Why not make a Microsoft.slashdot.org for all the M$ bashing? Or a Linux.slashdot.org for all the linux lovers (or is that www.slashdot.org)? What about freaking-stupid-legal-system.slashdot.org for all the people that get arrested and/or fined for doing things that shouldn't be illegal in the first place?
I'm sure many of the knowledgable/.'ers have seen the WMP logo on DVD players now-a-days. My question is, if I was planning to spend $200-300 on a good progressive scan DVD player in the relatively near future, should I wait until they load these codecs into them, or will that probably never happen?
I'll address your points starting from the top of your post (and for the benefit of those on a 56k, I won't quote you, because it would be a 15-page post...
Paragraph 1: Many liberals stand for one thing while many other stand for something slightly different. I label them all "liberals" because they basically believe in the same thing. Any label, no matter how simple, is not always correct. Saying so is just nitpicking. Want proof? Define "rock" in the simplest terms, and I'll give you examples of a rock that doesn't apply.
Paragraph 2, 8, 9: I suppose that's why socialism works so well, right? Because the government takes care of its people? Socialism and Communism are ridiculously idealistic. They only work if people are inherently good, and that's just not the way it is.
Paragraph 3: You're FORCED to work 60 hours a week because the country treats you like a resource? I think you're confusing the country with your boss. Ever consider that your boss just is an idiot who thinks he can drive you to work 60 hours a week without you feeling burned out? Sounds like my last job... but then again, when I had that job, I knew my option was to get the hell out. Now I have a better job... I work less and get paid more. Nobody's forcing you to work there, unless it's you.
Paragraph 4: I think you're basically saying that you need money to make money. You may be correct. However, before we go any further with that argument, could you define "Middle Class" for me?
Paragraph 5: Fact: The Department of Defense has a budget of $330.6 billion, and supports 3 million employees. You want to see a drain on the budget? How about the Health and Human Services department and their $459.4 billion for only 65,000 employees. Yet I don't hear you complaining about health care.
Paragraph 6: That depends on your definition of poor. If you define it with the hard choices like feeding your children or clothing them? No, I haven't... I can't afford children yet, so I don't have them. I also don't have a 60" plasma TV... for the same reason.
Paragraph 7: I have no idea where you're getting your libertarian arguments. As stated, I believe the government exists solely to protect its citizens. That's it.
Paragraph 8, 9: Why should the government take care of the people? Isn't that each individual's job? Look on your tax forms... the little blank that says "dependents"... do you put "the rest of society" in there? Are you really THAT dependent on the government that you must have them take care of you? I don't want to support anyone else in this country because, to be quite honest, my philosophy is that if I don't know them, I probably wouldn't like them, and I certainly don't want to support someone I don't like. Do you hand out money to everybody that asks for it, just to help "take care" of them? In that case, I would like $10 million please.
Now that you've explained your position a little better, I think I understand what you're saying. Just giving 2 examples of schools that seem to be doing fine, without any other information at all, and expecting the opposition to surmise your point is asking a bit much from anyone.
You seem to be a fairly intelligent guy, so it doesn't surprise me that you didn't go to public schools. Perhaps if you did, you would know that many teachers simply don't want to be there. They don't care about the education of the children... they're just there for a paycheck. That's why private schools excel. Public schools, like any government-run organization now-a-days, have quotas that must be met, and more often than not, those quotas require hiring someone based more off skin color and ethnicity than skill or talent for the job.
Now for a little math lesson...
The 2003 budget of the United States (www.whitehouse.gov) has $47.6 billion for the federal Department of Education. The Dept. of Education has 4,710 employees. If you divide $47.6 billion into 4710 employees, each employee has an average of $10.1 million dollars available to them, for salary, building, bills, supplies, etc. Most people look at that and say "Holy Shit!... But what about the Department of Defense?" The Dept. of Defense has $330.6 billion in the budget, but also has 2.3 million members of the Military, and 667,750 civilian employees. Added together, that's around 2.9 - 3.0 million employees. If you divide the total budget into the number of employees, you get... uh oh... only $110,020. Suddenly it doesn't seem like too much, does it? Let's go down the rest of the departments:
Agriculture = $76.6 billion / 131,385 employees = $.583 million per employee
Commerce = $5.5 billion / 37,000 employees = $.14 million per employee
Energy = $19.1 billion / 15,000 federal + 100,000 contractors = $.16 million per employee
Health and Human Services = $459.4 billion / 65,000 employees = $70 million per employee (isn't government health care great?)
Housing & Urban Development = $30.9 billion / 10,300 employees = $3 million per employee (another drain)
Interior = $10.3 billion / 69,718 employees = $.15 million per employee
Justice = $23.1 billion / 129,679 employees = $.18 million per employee
Labor = $58.6 billion / 17,432 employees = $3.4 million per employee (yet another drain)
State = $15.9 billion / 28,967 employees = $.55 million per employee
Transportation = $60.8 billion / 118,447 employees = $.51 million per employee
Treasury = $16.8 billion / 150,532 employees = $.11 million per employee
Veterans Affairs = $51.5 billion / 207,028 employees = $.25 million per employee
Granted, everything there is absolutely abhorrent compared to most evil corporations, but the government is losing more money on Education (right after Health Services) than any other department. Who's getting all that money? Obviously not the children, since our test scores are so bad. I think you get my point about education...
I know Americans are stupid. It's because of the bad education they recieve that they can't see the long-term effects their decisions will have. It's also because of Democrats in the White House that we're plagued by such horrible things as Labor Unions, Social Security, and Welfare, all of which are designed to let the government step in and give people more money for not doing anything. Unions had a place at one time, but when they won't take a 5% paycut to keep their jobs, it becomes clear they want a government-run airline, like Amtrak. That way, their jobs will be secure. (How many manual labor workers do you know that make $100,000? The Airlines have plenty... baggage throwers mostly.)
I'm not trying to argue that the current government hasn't made bad choices. One of them was starting the department of Homeland Security (or Defense, I can't remember which at the moment). (Wha
What are you talking about? Government schools are so horrible, we're the subject of jokes around the world! And those two examples you gave are PRIVATE SCHOOLS. You're more confused than I thought.
So you're saying that we should do away with my interpretation of the American Dream and go towards Marxism? OK, sure... that seems logical enough. After all, all the Haves were obviously bred from birth to possess and acquire, all the while, plundering the lower classes. I mean, honestly, Henry Ford, Michael Dell, JD Rockefeller (I can't remember how to spell it), etc. were all born into families that already had $50 billiion in assets, so they must be the Haves. The Have-Debts must be people who work all day long for a measly wage, which is barely enough to survive on... which would obviously lead to borrowing money, and a high debt-to-income ratio. It seems perfectly logical to dismiss the idea that if one can't afford something, they shouldn't own it. After all, everyone IS actually equal, right? Education, background, skill, talent, etc... play no part in earning money to spend on things you want, right?
Bumping into ideas that aren't the same as mine is fine and dandy, as long as they make sense.
Embarassing questions about corporations? Like what? Could you be a little more specific with those embarassing questions? I'd like some examples, if you please. Every bad corporation you bring up, I can bring up 10 good corporations. This little thing called Capitalism works pretty well, I hear.
Privacy? What, you mean like registering with the government in order to purchase a gun in a few weeks? The only reason the left is concerned about privacy is that at this point, it's against what the right is about. Don't believe me? Take a look at the former administration and their views on your "privacy". Remember that Hilary Clinton said "We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." It doesn't sound like she has YOUR PRIVACY in her agenda... at least in 1993. Don't believe me? Here's one right from USA Today (March 11, 1993, page 2A) "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans...". Who said such a horrible thing? Bill Clinton.
Look it up yourself. Don't take my word for it.
Man, you're a little confused.
I'm not sure where you were "indoctrinated", but I'd be willing to guess it was a government school. We've had government controlled schools in this country for how long... at least 50 years... and we're in the bottom rung of the educational ladders. At the same time, we're spending more on education than any other country. Obviously the taxes you're paying for your wonderful education just aren't doing the job they're supposed to. Here's a solution: Pay half the taxes, but hire people that actually WANT to teach! Get rid of tenure, and hire people with a passion for educating children.
"Liberalism" stands for 1 thing, and that's the belief that the good of most of the people overrules the good of some of the people. "Liberals" believe that the government should take care of the people, and the people should thank and worship the government. The basis for "conservatism" is that each person must make their own decisions for their own good, and they must be held accountable for those decisions.
Being a Libertarian myself, I believe that the government exists solely to protect its citizens... and I certainly don't believe that requires 35 - 50% of my salary per year. I educated myself, I took the time and money to learn what I know, I made the effort to get a job, I work hard at my job, I earn my paycheck, and I should be allowed to spend it as I wish. I don't want to pay a social security tax that I'll never see again. I can't figure out what the hell FEMA actually does, and there's no reason at all I should lose 20% of my paycheck for income taxes.
The other thing I'd like to point out is that your jealousy and hatred of the "rich" people in this country is appaling. I'd be willing to bet that you've never even considered that the "rich" people actually WORK for their money, did you? My father is pretty rich... earns a very good living. He came from a family in the lower income brackets, but studied hard, and works 100 hours a week. It paid off, and now he owns a couple businesses and still works all that time.
Now tell me the truth... would you like to be able to drive your SUV (or vehicle of your choice) using cheap gas to your mansion in the suburbs? If you say you don't want a mansion, you're a liar. It's called the American Dream. It's the idea that you can go from having nothing to having everything (not literally). Isn't it possible, at the very least, that the rich people in this country worked so hard in their younger years that they actually deserve to have some time to fly around the world in a hot-air balloon if they wish? Isn't it possible they deserve that right? Wouldn't you be a little upset if you worked for 60 hours a week and didn't get paid overtime or didn't get any appreciation for it?
CNN? The Clinton News Network? Yeah... they're not biased at all... *sarcasm* Are you serious?
Get a life and forget about world issues entirely? My god. You're actually advocating a dictatorship by saying that. Think about it. If everybody "forgot about world issues", then nobody would care what the government did, and a dictatorship would eventually arise, like it always does when nobody stops them.
The only way to change things for the better is to NOT forget about issues.
So if I read this article and some of this discussion, and I e-mail it to a friend who has kids, the FBI could find the term "Child Pornography", call me a terrorist and put me in jail? Ouch...
It's simple supply and demand. If a portion of the public wants it (however sick those people are), someone out there will make it. If it's risky to make or sell, the price goes up. If the price goes up, more people will want to make it.
Look at cocaine. It's the perfect example of supply and demand. Lots of people use it, dispite the fact that it's illegal. Why? Because they want to, and they're willing to pay any price to get it. Does it really cost $400 per ounce to make? Not a chance. It might cost all of $4 per ounce to make... but then you have to pay the grower, the smuggler, the "conveniently-absent" law-enforcement agent, plus the cost for shipping it 1500 miles. What would happen if we legalized it, along with all the other drugs? The demand would stay the same, but since the drug lords could now make cocaine in the US, thus saving them money, they would do so. The price would decrease because the supply would increase. Hopefully, all the cocaine addicts would still spend all their money on cocaine and overdose, thereby eliminating most of the demand. If the demand is gone, the supply will disappear. This is all basic economics that people better start thinking about.
Now, relate it to child pornography. It's extremely risky to make, extremely risky to sell, and extremely risky to have. I'm certainly not advocating it, but try to apply the same logic (without any emotion). Increase the supply, and decrease the demand. People that sexually abuse the children for the profit involved won't be getting nearly as much profit and might move on to more profitable things (like cocaine). Child pornography will still happen because we live in a very sick world, but at least people won't be making money at it.
To realistically address the problem at hand, repeal this ridiculous law. It helps nobody and it will solve nothing. The only purpose for it is to make the legislators feel like they do something worthwhile. Keep the laws that make it illegal to sexually abuse children, sell such material, and own such material. I really didn't think this was such a major issue... I never knew anybody to get excited over naked children. That's just plain nasty.
Alexander Graham Bell, credited with the invention of the telephone, LIVED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. He worked, lived, and invented in the US of A.
The way I see it, "they" are a "they" because they are multiple physical objects, even if they have the same brain. For example (and this is probably a much better analog than my family one), if you have a cluster of 50 computers, and one of them blows up, you don't say the cluster blew up... you say that one machine blew up. Taking the analogy further, if you put a floppy with a virus on it into one of the drives, that virus would quickly infect the entire cluster, forcing you to trash it all and start from scratch (assuming you don't have a backup... which is another concept, in and of itself... imagine the massive tape-drive it would take to back up the Borg's entire existence...).
You're correct that my interpretation reduces them to the Corleone family, but if they aren't reduced to something, Picard never would have beaten them. They have better technology, better communication, longer lifespans, and there's (probably) a HELL of a lot more of them than there are humans.
I don't think he, or the writers, made any such mistake. If I could, I'd make the analog of an infant child in a family. The family would be the Borg collective, and Hugh would be the child. In the collective, just like a family, Hugh provided the other Borg members with certain functions that only he could provide at that particular time (like a baby provides the family with "ooohs" and "aaahhs"). When he was removed from his "family", he learned to provide other functions... in essence, he grew up. When he was re-introduced to his family, he taught the rest of them the same new functions he had learned, one of which was the concept of individuality. That concept spread to the rest, and all chaos broke loose. That created the need for a leader, like Lore took in that one later episode.
I think you're oversimplifying the whole plotline of the Borg. They aren't dumb, they're just ignorant. There's a difference between being dumb, and being unaware. I'm certainly not dumb about many things, but concerning a good number of subjects, I'm completely unaware.
Yeah... because buying a product to resell to a third-party NEVER happens these days. It's also highly immoral. In fact, why don't we do away with all middle-men? Walmart has no place at all. We can order food directly from the butcher. That's total bullshit. Think about it. What's the difference between buying a company to resell its product and buying a PS2 to resell it on eBay to a poor sap who couldn't find one? Is it just the dollar amount? If so, where's the line? $500 apparently is too low, since the PS2's were going for more than that. How about $1000? $5000?
Slashdot Mirror
Why not make a Microsoft.slashdot.org for all the M$ bashing? Or a Linux.slashdot.org for all the linux lovers (or is that www.slashdot.org)? What about freaking-stupid-legal-system.slashdot.org for all the people that get arrested and/or fined for doing things that shouldn't be illegal in the first place?
I'm sure many of the knowledgable /.'ers have seen the WMP logo on DVD players now-a-days. My question is, if I was planning to spend $200-300 on a good progressive scan DVD player in the relatively near future, should I wait until they load these codecs into them, or will that probably never happen?
*sigh* Here we go...
I'll address your points starting from the top of your post (and for the benefit of those on a 56k, I won't quote you, because it would be a 15-page post...
Paragraph 1: Many liberals stand for one thing while many other stand for something slightly different. I label them all "liberals" because they basically believe in the same thing. Any label, no matter how simple, is not always correct. Saying so is just nitpicking. Want proof? Define "rock" in the simplest terms, and I'll give you examples of a rock that doesn't apply.
Paragraph 2, 8, 9: I suppose that's why socialism works so well, right? Because the government takes care of its people? Socialism and Communism are ridiculously idealistic. They only work if people are inherently good, and that's just not the way it is.
Paragraph 3: You're FORCED to work 60 hours a week because the country treats you like a resource? I think you're confusing the country with your boss. Ever consider that your boss just is an idiot who thinks he can drive you to work 60 hours a week without you feeling burned out? Sounds like my last job... but then again, when I had that job, I knew my option was to get the hell out. Now I have a better job... I work less and get paid more. Nobody's forcing you to work there, unless it's you.
Paragraph 4: I think you're basically saying that you need money to make money. You may be correct. However, before we go any further with that argument, could you define "Middle Class" for me?
Paragraph 5: Fact: The Department of Defense has a budget of $330.6 billion, and supports 3 million employees. You want to see a drain on the budget? How about the Health and Human Services department and their $459.4 billion for only 65,000 employees. Yet I don't hear you complaining about health care.
Paragraph 6: That depends on your definition of poor. If you define it with the hard choices like feeding your children or clothing them? No, I haven't... I can't afford children yet, so I don't have them. I also don't have a 60" plasma TV... for the same reason.
Paragraph 7: I have no idea where you're getting your libertarian arguments. As stated, I believe the government exists solely to protect its citizens. That's it.
Paragraph 8, 9: Why should the government take care of the people? Isn't that each individual's job? Look on your tax forms... the little blank that says "dependents"... do you put "the rest of society" in there? Are you really THAT dependent on the government that you must have them take care of you? I don't want to support anyone else in this country because, to be quite honest, my philosophy is that if I don't know them, I probably wouldn't like them, and I certainly don't want to support someone I don't like. Do you hand out money to everybody that asks for it, just to help "take care" of them? In that case, I would like $10 million please.
Now that you've explained your position a little better, I think I understand what you're saying. Just giving 2 examples of schools that seem to be doing fine, without any other information at all, and expecting the opposition to surmise your point is asking a bit much from anyone.
... But what about the Department of Defense?" The Dept. of Defense has $330.6 billion in the budget, but also has 2.3 million members of the Military, and 667,750 civilian employees. Added together, that's around 2.9 - 3.0 million employees. If you divide the total budget into the number of employees, you get... uh oh... only $110,020. Suddenly it doesn't seem like too much, does it? Let's go down the rest of the departments:
You seem to be a fairly intelligent guy, so it doesn't surprise me that you didn't go to public schools. Perhaps if you did, you would know that many teachers simply don't want to be there. They don't care about the education of the children... they're just there for a paycheck. That's why private schools excel. Public schools, like any government-run organization now-a-days, have quotas that must be met, and more often than not, those quotas require hiring someone based more off skin color and ethnicity than skill or talent for the job.
Now for a little math lesson...
The 2003 budget of the United States (www.whitehouse.gov) has $47.6 billion for the federal Department of Education. The Dept. of Education has 4,710 employees. If you divide $47.6 billion into 4710 employees, each employee has an average of $10.1 million dollars available to them, for salary, building, bills, supplies, etc. Most people look at that and say "Holy Shit!
Agriculture = $76.6 billion / 131,385 employees = $.583 million per employee
Commerce = $5.5 billion / 37,000 employees = $.14 million per employee
Energy = $19.1 billion / 15,000 federal + 100,000 contractors = $.16 million per employee
Health and Human Services = $459.4 billion / 65,000 employees = $70 million per employee (isn't government health care great?)
Housing & Urban Development = $30.9 billion / 10,300 employees = $3 million per employee (another drain)
Interior = $10.3 billion / 69,718 employees = $.15 million per employee
Justice = $23.1 billion / 129,679 employees = $.18 million per employee
Labor = $58.6 billion / 17,432 employees = $3.4 million per employee (yet another drain)
State = $15.9 billion / 28,967 employees = $.55 million per employee
Transportation = $60.8 billion / 118,447 employees = $.51 million per employee
Treasury = $16.8 billion / 150,532 employees = $.11 million per employee
Veterans Affairs = $51.5 billion / 207,028 employees = $.25 million per employee
Granted, everything there is absolutely abhorrent compared to most evil corporations, but the government is losing more money on Education (right after Health Services) than any other department. Who's getting all that money? Obviously not the children, since our test scores are so bad. I think you get my point about education...
I know Americans are stupid. It's because of the bad education they recieve that they can't see the long-term effects their decisions will have. It's also because of Democrats in the White House that we're plagued by such horrible things as Labor Unions, Social Security, and Welfare, all of which are designed to let the government step in and give people more money for not doing anything. Unions had a place at one time, but when they won't take a 5% paycut to keep their jobs, it becomes clear they want a government-run airline, like Amtrak. That way, their jobs will be secure. (How many manual labor workers do you know that make $100,000? The Airlines have plenty... baggage throwers mostly.)
I'm not trying to argue that the current government hasn't made bad choices. One of them was starting the department of Homeland Security (or Defense, I can't remember which at the moment). (Wha
What are you talking about? Government schools are so horrible, we're the subject of jokes around the world! And those two examples you gave are PRIVATE SCHOOLS. You're more confused than I thought. So you're saying that we should do away with my interpretation of the American Dream and go towards Marxism? OK, sure... that seems logical enough. After all, all the Haves were obviously bred from birth to possess and acquire, all the while, plundering the lower classes. I mean, honestly, Henry Ford, Michael Dell, JD Rockefeller (I can't remember how to spell it), etc. were all born into families that already had $50 billiion in assets, so they must be the Haves. The Have-Debts must be people who work all day long for a measly wage, which is barely enough to survive on... which would obviously lead to borrowing money, and a high debt-to-income ratio. It seems perfectly logical to dismiss the idea that if one can't afford something, they shouldn't own it. After all, everyone IS actually equal, right? Education, background, skill, talent, etc... play no part in earning money to spend on things you want, right?
Bumping into ideas that aren't the same as mine is fine and dandy, as long as they make sense. Embarassing questions about corporations? Like what? Could you be a little more specific with those embarassing questions? I'd like some examples, if you please. Every bad corporation you bring up, I can bring up 10 good corporations. This little thing called Capitalism works pretty well, I hear. Privacy? What, you mean like registering with the government in order to purchase a gun in a few weeks? The only reason the left is concerned about privacy is that at this point, it's against what the right is about. Don't believe me? Take a look at the former administration and their views on your "privacy". Remember that Hilary Clinton said "We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." It doesn't sound like she has YOUR PRIVACY in her agenda... at least in 1993. Don't believe me? Here's one right from USA Today (March 11, 1993, page 2A) "We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans ...". Who said such a horrible thing? Bill Clinton.
Look it up yourself. Don't take my word for it.
Man, you're a little confused. I'm not sure where you were "indoctrinated", but I'd be willing to guess it was a government school. We've had government controlled schools in this country for how long... at least 50 years... and we're in the bottom rung of the educational ladders. At the same time, we're spending more on education than any other country. Obviously the taxes you're paying for your wonderful education just aren't doing the job they're supposed to. Here's a solution: Pay half the taxes, but hire people that actually WANT to teach! Get rid of tenure, and hire people with a passion for educating children. "Liberalism" stands for 1 thing, and that's the belief that the good of most of the people overrules the good of some of the people. "Liberals" believe that the government should take care of the people, and the people should thank and worship the government. The basis for "conservatism" is that each person must make their own decisions for their own good, and they must be held accountable for those decisions. Being a Libertarian myself, I believe that the government exists solely to protect its citizens... and I certainly don't believe that requires 35 - 50% of my salary per year. I educated myself, I took the time and money to learn what I know, I made the effort to get a job, I work hard at my job, I earn my paycheck, and I should be allowed to spend it as I wish. I don't want to pay a social security tax that I'll never see again. I can't figure out what the hell FEMA actually does, and there's no reason at all I should lose 20% of my paycheck for income taxes. The other thing I'd like to point out is that your jealousy and hatred of the "rich" people in this country is appaling. I'd be willing to bet that you've never even considered that the "rich" people actually WORK for their money, did you? My father is pretty rich... earns a very good living. He came from a family in the lower income brackets, but studied hard, and works 100 hours a week. It paid off, and now he owns a couple businesses and still works all that time. Now tell me the truth... would you like to be able to drive your SUV (or vehicle of your choice) using cheap gas to your mansion in the suburbs? If you say you don't want a mansion, you're a liar. It's called the American Dream. It's the idea that you can go from having nothing to having everything (not literally). Isn't it possible, at the very least, that the rich people in this country worked so hard in their younger years that they actually deserve to have some time to fly around the world in a hot-air balloon if they wish? Isn't it possible they deserve that right? Wouldn't you be a little upset if you worked for 60 hours a week and didn't get paid overtime or didn't get any appreciation for it?
CNN? The Clinton News Network? Yeah... they're not biased at all... *sarcasm* Are you serious? Get a life and forget about world issues entirely? My god. You're actually advocating a dictatorship by saying that. Think about it. If everybody "forgot about world issues", then nobody would care what the government did, and a dictatorship would eventually arise, like it always does when nobody stops them. The only way to change things for the better is to NOT forget about issues.
So if I read this article and some of this discussion, and I e-mail it to a friend who has kids, the FBI could find the term "Child Pornography", call me a terrorist and put me in jail? Ouch...
It's simple supply and demand. If a portion of the public wants it (however sick those people are), someone out there will make it. If it's risky to make or sell, the price goes up. If the price goes up, more people will want to make it.
Look at cocaine. It's the perfect example of supply and demand. Lots of people use it, dispite the fact that it's illegal. Why? Because they want to, and they're willing to pay any price to get it. Does it really cost $400 per ounce to make? Not a chance. It might cost all of $4 per ounce to make... but then you have to pay the grower, the smuggler, the "conveniently-absent" law-enforcement agent, plus the cost for shipping it 1500 miles. What would happen if we legalized it, along with all the other drugs? The demand would stay the same, but since the drug lords could now make cocaine in the US, thus saving them money, they would do so. The price would decrease because the supply would increase. Hopefully, all the cocaine addicts would still spend all their money on cocaine and overdose, thereby eliminating most of the demand. If the demand is gone, the supply will disappear. This is all basic economics that people better start thinking about.
Now, relate it to child pornography. It's extremely risky to make, extremely risky to sell, and extremely risky to have. I'm certainly not advocating it, but try to apply the same logic (without any emotion). Increase the supply, and decrease the demand. People that sexually abuse the children for the profit involved won't be getting nearly as much profit and might move on to more profitable things (like cocaine). Child pornography will still happen because we live in a very sick world, but at least people won't be making money at it.
To realistically address the problem at hand, repeal this ridiculous law. It helps nobody and it will solve nothing. The only purpose for it is to make the legislators feel like they do something worthwhile. Keep the laws that make it illegal to sexually abuse children, sell such material, and own such material. I really didn't think this was such a major issue... I never knew anybody to get excited over naked children. That's just plain nasty.
Alexander Graham Bell, credited with the invention of the telephone, LIVED IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. He worked, lived, and invented in the US of A.
The way I see it, "they" are a "they" because they are multiple physical objects, even if they have the same brain. For example (and this is probably a much better analog than my family one), if you have a cluster of 50 computers, and one of them blows up, you don't say the cluster blew up... you say that one machine blew up. Taking the analogy further, if you put a floppy with a virus on it into one of the drives, that virus would quickly infect the entire cluster, forcing you to trash it all and start from scratch (assuming you don't have a backup... which is another concept, in and of itself... imagine the massive tape-drive it would take to back up the Borg's entire existence...).
You're correct that my interpretation reduces them to the Corleone family, but if they aren't reduced to something, Picard never would have beaten them. They have better technology, better communication, longer lifespans, and there's (probably) a HELL of a lot more of them than there are humans.
I don't think he, or the writers, made any such mistake. If I could, I'd make the analog of an infant child in a family. The family would be the Borg collective, and Hugh would be the child. In the collective, just like a family, Hugh provided the other Borg members with certain functions that only he could provide at that particular time (like a baby provides the family with "ooohs" and "aaahhs"). When he was removed from his "family", he learned to provide other functions... in essence, he grew up. When he was re-introduced to his family, he taught the rest of them the same new functions he had learned, one of which was the concept of individuality. That concept spread to the rest, and all chaos broke loose. That created the need for a leader, like Lore took in that one later episode.
I think you're oversimplifying the whole plotline of the Borg. They aren't dumb, they're just ignorant. There's a difference between being dumb, and being unaware. I'm certainly not dumb about many things, but concerning a good number of subjects, I'm completely unaware.
Yeah... because buying a product to resell to a third-party NEVER happens these days. It's also highly immoral. In fact, why don't we do away with all middle-men? Walmart has no place at all. We can order food directly from the butcher. That's total bullshit. Think about it. What's the difference between buying a company to resell its product and buying a PS2 to resell it on eBay to a poor sap who couldn't find one? Is it just the dollar amount? If so, where's the line? $500 apparently is too low, since the PS2's were going for more than that. How about $1000? $5000?