Most (if not all) Windows files are signed.
#4. Keep the OS directories CLEAN. That means that installing MS Office MUST NOT install ANY updated files in the OS directories.
Most new technologies for Windows (like.NET) don't force the apps to do that. But, again, I can't see why WHERE the file is stored makes a difference. Malware is malware, it doesn't matter where it is installed.
If you ignore security and consider other aspects, I agree that having ONLY the OS at the OS folder would be a great thing.
#5. Move to INI files for apps instead of allowing them to edit the registry. If you really must keep the registry, keep it clean.
I can't see how that avoids virus installs. The registry is already ACL-based, so ordinary apps can't write to important registry keys. I think that the registry is really useful, because it is a standard way of taking settings into consideration. A central file, however, has a lot of issues such as not allowing application portability and such. I think that a good solution consists on having a dynamic registry based on individual app files (loaded to memory at start-up, and on a monolithic cache file) and also a better way to register app components on the system (because the whole "copy all dlls to the windows folder and then register a thousand registry entry for each one" is a mess).
#6. Consolidate the various temp directories and DUMP them during the boot process.
Agreed.
They are not magical. Limit how code can be written to the system and you limit how they may spread. Enforce organization and you limit where they may be written.
Except that Windows is a sucessfull platform because it's the only one that actually allows lots of random applications to be executed without much help from technicians. Not needing the permission from a central OS owner (like a Linux distribution) or needing to cope with obscure development platforms (*) is something that turns Windows into an application-rich environment. Limiting how code can be written will also limit success.
If your OS allows apps to connect to the network and touch user files (OS files are useless to a properly-coded trojan), damage will always be possible.
was just lying to himself. He'd convinced himself that his system just didn't have problems like Windows did.
Lots of OSS zealots who sometimes spend 5 days to make something simple work at Linux (sometimes that happens, even if its the person's fault) are also that way. In fact, most of them use "smart people" distributions like Slackware because "they never break" and "allow me to be in full control of my machine". Yet, when something breaks they realise (but don't admit) that they do not have full control over it, that their precious "superior choice" also has issues.
It's the same thing: they're lying, and with a touch of elitism into it. Their "thing" is not about making a good choice about computing or executing tasks faster of cheaper. It's about belonging to groups (and, on an advanced point, being part of the group's institutional machine) and feeling good. It's just radical enviro-activism.
After all, they allowed themselves to define their own personality based on those choices. That's how weak they are right now. They're not in control anymore: denying the tool/group/choice would mean denying their own personality.
The value of a consumable good, just like that of a service, lies in the satisfaction of human needs and wants. The value of that milk after I drink it goes into the satisfaction of my thirst and the improved nutritional state of my body. (Pretending that I consumed dairy products, that is.) It's the same value I create when I give someone a shiatsu session: I have improved the state of their body in a manner which they value.
You were talking about how much "evil rich people" take to the bank at the end of the day. A glass of drinked milk, accounted in the GDP but used to keep you alive, is not part of this equation.
The workers are the only ones creating value. The owners of capital aren't creating anything, any more than I'm creating something when I lend out my hammer. Sure, the owners are a necessary catalyst under the current system; but their necessity is an artifact of an insane system.
That's just anti-capitalist-talk to me. A robot can build an entire car, without a single worker involved. That's a pretty good example of capital creating value.
A factory costs millions of dollars, borrowed from the past efforts of other workers. Every single thing in this world is based on past efforts. All the public infrastructure around you only exists because the workers who helped building it were paid using money obtained from past efforts of other workers. The machines and materials used to build that infrastructure were also paid using past work efforts.
While corporate profit is something with an actual participation in the economy that borders the intangible or inexistent, "work efforts" are real and needed for the world to move forward. Someone needs to do something that is useful to others, to obtain whatever they need for their survival or just plain comfort. Someone built the road in front of your house because they needed to buy stuff made by other people.
And these people deserve to be rewarded for the present use of their past efforts. After all, it's their participation in the whole value creation process that is the base of the activities of those employees.
Without investment, there's no value. Not even a workforce-intensive business such as door to door sales can be formed without investment. Jobs only exist because thousands of people devoted years of their careers to storing value so it could be used to invest in the company.
It's hard for him to save enough to buy his own hammer while I'm sucking away most of the value he produces.
So what? You're mostly saying the Mr. Retired Carpenter should just go fsck himself and forget about his retirement fund, because lending it to Mr. Active Carpenter is a "moral crime" and he should be actually DONATING his fund to the said active worker.
Ownership is defined by control. If you don't control the stock, if you can't vote it in favor of your interests rather than those of the fund, you don't own it. Making up an idea of "money owners" is a sad way to try to deny this fact.
Ownership is ownership. Period. While the power gained from managing other people's money is tremendous, other people are STILL the owners of that money.
such people often become confused when it is pointed out that modern corporate capitalism is not necessary the final apex of human society, that something other than the L-curve is possible.
I was right: you're just a lousy communist. Bitch about the L curve all you want. People do not hold the same capacity, effort or opportunities. The world is real. Get over it.
You kept talking about a cute and nice society where money is controlled by some kind of all-knowing fair and balanced government, instead of all those evil rich people making use of the evil free initiative that gives people job positions to work on costly infrastructure. That's just B/S communist utopia.
The GDP is "the total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year". It is exactly the measure of the value produced in the economy. (Putting aside for the moment the broken window problem and the need for a GPI.)
No. It's the measure of money moved around, using goods and services as a way of measuring it.
If we consider your argument (MONEY/COUNT - WAGES = RICH PEOPLE MAKING MONEY) as a measure of how much rich people are getting from society, the GDP does not reflect how much of net value was created every year.
Putting bold at "value" and "produced" on a quote doesn't change that. Summing the market value of all production will only tell you how much was produced. I can give you a bottle of milk. After you drink it, what's left of its value?
The GDP accounts for the gross movement of production-related money. Most of that production is wasted just to keep things working. Economy is not a zero-sum game.
So the GDP is not a measure of NET VALUE. And net value is what rich people take to the bank at the end of the day.
That "net income" is what's left of their gross profit of $100 billion after expenses, including payroll. So if your numbers are correct, each worker is on average creating $60,000 worth of value that isn't going to them, but goes to stockholders. (Of course some employees own some stock, but not enough to distort the general picture; it's not like GE is an employee-owned company.) That's bit higher than the $50,000 of my previous calculation but well within back-of-the-envelope tolerances. Thank you for the supporting evidence.
Actually, each worker and 500 billion dollars worth of debts, along with 120 billion dollars of assets, is creating 60k worth of value. GE is not a door-to-door sales company, most of the company is based on heavy investments on technology and infrastructure.
There are other people (mostly workers) putting their money at GE (even if they're not directly connected to that decision) in exchange for profit. It's not just a matter of going to the office and saying "TADA!!! I JUST MADE XYZ DOLLARS TO THE COMPANY". Other people are investing their past efforts (but it's only money now) on the company, you're not the only one creating value there.
Rubbish. That "financing" is an artifact of our system, of the centralized control of capital. If I loan a carpenter a hammer, and he creates $25 of value an hour with his skilled labor, something is fundamentally wrong with a system where I can charge him $15 an hour for the use of my hammer.
If you're the one with a good package for hammer renting (price + convenience + etc), there is nothing wrong with it. Your hammer is not a godsend, it has its own value. He can buy his own if he wants to.
And if hammers are too expensive for the average worker, there's an opportunity waiting for anyone who sells them at a better condition (again, price + convenience + etc.) or produces them at a lower price. IF hammers are expensive because it takes a lot of effort to manufacture them, then too bad. You can't expect to get for free something that is the product of a lot of people's work (workforce + invesments).
If their work (or job positions) is really important to society, we can build a governmental project that allows them to buy hammers at a low price, or even give them for free, in exchange for continuing to work.
Because that's not a fact, but a misconception. Stock owned by your pension fund is not owned by you. If you're invested in MegaBank's Growth and Income fund, and that fund owns 1,000 shares of Amalgamated Profits, Inc., there's not a share with your name on it, and you don't get to vote at their stockholder's meeting, MegaBank does.
These funds are mostly a means of putting more wealth under the control of Wall Street bankers and managers, any wealth that trickles down to fund participants is a side-effect.
The investment class doesn't "provide jobs and growth" so much as it skims wealth off of the top. The U.S. GDP is about $14 trillion, the workforce of about 150,000,000: the average American worker creates about $93,000 worth of value per year.
But the average annual wage is only about $39,000.
Except that economics doesn't work that way. The GDP is not about "creating value", but mostly about moving money around. You're also wrong when you talk about "the average American worker" when mentioning TOTAL/COUNT.
General Electric has a Net Income of 22 billion dollars, and 370 000 workers. That's nearly 60 thousand dollars worth of profit for every single employee. So an extremely profitable company will yield something like 2/3 of your estimate. Even worse when you consider that GE is a good employer.
If you compare GE's 60k USD and your mentioned average 40k USD, it's a pretty fair game: their profits are not based just on their workforce but also based on more than half a trillion dollars in debt and more than 130 billion worth of assets. Taking only 60k of profit per employee while having to finance such a massive infrastructure is pretty fair.
You also fail to account the fact that most companies are owned by the average american. While powerful banks such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are the first-tier owners of billions of dollars worth of stocks, they're actually buying them in the name of pension funds and also using money borrowed from your bank account.
No, you can thank the drug warriors for our loss of rights. We drug users are simply engaging in our right to pursue happiness. Nobody has a right to decide what does and doesn't go into my body except for me.
As long as you're the one producing your own drugs, that's ok. You don'thave the right to finance violent criminals just to get high. Only people with no morals at all accept that financing violent criminals is ok because "well, I need to put whatever I want into my body".
So while you might have a good point about people trying to control what substances are you allowed to use, purchasing drugs in the black market is never justified. Financing violent crime just to get your fix is a pretty good example of thinking that "the ends justify the means".
Let's say I really like Baseball cards. Not the usual Baseball card, but the very old and expensive kind. Let's say that the Baseball card market just changed completely and now the only way of obtaining this kind of card is through the mob and other kinds of violent criminals. They're all killing each other to compete on the card market, and their activities are also known to destroy lots of people's lifes.
Would it be ok if I continued to buy such products? Well, after all, "Nobody has a right to decide what does and does not pleases me". Should I just say "I want my damn card and I'm going to get it no matter what"?
That's what "you people" (as in "the scum of society") do with drugs. I don't give a fuck about when you're going to OD at a dirty corner because you're such an idiot. But I do care about how YOU DON'T GIVE A FUCKthat your little hobby might be destroying a lot of people's lifes.
You, sir, are not simply ignorant, not even irrational, well beyond a mere idiot. You are a complete failure as a moral being. You are the soil in which evil grows. People like you are the reason why slavery, fascism, repression, authoritarianism of every stripe, run so rich through human history. You are the "good German" who makes the Holocaust happen; you are the soldier who invaded the Cherokee Nation and forced them on the Trail of Tears.
Nope. While american (as in the whole continent) slavery was certainly a pretty bad system, it was a product of confused and ill-motivated politics of the most civilizated republics of the time. No, slavery was not good and neither was it acceptable, but it's something that predates your whole existance when you're a 30-something individual living in a world that practiced slavery for decades.
So while this individual doesn't accept slavery, he does believe in the law system of his civilizated republic. You also believe and know that it is extremely strong and can't be bent by a single person. That means that stealing slaves to set them free will only help to get them killed. The same applies for other outlawish actions that will not help the slaves and might be beneficial only to people taking advantage of this situation. He believes in a solution that involves changing that small part of society (those laws), instead of needing to completely replace it (an abolitionist revolution taking over the whole country). It's not only easier but it's also safer to the other freedoms.
But then you started talking about Hitler (you just failed again, this time at godwin), facism and authoritarianism. These are not cases where the idealist law-abiding citizen is proud of believing and supporting the legal system. The word "authoritarianism" itself excludes such situation.
I'm not talking about times where authoritarianism is ruling the country. I'm talking about when I'm ruling the country along with my fellow countrymen, on a system based on respect and democracy.
Sure, this system might have its issues. But it's much better to respect it and believe in it, so we can maintain the tools and attitudes that allow us to change it for the best, than spend the rest of our lives bypassing it and risking losing it. Life is not easy. Every single change is road that takes a lot of effort to be paved.
You're financing violent criminals just to get your fix. You're bypassing the system, while damaging the life of thousands of people, just because you want to have some fun. If we allow you to keep doing that, if we allow you to weaken our democratic law system, what's next for us to lose? And just because you want to get high? I'd rather throw you in jail.
Now, I do believe in redemption, that even so poor a specimen as yourself might someday find the light. So I wish you no ill will. Except for this: I hope one day you truly understand how hideous you, at this moment, are.
Oh, yes. A moral message from a druggie that finances child murder just to get his fix. What a nice thing...
Smoking PCP by mixing it with cannabis is old news. (Stupid behavior, but old news.) It's no more "modifying" cannabis or filling it with "additives", then mixing a rum and Coke is putting "additives" into Coke.
A substance with an additive is a substance with something added to it, with the purpose of enhancing it. That's just basic english. Saying that your pot cig was "modified" with PCP is also basic english and not such a hard concept to understand. You asked me about citations, yet "this is old news".
Sorry, but you failed. You can't stand the fact that I'm against breaking the law, no matter what the law says. At least try to get a good reason to bash me, because bitching about "additives", "modified" and a context-rich use of the word "criminal" makes you look like a retard.
You're comparing drug legalization with slavery abortion or religious persecution. This has got to be one of the most retarded things I have ever heard from a druggie. At the end of your message, you acknowledged your IMMENSE FAIL (that probably deserved its own lolcat) by considering that I might have mentioned violent criminals, instead of also including people bootlegging DVDs.
But you're actually right about me defending the application of slavery laws while they were still valid. I would actually act like that, while at the same time fighthing to have the law revoked. That's part of having a legal system and believing that it is necessary for people to cohexist. After all, they're also part of society and paid for roads, water systems and the construction and maintenance of all those instututions that allow us to live with confort and security.
The funny thing about slavery is that the process was mostly dominated by "feel gooders" like you. People with nothing but warm feelings in their hearts and cute sayings on their mouths. And you all failed miserably at abolition, because all you guys wanted was feel good about being so nice to those opressed black people. A good, law-abiding, idiot like me would have probably waited a little bit more, to allow better living conditions for black people, instead of just opening the farm gates and forcing them to have a miserable life. "Oh god, I feel so good now, they're not slaves anymore! Oh god, PONIES! I wanna ride them, let's forget about these black people, they're not my problem anymore!"
That's because I believe in the law system. I believe that having a common set of rules and the right institutions to enforce them is what moves the world forward. The whole abolition scene was filled with thug-like actions and helped to create a lot hate towards black people. The abolitionists failed to construct a proper cultural situation to allow these people to have a good life, they also failed to create laws forcing the government to care about the welfare of the ex-slaves. But, hey, I'm just a person who thinks that using official mechanisms is the best way of actually helping people.
Do you want to know why the streets are filled with dead bodies, from USA to Mexico? Because of law-bypassing idiots like you. If you want something, you'll just go there and do it, because "not all laws are good". I really hope that a stoned and desperate person stabs the hell out of you, because then you'll realise the need of having a good law system and having solid institutions.
The next time you use the trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure around you, please remember that those who paid for it don't drugs around their cities and states. It's up to you to ignore that and get your ass thrown in jail, or move away from their land. You're just one out of hundreds of millions of people.
To summarize your message: (no, I don't like html lists)
+ You spent 90% of your message bulshitting about semantics while it was perfectly clear that you do know what "adding" or "modifying" means. You also proved that you're an idiot for discussing the word "criminal" while it was perfectly clear that you had a clear understanding of what my context-rich invocation of that word actually meant.
+ You think that defending the right of using drugs is like defending jews, slaves or cute kittens.
I have to thank you for being much more (at least from my perspective) civil in this reply. I know I was a bit less tactful than usual last night, which I'm sure didn't help matters.
:)
I wasn't clear on what I meant was being amplified. I wasn't referring to usage itself, which would obviously increase (to what extent nobody has any realistic idea) with legalization. I was actually referring to all of the myriad problems that arise as a result of the illegality: overcrowded prisons, random checkpoints in certain states, mandatory minimum sentences (exacerbating problem #1), increased crime from addicts as a result of artificially increased prices, crime from the people who make, import, and distribute the drugs, increased tensions between many communities and law enforcement personnel, corruption within narcotics units, unnecessary felony convictions that prevent people from obtaining schooling or decent employment, etc. The list goes on and on regarding things in society, especially specific (typically poor) segments of society, that are directly or indirectly harmed as a result of the current situation.
Oh, that kind of amplification. I guess I completely missed the point.
The current system is the worst mix of everything you could do to attack the issue. I don't agree with it and I think that a different attitude (mixed with different laws) from cops and judges would be much better.
My opinion is that disappearing with drugs (let's say by magic) is a pretty good trade-off if you really care about people around you. Sure, it might be nice to use them once in a while, but having it available might destroy the life of people who can't deal with the situation.
It's like (again, using magic) not having guns anymore. Not a single one, not even in the hands of criminals. Would you abandon your right to defend yourself, just to keep other people from suffering from the dangers of having a gun around? And let's not get too deep into my comparison, because it wasn't meant to be complete.:)
The funny thing is that most druggies are anti-gun activists. They love to talk about how other people should abandon their rights, just because they want to. Yet, they won't think twice about financing criminals, because "if I want to get high, I will, nobody should stop me and I will do it at any cost, because I have a good reason to do it".
How do you know he doesn't grow his own? Don't tell me you buy into the scotus bullshit that someone with a little pot in his backyard that he smokes himself is "interstate commerce". He's right though, with the exception of the opiates from US-supported warlords in Afghanistan and such, more oil money goes to terrorism than drug money.
If he's respectful to his neighbours and people around him, even when high from drugs, then ok. It's just someone breaking the law to have some fun, not doing any harm to anyone else. Also, if he pays to fix his drug-caused damages using his own pocket, that's ok too.
Actually, I was talking about your decision to indirectly put bullets on OTHER bodies. Just because you can't see where your money is being applied, it doesn't mean that you're not part of it.
Shit, you're right. I should stop buying oil right now.
Right, because it's exactly the same thing as giving 20 bucks to buy drugs from someone with a gun. The exact same thing.
"Modified marijuana"? "Filled with additives"? I've never heard of this. Please, provide citations.
Well, there are plenty of cases related to that. On most cases, they mix PCP with cannabis. As PCP is kind of hard to obtain, embalming fluid was chosen by a lot of kids to be the perfect replacement. As you wanted a citation, I looked for something better than a news article, so I got this research paper here. This variation of pot is known as "Illy".
Your first sentence is trivially true, as if one purchases "illegal" items - whether a "loosey" or a bootleg tape or a nuclear weapon - you're buying them from a "criminal".
This is not just about semantics. We are talking about different kinds of criminals and you know it.
But the allegation in your second sentence that all drug purchases finance murder is simply not true. Buying some homegrown cannabis or psilocybin mushrooms or even home-brewed LSD - or buying from someone who bought from such a supplier - is not financing murderous behavior.
Thanks to the prohibition that you love so much, buyers can't check on the ethical and social responsibility of their suppliers. If you want drug users to buy from people who are not engaged in violence, you need to bring the drug market out of the underground, make it possible for a sort of "Shopping for Better World" to the drug trade.
I'm not here to defend prohibition. My points are: It's a lie to say that you're controlling the drug and not the other way around; Prohibition it's not about trying to control people, just for the fun of it, but it's mostly related to avoiding a negative cultural shift that might affect weak people; These drugs ARE illegal at the current moment, so discussing proper ways of making this law achieve it's full effect is a valid discussion.
When you say "if you want drug users to... bla bla", it doesn't mean anything for me. I don't care about drug users. But I do care about laws and personal ethics. I would never, ever, ever, deal with a criminal (no, not someone selling bootleg tapes) just to have some fun. It's not an acceptable attitude just because society is trying to keep you away from your "recreation".
What's next? Stealing cars just because your local auto dealership is closed?
Making teenagers behave is the responsibility of parents. You don't get to point a gun at me just because you don't want your kid doing what I'm doing.
You can always let go off society and go back to the caves. We'll still be here, accepting the fact that civilization comes with a price. Being stopped from doings things that might not be good for others is part of coexisting with other people.
The blame should be squarely set on the fact that lots of "recreational users" are rich and/or connected to politicians / important people from the police. That's why those kinds of illegal business are thriving: because we are not arresting everyone who is buying drugs. It's hard to tell cops and judges to put all those users in jail when your family is part of the user base.
Plus the cops and judges themselves. Even more evidence that the current approach works just as well as Prohibition didn't. It's also not the rich or well-connected driving the market. The people who are not rich or connected vastly outnumber those who are, and most of them lead normal lives without ever coming under police scrutiny. I'd hazard to guess they support a much, much larger portion of the marijuana industry than the rich.
What I meant is that the current system is not based on actually going after users, because that would mean that a lot of rich people would be arrested too. Based on my almost-useless anedoctal evidence, almost every single rich kid out there would be in prison if the proper methods of investigation were applied and caused users to be arrested by having a connection with drug dealers.
If the cops search your car (because you're acting like a mad man) and find drugs inside it, you'll only get arrested because of cop pride. The judge himself will, most of the time, apply the lightest sentence he can manage to apply without compromising his career.
But now let's say that the world changes completely and drugs starts to be something that only poor people use. Can't you imagine Joe Rich Politician telling the cops to investigate every single drug dealing corner in the entire country (USA), then going after all these (redneck accent) "daeeeeemn mexikaainns and n%$@#$#$eers" who they taped buying or dealing drugs?
What the hell! If politician's kids weren't drug users, there would be brand new Supermax prisons all over the place, just to accomodate all these empoverished drug users! These are the same guys who subverted the constitution to go after terrorists. If their kids weren't targets too, there would be several laws and federal acts allowing almost every single stoned person out there to be arrested without any reason at all.
But it's hard to tell the government to act against users when the problem is also inside your house. That's why the "war on drugs" will never target who gives the money to drug-dealing criminals.
I agree that expecting higher standards from GWB is as foolish as the expectation that making drugs illegal will make the problem go away rather than amplify it.
Well, the current situation did not amplify drug use. In fact, the current situation is pretty good as there is a social stigma related to this kind of substance and sale isn't widespread. The price is high, considering that industrial production could make cocaine doses cost something like US$ 0,20 instead of several dollars.
There isn't a lot of technology being applied into these products, meaning that you still have to snort coke, smoke smelly pot and inject heroin. If these drugs were legal, using coke or pot would be easy as applying a patch on your arm. That also helps with not amplifying things.
I agree that expecting the current situation to SOLVE the drug issue is foolish. But it is not amplifying it. I guess you have never visited Amsterdam.
"He MUST be a druggie to hold those opinions!"
As for your statement that I probably have a thing for coke or pot, you couldn't be further from the truth. I don't like drugs, I don't like to be around people who are using drugs. That includes alcohol. Guess your Spidey-sense for those nasty law-breakers isn't so attuned after all.
Actually, the other person participating in the thread is a druggie. I just confused you two. My other reply to you never used that tone because I knew (at the time) who was the parent poster and you never wrote anything that allowed me to jump into conclusions.
Guilty about what? MY decision to put what I want in MY body? You nanny-stating little prick.
Actually, I was talking about your decision to indirectly put bullets on OTHER bodies. Just because you can't see where your money is being applied, it doesn't mean that you're not part of it.
The whole chain of drug production and distribution has blood stains all over it.
So do lots of things necessary of beneficial to my way of life (and, psst, to yours as well. You don't have anywhere near the moral high ground you think you have.)
You're forgetting that not everything works the same way and not all intentions are the same. Sure, I might live in a building where a worker might have died on an **accident** while it was being built. That's pretty freaking different from buying drugs from someone who needs to kill other people just to stay in business.
That specific answer of yours was pretty much retarded. On that respect (not having blood all over your hands), Law-abiding citizens DO hold the moral high ground when compared to "recreational users".
You care enough to pen that original screed about thousands of people like me, who hold down jobs, start businesses, and improve our communities, and do it while regularly taking drugs.
Yet, by experience, I know that you do all these things poorly. And I'm talking about dozens of cases, not just "this neighbour I had one time". And your retarded lines-of-thought, coupled with your inability to write proper paragraphs is a nice proof of that.
Slashdot Mirror
Vista has three editions: Basic, Premium and Ultimate. If you know what "Vista" is when you're shopping for a new notebook, you should also know about the options related to the purchase of the said product. If you're a consumer that "barely knows the options of buying Vista" then you should not be using the Vista characteristic as a defining factor of your purchase option, as you're obviously misinformed about the subject. It's all about personal responsability.
Honda is advertising sporty-like Civics on TV all the time. Yet everybody knows that the base price listed at the ad will not allow you to purchase the exciting and pretty version that's being shown at that specific ad. It's a fact of life that products have cheap + simple and expensive + full-featured versions.
This lawsuit only exists because the lawyers mediating it are going to make shitloads of cash in the process. Not because people were hurt as consumers.
Crysis will not look as good as in the back of the game box when running on a PC that meets the recommended specs, let alone a PC comparable only to the minimum specs. This is not a problem because consumers are expected to know that PC games are prone to restrictions when their machine is not good enough.
Knowing that your PC must be really good to run a brand new game is part of being a well-informed consumer for that market. People should be responsible for their actions.
It's your fault for reading "Capable of running a version of Vista comparable to XP Media Center" instead of "Capable of running Windows Vista".
You can't expect to get the sporty-like Honda Civic from the TV Ad for the basic price. It's your duty to act like an educated consumer and make informed decisions. If you really cared about the "Vista thingy" on that specific notebook, it means that you knew, in fact, what was this Vista thing all about. Is it a single product or has it different versions with different capabilities? It's up to you to check that out.
There is no addition here. This is just an anecdote about a defective product line.
You only say that because you hate Microsoft.
I'm not advocating anything, actually. I was just pointing out that naive solutions based on "just talking to people" will not solve the problem at all. People need to be inclined to talking for this kind of solution to be an option in the first place.
No, it doesn't. That's just a PETA-like simplification of the process. No armchair expert suggestion from a civilizated westerner will ever make the said person similar to a hate-filled and ignorant citizen from a stone age region.
Yes, because we're actually talking about the population of Zurich, Switzerland. They're all going to gather at public places like schools and universities, and discuss this very important matter, along with all the arguments and facts that you've brought to them. At the end, they'll apologize for all the violence and actually look for solutions to stop all that injustice that they were preaching for.
Oh no, wait... We're talking about a place where half of the population (women) is forbidden of participating in any kind of educational process and the other half only goes to school to learn religious aspects of life, with a disturbing share of time being dedicated to hate speech against whoever is their current enemy.
Oh, sure. They will actually listen to a lot of arguments, think about them and then all unite and assemble to make peace and live a wonderful and rich life. Keep dreaming.
They were not being bombed with anything at all since 2000. But they kept sending rockets and acting violent. What's the excuse, then?
There is no such thing as "they're violent only because (put punctual reason here)". They actually have an agenda that includes the extermination of their neighbour. They're not just as bunch of nice and educated folks looking for justice. Once you get them what they want now, they'll just find a new reason to keep doing what they're doing.
You give them land, they'll want more land. You give more land, they'll want you to leave the region. You leave, they'll want you dead. You die, they'll look for another enemy.
Left-wing people like you tend to politically sponsor terrorist organizations as a way to "get back to the man". It's some kind of sick and twisted way of getting things even at those who sponsor the state of Israel: the government and rich people from all around the globe.
But what you people don't get is that antisemitism is the most profitable business at places like Palestine, Lebanon and even Iran. Having an enemy to blame for all the people's problems so you can use public money and support to build powerful and rich institutions is a really good strategy. Arafat was a very rich man by the time he died, because he kept a substantial part of the salary of millions of palestinians. You know, to "fight the big enemy".
Most terrorist leaders are living at the richest parts of middle east. They have big and nice houses with gold-plated stuff all over the place. These organizations need a scapegoat to allow them to keep the people united against a virtual threat that allows their leaders to keep them as slaves. At Palestine, the system is simple: a large part of Palestinians work at job positions inside Israel. When they come home with their salary, part of it belongs to the ones "helping" the people by "fighting the enemy". The next is step is obvious:
4. Profit!!!!!
The best way of stealing from the people is making them believe that you're actually helping them. An atmosphere of hate and injustice is a good way of doing this.
The only complaint of this frivolous lawsuit is the fact that Vista Basic does not contain "the actual features considered as Vista-defining such as Aero and other features". This is just about a bunch of lawyers trying to get shitloads of money from a class action suit.
There is no deception here. The computers labeled as "Vista Capable" were, in fact, able of running Vista Basic. They were not labeled "Aero Capable" or anything like that.
I used to own a "Designed for Microsoft Windows 2000" workstation. Should I sue Microsoft for not being able to run Windows 2000 Advanced Server at full clustering capabilities? Anyone buying any piece of hardware is responsible of knowing that they might not be able to run the most advanced version any product family. What's next? Suing EA or Valve for not being able to run Crysis at full settings using the minimum system specs? I mean, 1900x1200 with 4xAA and advanced shading is what I consider "the Crysis defining features".
Even if the computers were labeled as "Aero compatible" and Microsoft called the new Windowing theme as "Aero" (with or without the transparency), there would be no reason for a lawsuit. But they didn't. They called these computers "Vista Capable" and they were, in fact, capable of running a version of Windows Vista.
I'm sorry but even though sometimes Microsoft gives me the creeps, lawyers can be even worse. And class action suit lawyers are the worst ones of all, they're just looking for a jackpot suit so they can retire and buy a boat.
Yes, we get it. Windows is closed-source. So what? Only commies care about that.
No, it's not impossible. There are several tools that allow reading and writinh the registry of a disk installation. In fact, any Windows PE disk can do that with three or four small command line tools and the old ERD Commander (now Microsoft Diagnostics and Recovery Toolset) has graphical tools to achieve the same task.
It is still entirely possible to understand the underlying architecture of Windows. The problem is you: you gave up on Windows and you're now happier at your new OS religion. For the rest of us, MSDN is still there and OSes are still just tools.
You are correct. And they only do that because they heard of it somewhere else and just keep repeating the same argument over and over again.
/etc is much better than having a standard repository of folders and values.
I don't see how editing 300 different sintaxes at
That is just a policy that restricts the employee to a set of approved applications. But they're approved by the actual user of the infrastructure: the company.
The company is still making use of the giant market of applications that surrounds the Windows OS. The employees of that specific company might not be good targets for the market, but the rest of the planet is. There is no need to wait for Microsoft to include the application into a repository as the Windows market is more flexible (and may I say - to enrage you all - more open) than that. That way, the application will get acceptance somewhere else, and the company will benefit from having more choices.
Microsoft is not moving to a central, linux-distribution-like, repository for applications. They only programmed Windows to ask the user "is that what you really asked for? did you just tried to install an application?". That is not crippling Windows's capability of installing applications, only protecting the user from silent installation of malware.
Yes, that's what I mean. By saying "running random applications" I actually mean "Installing applications not supported by a central authority".
Yes, application portability is really important for me too. I believe that a system that relies on the registry API but allows applications to contain their settings on a local file would be great. It can work just like a virtual filesystem for Linux, with individual settings files being linked to the central registry repository. That way we can have all application data on a single place but keeping registry compatibility and ease of access (or just standardization - some people don't consider the registry API easy).
Who needs to understand that? That's not actualy a solution, it's just criticism towards a specific person.
While I agree that Windows contains an unnecessary set of open (and public) ports by default, the built-in firewall is rarely disabled because of legitimate apps. In fact, it's one of the most permissive firewalls (considering its interaction with third-party apps) available for Windows. Even the majority of old applications that are unaware of that specific firewall will function properly.
But you're correct on that one: removing unnecessary services is something that needs to be done. But Vista is already much better than XP on that one.
Assymetric code-signing already does that. Most (if not all) Windows files are signed.
Most new technologies for Windows (like .NET) don't force the apps to do that. But, again, I can't see why WHERE the file is stored makes a difference. Malware is malware, it doesn't matter where it is installed.
If you ignore security and consider other aspects, I agree that having ONLY the OS at the OS folder would be a great thing.
I can't see how that avoids virus installs. The registry is already ACL-based, so ordinary apps can't write to important registry keys. I think that the registry is really useful, because it is a standard way of taking settings into consideration. A central file, however, has a lot of issues such as not allowing application portability and such. I think that a good solution consists on having a dynamic registry based on individual app files (loaded to memory at start-up, and on a monolithic cache file) and also a better way to register app components on the system (because the whole "copy all dlls to the windows folder and then register a thousand registry entry for each one" is a mess).
Agreed.
Except that Windows is a sucessfull platform because it's the only one that actually allows lots of random applications to be executed without much help from technicians. Not needing the permission from a central OS owner (like a Linux distribution) or needing to cope with obscure development platforms (*) is something that turns Windows into an application-rich environment. Limiting how code can be written will also limit success.
If your OS allows apps to connect to the network and touch user files (OS files are useless to a properly-coded trojan), damage will always be possible.
(*) Like Apple's insistent approach o
Lots of OSS zealots who sometimes spend 5 days to make something simple work at Linux (sometimes that happens, even if its the person's fault) are also that way. In fact, most of them use "smart people" distributions like Slackware because "they never break" and "allow me to be in full control of my machine". Yet, when something breaks they realise (but don't admit) that they do not have full control over it, that their precious "superior choice" also has issues.
It's the same thing: they're lying, and with a touch of elitism into it. Their "thing" is not about making a good choice about computing or executing tasks faster of cheaper. It's about belonging to groups (and, on an advanced point, being part of the group's institutional machine) and feeling good. It's just radical enviro-activism.
After all, they allowed themselves to define their own personality based on those choices. That's how weak they are right now. They're not in control anymore: denying the tool/group/choice would mean denying their own personality.
You were talking about how much "evil rich people" take to the bank at the end of the day. A glass of drinked milk, accounted in the GDP but used to keep you alive, is not part of this equation.
That's just anti-capitalist-talk to me. A robot can build an entire car, without a single worker involved. That's a pretty good example of capital creating value.
A factory costs millions of dollars, borrowed from the past efforts of other workers. Every single thing in this world is based on past efforts. All the public infrastructure around you only exists because the workers who helped building it were paid using money obtained from past efforts of other workers. The machines and materials used to build that infrastructure were also paid using past work efforts.
While corporate profit is something with an actual participation in the economy that borders the intangible or inexistent, "work efforts" are real and needed for the world to move forward. Someone needs to do something that is useful to others, to obtain whatever they need for their survival or just plain comfort. Someone built the road in front of your house because they needed to buy stuff made by other people.
And these people deserve to be rewarded for the present use of their past efforts. After all, it's their participation in the whole value creation process that is the base of the activities of those employees.
Without investment, there's no value. Not even a workforce-intensive business such as door to door sales can be formed without investment. Jobs only exist because thousands of people devoted years of their careers to storing value so it could be used to invest in the company.
So what? You're mostly saying the Mr. Retired Carpenter should just go fsck himself and forget about his retirement fund, because lending it to Mr. Active Carpenter is a "moral crime" and he should be actually DONATING his fund to the said active worker.
Ownership is ownership. Period. While the power gained from managing other people's money is tremendous, other people are STILL the owners of that money.
I was right: you're just a lousy communist. Bitch about the L curve all you want. People do not hold the same capacity, effort or opportunities. The world is real. Get over it.
You kept talking about a cute and nice society where money is controlled by some kind of all-knowing fair and balanced government, instead of all those evil rich people making use of the evil free initiative that gives people job positions to work on costly infrastructure. That's just B/S communist utopia.
The GDP is "the total market value of all final goods and services produced in a country in a given year". It is exactly the measure of the value produced in the economy. (Putting aside for the moment the broken window problem and the need for a GPI.)
No. It's the measure of money moved around, using goods and services as a way of measuring it.
If we consider your argument (MONEY/COUNT - WAGES = RICH PEOPLE MAKING MONEY) as a measure of how much rich people are getting from society, the GDP does not reflect how much of net value was created every year.
Putting bold at "value" and "produced" on a quote doesn't change that. Summing the market value of all production will only tell you how much was produced. I can give you a bottle of milk. After you drink it, what's left of its value?
The GDP accounts for the gross movement of production-related money. Most of that production is wasted just to keep things working. Economy is not a zero-sum game.
So the GDP is not a measure of NET VALUE. And net value is what rich people take to the bank at the end of the day.
Actually, each worker and 500 billion dollars worth of debts, along with 120 billion dollars of assets, is creating 60k worth of value. GE is not a door-to-door sales company, most of the company is based on heavy investments on technology and infrastructure.
There are other people (mostly workers) putting their money at GE (even if they're not directly connected to that decision) in exchange for profit. It's not just a matter of going to the office and saying "TADA!!! I JUST MADE XYZ DOLLARS TO THE COMPANY". Other people are investing their past efforts (but it's only money now) on the company, you're not the only one creating value there.
If you're the one with a good package for hammer renting (price + convenience + etc), there is nothing wrong with it. Your hammer is not a godsend, it has its own value. He can buy his own if he wants to.
And if hammers are too expensive for the average worker, there's an opportunity waiting for anyone who sells them at a better condition (again, price + convenience + etc.) or produces them at a lower price. IF hammers are expensive because it takes a lot of effort to manufacture them, then too bad. You can't expect to get for free something that is the product of a lot of people's work (workforce + invesments).
If their work (or job positions) is really important to society, we can build a governmental project that allows them to buy hammers at a low price, or even give them for free, in exchange for continuing to work.
Except that economics doesn't work that way. The GDP is not about "creating value", but mostly about moving money around. You're also wrong when you talk about "the average American worker" when mentioning TOTAL/COUNT.
General Electric has a Net Income of 22 billion dollars, and 370 000 workers. That's nearly 60 thousand dollars worth of profit for every single employee. So an extremely profitable company will yield something like 2/3 of your estimate. Even worse when you consider that GE is a good employer.
If you compare GE's 60k USD and your mentioned average 40k USD, it's a pretty fair game: their profits are not based just on their workforce but also based on more than half a trillion dollars in debt and more than 130 billion worth of assets. Taking only 60k of profit per employee while having to finance such a massive infrastructure is pretty fair.
You also fail to account the fact that most companies are owned by the average american. While powerful banks such as Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan are the first-tier owners of billions of dollars worth of stocks, they're actually buying them in the name of pension funds and also using money borrowed from your bank account.
As long as you're the one producing your own drugs, that's ok. You don'thave the right to finance violent criminals just to get high. Only people with no morals at all accept that financing violent criminals is ok because "well, I need to put whatever I want into my body".
So while you might have a good point about people trying to control what substances are you allowed to use, purchasing drugs in the black market is never justified. Financing violent crime just to get your fix is a pretty good example of thinking that "the ends justify the means".
Let's say I really like Baseball cards. Not the usual Baseball card, but the very old and expensive kind. Let's say that the Baseball card market just changed completely and now the only way of obtaining this kind of card is through the mob and other kinds of violent criminals. They're all killing each other to compete on the card market, and their activities are also known to destroy lots of people's lifes.
Would it be ok if I continued to buy such products? Well, after all, "Nobody has a right to decide what does and does not pleases me". Should I just say "I want my damn card and I'm going to get it no matter what"?
That's what "you people" (as in "the scum of society") do with drugs. I don't give a fuck about when you're going to OD at a dirty corner because you're such an idiot. But I do care about how YOU DON'T GIVE A FUCKthat your little hobby might be destroying a lot of people's lifes.
Nope. While american (as in the whole continent) slavery was certainly a pretty bad system, it was a product of confused and ill-motivated politics of the most civilizated republics of the time. No, slavery was not good and neither was it acceptable, but it's something that predates your whole existance when you're a 30-something individual living in a world that practiced slavery for decades.
So while this individual doesn't accept slavery, he does believe in the law system of his civilizated republic. You also believe and know that it is extremely strong and can't be bent by a single person. That means that stealing slaves to set them free will only help to get them killed. The same applies for other outlawish actions that will not help the slaves and might be beneficial only to people taking advantage of this situation. He believes in a solution that involves changing that small part of society (those laws), instead of needing to completely replace it (an abolitionist revolution taking over the whole country). It's not only easier but it's also safer to the other freedoms.
But then you started talking about Hitler (you just failed again, this time at godwin), facism and authoritarianism. These are not cases where the idealist law-abiding citizen is proud of believing and supporting the legal system. The word "authoritarianism" itself excludes such situation.
I'm not talking about times where authoritarianism is ruling the country. I'm talking about when I'm ruling the country along with my fellow countrymen, on a system based on respect and democracy.
Sure, this system might have its issues. But it's much better to respect it and believe in it, so we can maintain the tools and attitudes that allow us to change it for the best, than spend the rest of our lives bypassing it and risking losing it. Life is not easy. Every single change is road that takes a lot of effort to be paved.
You're financing violent criminals just to get your fix. You're bypassing the system, while damaging the life of thousands of people, just because you want to have some fun. If we allow you to keep doing that, if we allow you to weaken our democratic law system, what's next for us to lose? And just because you want to get high? I'd rather throw you in jail.
Oh, yes. A moral message from a druggie that finances child murder just to get his fix. What a nice thing...
A substance with an additive is a substance with something added to it, with the purpose of enhancing it. That's just basic english. Saying that your pot cig was "modified" with PCP is also basic english and not such a hard concept to understand. You asked me about citations, yet "this is old news".
Sorry, but you failed. You can't stand the fact that I'm against breaking the law, no matter what the law says. At least try to get a good reason to bash me, because bitching about "additives", "modified" and a context-rich use of the word "criminal" makes you look like a retard.
You're comparing drug legalization with slavery abortion or religious persecution. This has got to be one of the most retarded things I have ever heard from a druggie. At the end of your message, you acknowledged your IMMENSE FAIL (that probably deserved its own lolcat) by considering that I might have mentioned violent criminals, instead of also including people bootlegging DVDs.
But you're actually right about me defending the application of slavery laws while they were still valid. I would actually act like that, while at the same time fighthing to have the law revoked. That's part of having a legal system and believing that it is necessary for people to cohexist. After all, they're also part of society and paid for roads, water systems and the construction and maintenance of all those instututions that allow us to live with confort and security.
The funny thing about slavery is that the process was mostly dominated by "feel gooders" like you. People with nothing but warm feelings in their hearts and cute sayings on their mouths. And you all failed miserably at abolition, because all you guys wanted was feel good about being so nice to those opressed black people. A good, law-abiding, idiot like me would have probably waited a little bit more, to allow better living conditions for black people, instead of just opening the farm gates and forcing them to have a miserable life. "Oh god, I feel so good now, they're not slaves anymore! Oh god, PONIES! I wanna ride them, let's forget about these black people, they're not my problem anymore!"
That's because I believe in the law system. I believe that having a common set of rules and the right institutions to enforce them is what moves the world forward. The whole abolition scene was filled with thug-like actions and helped to create a lot hate towards black people. The abolitionists failed to construct a proper cultural situation to allow these people to have a good life, they also failed to create laws forcing the government to care about the welfare of the ex-slaves. But, hey, I'm just a person who thinks that using official mechanisms is the best way of actually helping people.
Do you want to know why the streets are filled with dead bodies, from USA to Mexico? Because of law-bypassing idiots like you. If you want something, you'll just go there and do it, because "not all laws are good". I really hope that a stoned and desperate person stabs the hell out of you, because then you'll realise the need of having a good law system and having solid institutions.
The next time you use the trillions of dollars worth of infrastructure around you, please remember that those who paid for it don't drugs around their cities and states. It's up to you to ignore that and get your ass thrown in jail, or move away from their land. You're just one out of hundreds of millions of people.
To summarize your message: (no, I don't like html lists)
+ You spent 90% of your message bulshitting about semantics while it was perfectly clear that you do know what "adding" or "modifying" means. You also proved that you're an idiot for discussing the word "criminal" while it was perfectly clear that you had a clear understanding of what my context-rich invocation of that word actually meant.
+ You think that defending the right of using drugs is like defending jews, slaves or cute kittens.
+ You fail.
Oh, that kind of amplification. I guess I completely missed the point.
:)
The current system is the worst mix of everything you could do to attack the issue. I don't agree with it and I think that a different attitude (mixed with different laws) from cops and judges would be much better.
My opinion is that disappearing with drugs (let's say by magic) is a pretty good trade-off if you really care about people around you. Sure, it might be nice to use them once in a while, but having it available might destroy the life of people who can't deal with the situation.
It's like (again, using magic) not having guns anymore. Not a single one, not even in the hands of criminals. Would you abandon your right to defend yourself, just to keep other people from suffering from the dangers of having a gun around? And let's not get too deep into my comparison, because it wasn't meant to be complete.
The funny thing is that most druggies are anti-gun activists. They love to talk about how other people should abandon their rights, just because they want to. Yet, they won't think twice about financing criminals, because "if I want to get high, I will, nobody should stop me and I will do it at any cost, because I have a good reason to do it".
If he's respectful to his neighbours and people around him, even when high from drugs, then ok. It's just someone breaking the law to have some fun, not doing any harm to anyone else. Also, if he pays to fix his drug-caused damages using his own pocket, that's ok too.
Well, there are plenty of cases related to that. On most cases, they mix PCP with cannabis. As PCP is kind of hard to obtain, embalming fluid was chosen by a lot of kids to be the perfect replacement. As you wanted a citation, I looked for something better than a news article, so I got this research paper here. This variation of pot is known as "Illy".
This is not just about semantics. We are talking about different kinds of criminals and you know it.
I'm not here to defend prohibition. My points are: It's a lie to say that you're controlling the drug and not the other way around; Prohibition it's not about trying to control people, just for the fun of it, but it's mostly related to avoiding a negative cultural shift that might affect weak people; These drugs ARE illegal at the current moment, so discussing proper ways of making this law achieve it's full effect is a valid discussion.
When you say "if you want drug users to... bla bla", it doesn't mean anything for me. I don't care about drug users. But I do care about laws and personal ethics. I would never, ever, ever, deal with a criminal (no, not someone selling bootleg tapes) just to have some fun. It's not an acceptable attitude just because society is trying to keep you away from your "recreation".
What's next? Stealing cars just because your local auto dealership is closed?
You can always let go off society and go back to the caves. We'll still be here, accepting the fact that civilization comes with a price. Being stopped from doings things that might not be good for others is part of coexisting with other people.
What I meant is that the current system is not based on actually going after users, because that would mean that a lot of rich people would be arrested too. Based on my almost-useless anedoctal evidence, almost every single rich kid out there would be in prison if the proper methods of investigation were applied and caused users to be arrested by having a connection with drug dealers.
If the cops search your car (because you're acting like a mad man) and find drugs inside it, you'll only get arrested because of cop pride. The judge himself will, most of the time, apply the lightest sentence he can manage to apply without compromising his career.
But now let's say that the world changes completely and drugs starts to be something that only poor people use. Can't you imagine Joe Rich Politician telling the cops to investigate every single drug dealing corner in the entire country (USA), then going after all these (redneck accent) "daeeeeemn mexikaainns and n%$@#$#$eers" who they taped buying or dealing drugs?
What the hell! If politician's kids weren't drug users, there would be brand new Supermax prisons all over the place, just to accomodate all these empoverished drug users! These are the same guys who subverted the constitution to go after terrorists. If their kids weren't targets too, there would be several laws and federal acts allowing almost every single stoned person out there to be arrested without any reason at all.
But it's hard to tell the government to act against users when the problem is also inside your house. That's why the "war on drugs" will never target who gives the money to drug-dealing criminals.
Well, the current situation did not amplify drug use. In fact, the current situation is pretty good as there is a social stigma related to this kind of substance and sale isn't widespread. The price is high, considering that industrial production could make cocaine doses cost something like US$ 0,20 instead of several dollars.
There isn't a lot of technology being applied into these products, meaning that you still have to snort coke, smoke smelly pot and inject heroin. If these drugs were legal, using coke or pot would be easy as applying a patch on your arm. That also helps with not amplifying things.
I agree that expecting the current situation to SOLVE the drug issue is foolish. But it is not amplifying it. I guess you have never visited Amsterdam.
Actually, the other person participating in the thread is a druggie. I just confused you two. My other reply to you never used that tone because I knew (at the time) who was the parent poster and you never wrote anything that allowed me to jump into conclusions.
Actually, I was talking about your decision to indirectly put bullets on OTHER bodies. Just because you can't see where your money is being applied, it doesn't mean that you're not part of it.
You're forgetting that not everything works the same way and not all intentions are the same. Sure, I might live in a building where a worker might have died on an **accident** while it was being built. That's pretty freaking different from buying drugs from someone who needs to kill other people just to stay in business.
That specific answer of yours was pretty much retarded. On that respect (not having blood all over your hands), Law-abiding citizens DO hold the moral high ground when compared to "recreational users".
Yet, by experience, I know that you do all these things poorly. And I'm talking about dozens of cases, not just "this neighbour I had one time". And your retarded lines-of-thought, coupled with your inability to write proper paragraphs is a nice proof of that.