"He was like a driver on the freeway, who, of no fault of his own smashed into another car, where upon the "gas tank" blew up."
Not exactly. More in the nature of a driver who attempts to do something funny like flash his taillights and causes an accident.
Obviously he knew it would spread -- why else 50 copies? Having a list of porn sites sent out under their name was a little embarrassing for some companies I imagine, not to mention calling those sites up to tell them you've given them a worm! So I wouldn't call it no payload -- just a non-destructive payload.
I agree he may have not realized it would cause the massive shutdowns that occurred. I also agree Microsoft bears some responsibility here.
Worthless though they are, a better analogy might be: suppose a person throws a nail in the road. Later a car fails to see it and avoid it, and their tire blows out causing the car to hit other cars, resulting in a major fender bender.
Who's responsible for the damages to the cars? If it were up to me (IANAL), I'd say that most of the liability is on the person who maliciously threw a nail into the road. The driver really can't be blamed too much for missing something that small. There may also be liability for the Mycrostuft Tire Company if their products are provably shoddy.
I doubt the Melissa perpetrator really thought they'd cause as much damage as they did, no more than a kid might when throwing a nail into the street. Fact is, damage occurred and I'd expect a kid to be disciplined for such an irresponsible act.
"Why is it that hard working whites carry such a grudge in the USA?"
Ruling classes love "divide and conquer" as much as programmers. They invented the concept after all.
Its amazing. Anytime there is a discussion in America about some form of oppression it quickly devolves into a fight over shares of the pie. Wake up folks, real life isn't zero sum. We don't have to take computers from anyone to get them to those that need them, we just make more, and more cheaply. This is already happening.
Race is a political card played all too often to separate people who would otherwise join forces to solve problems. Politicians who are elected time and time again to solve these problems don't really want those problems solved for some reason. Race is *also* a real problem in America.
Saying it would be nice if some part of society had better access to computers is NOT saying that *you* should have worse access or be poorer. The politicians will probably try to implement it that way, but blame them and elect better ones, don't accuse those without computers of trying to steal what you worked hard for.
There are folks who "have" and have done nothing to be ashamed of. These folks don't deserve abuse. They are also not entitled to arrogance.
There are folks who "have not" and have been kicked in the face for trying to have. Don't accuse them of lying or whining because you've never been kicked. They don't deserve abuse either.
Arguing over blame for the poor state of society does nothing, nor does scrapping over the pieces. Lets fix it. If you don't think it's broken, please look around.
Fine for Melissa, but how about the Excel vulnerability? This was finally patched a few days ago (HP just sent me a patch notice yesterday), but its been around at least for weeks, some say years.
This one is the "Good Times" nightmare in reality. The act of opening mail (not the attachment, the mail) is sufficient. It can also be implemented as a web page that destroys your computer on viewing. All because Microsoft never considered that an embedded spread sheet might contain malicious programming.
I agree users do have to take responsibility for their actions, but that doesn't mean Microsoft isn't negligent sometimes.
Yes. Also found it amusing a book by Gates was #1 and a book trashing Gates (The Microsoft File) was #9. I bet Gates isn't happy about that second one at all:).
The book "Competing at the Speed of the Internet" probably means they're getting ready to do battle with open source -- or switch sides.:)
What would be really funny is to see "Linux for Dummies" there.
Speaking as someone who did design and build their first computer from TTL, diodes, and an 8080 I've got to say that while possible, its hardly a general solution. If I hadn't had a good background in math in would have been considerably harder. As it turned out it probably would have been cheaper to wait a year and buy one. I did learn enough to get a job as an electronics tech at Intel, but otherwise it wasn't very practical for learning programming above the machine language level. It also required copious free time.
The task of writing a kernel is far worse. Not many people could, even among the class of people who make their living programming. It certainly requires years experience using computers first --so the argument is circular.
This isn't about enabling people with strong skills, this about making sure everyone has at least a chance to understand how the basic infrastructure of society works. Keeping it open means no artificial barriers to those who seriously want to learn. E.g. you shouldn't have to buy an expensive compiler from a particular company to learn to program.
You know, its sort of strange to see people so involved with a gift culture, an effort to make software infrastructure free to the masses, both economically and politically, get so upset at the notion that software and technology might present an economic barrier.
I think a lot of us agree that government programs are grossly inefficient. They have a tendency to promote their own existence at the expense of the very people they were created to help. Besides, there may be things like tax writeoffs for donations of older equipment that the government can do without terrible harm. Even if the government shouldn't or can't solve it, should we throw up our hands?
Maybe for those in the open source movement all that's required is to continue to donate time to providing excellent software free to anyone who needs it. Would that be so terrible?
Believe me, this is not insignificant. I had to pay the $800 yearly compiler tax from Microsoft for some years and it IS a barrier, especially for young people asking their parents for the money. Helping anyone with sufficient interest to be able to obtain good development tools does a lot to allow people without means to consider programming as a career.
On the hardware side, maybe its just a matter of taking a few minutes to make sure that old machine gets a better home than your closet or dumpster. Not *too* draconian, eh?
I suspect that it may not be all that helpful to involve race in the question. Not that I believe there aren't still real issues, but just that its easier to promote the idea that if any kid really wants a computer, and for whatever reason can't obtain one or use one, helping them is a Good Thing(tm).
You may have heard that Microsoft is pretty good at marketing. They can sell computers to people who have no idea what a monitor, hard drive, mouse, or memory is. You may rightfully hate their products, but that's genius!
From what I understand Mandrake asked RedHat first. They were told ok. Young has said he doesn't mind CheapBytes either. This, IMO, is very smart.
RedHat right now makes all their revenue from box sales, true. But they know this can't last, their business model has to be brand name and support, not boxing software. When broadband goes in lots of people will be downloading, not buying, unless they can get good help, documentation, and support.
If you thought distributions were going to IPO, then not compete with one another I don't know what to say. Thats what its all about. This is not bad for us - it will mean more innovation, more full-time open source programmers, and cheaper prices.
There are some worries, like if one distribution tries an embrace and extend to become the "one true distribution". We should be watching for this, and let it be known that engaging in certain competitive tactics will not be tolerated. And the weird thing is they have to care, cause we write their code. Funny, eh?
What about kinetic art? That often has to be designed and debugged, and to some degree aesthetics have to be ruled by functionality.
How about architecture? Function is every bit as important as aesthetics there, maybe more, but some architecture has to be viewed as art as well as engineering, I think.
There isn't a definite boundary line, some things are artier than others in some peoples opinion.
In fact if code is designed to be elegant and appealing, sound in structure and fit to purpose, isn't there an aspect of art to it? Don't try selling microfiches of Linux source at any art shows, but lets give the creators some credit for aesthetics as well as engineering.
How else can you explain the nearly universal rejection of Hungarian notation "because its ugly"?
"But we sometimes just don't realize how foreign this little world of ours is."
True. But do I get cut any slack when I pick up the wrong fork at dinner?:)
Linux World Domination reality check: the users described here are the ones that are going to need to be able to install and administrate systems.
I think server is already in place, business desktop is nearly there if not already (assuming a sysadmin present), but more work needs to be done for the home desktop market in order to be taken seriously.
I don't get the same impression of smugness from the site you seem to. I find BOFH much more guilty of that, though still very funny. Some of the stories are about his father and wife for example, so I really don't think he's *trying* to be derogatory. There is also a section for dumb tech support reps so he's even aware it works both ways.
A few stories may come off as smug, I won't argue, but given the amount of abuse tech support reps take over the phone, some return venting is fair maybe?
Fact is newbies in any field mess up, often hilariously. The sanest will laugh right along with you anyway.
Total agreement here. I read the book first, and the movie was not a disappointment at all. I'm still trying to figure out what Starship Troopers had to do with the book. Oh well, at least it was more amusing than "Destination Moon".
You seem to labor under some misperceptions. Moderators do not pick stories, CmdrTaco and those he delegates to do. As to CmdrTaco's method, there is an interview in which he states he simply picks stories that interest him and it usually works out ok. Here's a URL:
You're not an AC, so its within your power to click on preferences and block stories about movies and TV. Its also pretty easy to tell from the icon attached to a story if its about entertainment. Why should those interested in Ender's Game miss a story they like if you can simply block it?
Your last paragraph really sums it up. We all like some stories better than others. Unfortunately, there is no agreement on which.
"Have you ever tried to convince someone of the benefits of Linux and/or Open Source Software?"
Sure, but I don't tell them that if they don't agree that Linus is merciful and all-loving and start using Linux he will torture them even past the end of the physical universe. I don't even tell them Bill Gates will, though that's closer to the truth. That's emotional blackmail, not conversation. If one of them asked me to shut up about Linux, I would.
In other words I have conversations with friends, sometimes about religion sometimes about Linux, but I try to argue objectively, if passionately, and with respect for their core beliefs, which may differ from mine without harm to either of us.
Trust me, being subjected to an attempted religious conversion is not the same at all. Two people can't really converse if one of them thinks they already know all the important answers.
"I personally believe that the moralistic, misguided, utterly confused perversion of Xianity that the majority adhere to in America shares a large portion of the fault, but being just a dumb webhead fresh out of the worst CS program in the nation, my opinion may not qualify for much."
Well, as a 47 year old dweeb, I have to say I agree. I'd trace it back to Puritanism. The notion that the purpose of life is to work and make your local CEO richer, not for exploration and enjoyment. Anything like music or sex that suggests otherwise is to branded sinful and corrupting and carefully controlled. Brainwash the young especially carefully -- they're the most likely to think for themselves! Violence in the pursuit of purity is no sin.
Plus corporations have become ends in themselves instead of a means for individuals to work together.
Most really religious people would call me an atheist too. I don't, because I can imagine things in the universe that math and science can't explain, like the origin of physical laws. I think there will be other disciplines, just as unimaginable now as science was 2000 years ago. This is belief, personal, and unprovable.
To say religion is dumb is just not helpful. You're impugning an awful lot of people, more than half the world's population, some of whom are very obviously not dumb. Even if it were true, so what, what can you do about dumb? Ignorant can be cured, but not stupid or dumb. I don't think religion "needs" curing, but it sounds like you do, so better call it ignorance.
Atheism has a large problem, it essentially is just the refusal to believe in something, it offers no knowledge and suggests no way of life. I think it better to be called a skeptic - one who only believes in what can be shown by direct evidence. Hey, the religious folks may be wrong, but at least they're trying to understand the universe and our place in it!
See, the problem is I've been pitched on the subject of Christianity hundreds of times during my life. I started out life as a Catholic and voluntarily left the church just before confirmation. I've since met many rational religious people who have my greatest respect, and discussed religion with them as well. I know what its about.
When someone insists on trying to convince me, they are being somewhat arrogant in assuming I haven't already thought the issue out for myself. Do you REALLY think there is anyone who, if drawn to Christianity, can't find the resources to help them? Sure there's not a component of recruiting for YOUR particular brand of Christianity, rather than helping people find the religious support suited best for them?
Basically - why play missionary when its infinitely more effective to show people by making a difference in the way you live your life?Thats how your religion started, remember? If Christianity could produce people that emulated Christ it would be great. It has failed miserably at that in my opinion.
You sound like a reasonable Christian, and I didn't mean to jump on you. But I'm fed up with those that think they've got a lock on truth and are duty bound to spread it. We've all heard about Christianity, some of us have decided its not for us. Deal.
They're calling it "3 dimensional calculus" now? Arrggh. I think I liked "multivariable analysis" better.
The problem you bring up is exactly why schools have to concentrate harder on teaching students to research and solve problems. Whatever facts you learn in college, be sure they will be largely obsolete or irrelevant in 20 years. Your problem solving skills will last your lifetime.
Ok, you may not want to do any drugs, aspirin, coffee, and valium included. That's fine, its a choice and you're free to make it. For me this rings too close to those that don't want to put "chemicals" into their body, but its your choice, not mine.
The point is that some people will do drugs whether they are legal or not. You do remember prohibition from history class, no? It's therefore a valid question whether more harm comes to society by forcing drug use underground into criminal channels, or by use of the drug itself.
How do we gauge the effects of legalizing marijuana? One way is to compare its effects with other drugs that have been deemed legal, like alcohol or tobacco.
If you don't believe the war on drugs is doing great harm to our country and others, you probably don't see the point of all this. For those that are concerned with the effect of the government lying to youth, defranchisement of statistically significant portions of society, and general loss of civil liberties, all without significantly denting drug use or sales, its a real question.
Slashdot Mirror
"He was like a driver on the freeway, who, of no fault of his own smashed into another car, where upon the "gas tank" blew up."
Not exactly. More in the nature of a driver who attempts to do something funny like flash his taillights and causes an accident.
Obviously he knew it would spread -- why else 50 copies? Having a list of porn sites sent out under their name was a little embarrassing for some companies I imagine, not to mention calling those sites up to tell them you've given them a worm! So I wouldn't call it no payload -- just a non-destructive payload.
I agree he may have not realized it would cause the massive shutdowns that occurred. I also agree Microsoft bears some responsibility here.
Jim
Worthless though they are, a better analogy might be: suppose a person throws a nail in the road. Later a car fails to see it and avoid it, and their tire blows out causing the car to hit other cars, resulting in a major fender bender.
Who's responsible for the damages to the cars? If it were up to me (IANAL), I'd say that most of the liability is on the person who maliciously threw a nail into the road. The driver really can't be blamed too much for missing something that small. There may also be liability for the Mycrostuft Tire Company if their products are provably shoddy.
I doubt the Melissa perpetrator really thought they'd cause as much damage as they did, no more than a kid might when throwing a nail into the street. Fact is, damage occurred and I'd expect a kid to be disciplined for such an irresponsible act.
Jim
"Why is it that hard working whites carry such a grudge in the USA?"
Ruling classes love "divide and conquer" as much as programmers. They invented the concept after all.
Its amazing. Anytime there is a discussion in America about some form of oppression it quickly devolves into a fight over shares of the pie. Wake up folks, real life isn't zero sum. We don't have to take computers from anyone to get them to those that need them, we just make more, and more cheaply. This is already happening.
Race is a political card played all too often to separate people who would otherwise join forces to solve problems. Politicians who are elected time and time again to solve these problems don't really want those problems solved for some reason. Race is *also* a real problem in America.
Saying it would be nice if some part of society had better access to computers is NOT saying that *you* should have worse access or be poorer. The politicians will probably try to implement it that way, but blame them and elect better ones, don't accuse those without computers of trying to steal what you worked hard for.
There are folks who "have" and have done nothing to be ashamed of. These folks don't deserve abuse. They are also not entitled to arrogance.
There are folks who "have not" and have been kicked in the face for trying to have. Don't accuse them of lying or whining because you've never been kicked. They don't deserve abuse either.
Arguing over blame for the poor state of society does nothing, nor does scrapping over the pieces. Lets fix it. If you don't think it's broken, please look around.
Jim
Fine for Melissa, but how about the Excel vulnerability? This was finally patched a few days ago (HP just sent me a patch notice yesterday), but its been around at least for weeks, some say years.
This one is the "Good Times" nightmare in reality. The act of opening mail (not the attachment, the mail) is sufficient. It can also be implemented as a web page that destroys your computer on viewing. All because Microsoft never considered that an embedded spread sheet might contain malicious programming.
I agree users do have to take responsibility for their actions, but that doesn't mean Microsoft isn't negligent sometimes.
Jim
It was on both congressional circles and the judiciary's too IIRC. Its a bestseller -- those can be popular sometimes. :)
Probably a good thing. I could see this doing real harm to small companies developing a technology in secret.
Yes. Also found it amusing a book by Gates was #1 and a book trashing Gates (The Microsoft File) was #9. I bet Gates isn't happy about that second one at all :).
:)
The book "Competing at the Speed of the Internet" probably means they're getting ready to do battle with open source -- or switch sides.
What would be really funny is to see "Linux for Dummies" there.
Jim
Speaking as someone who did design and build their first computer from TTL, diodes, and an 8080 I've got to say that while possible, its hardly a general solution. If I hadn't had a good background in math in would have been considerably harder. As it turned out it probably would have been cheaper to wait a year and buy one. I did learn enough to get a job as an electronics tech at Intel, but otherwise it wasn't very practical for learning programming above the machine language level. It also required copious free time.
The task of writing a kernel is far worse. Not many people could, even among the class of people who make their living programming. It certainly requires years experience using computers first --so the argument is circular.
This isn't about enabling people with strong skills, this about making sure everyone has at least a chance to understand how the basic infrastructure of society works. Keeping it open means no artificial barriers to those who seriously want to learn. E.g. you shouldn't have to buy an expensive compiler from a particular company to learn to program.
Jim
You know, its sort of strange to see people so involved with a gift culture, an effort to make software infrastructure free to the masses, both economically and politically, get so upset at the notion that software and technology might present an economic barrier.
I think a lot of us agree that government programs are grossly inefficient. They have a tendency to promote their own existence at the expense of the very people they were created to help. Besides, there may be things like tax writeoffs for donations of older equipment that the government can do without terrible harm. Even if the government shouldn't or can't solve it, should we throw up our hands?
Maybe for those in the open source movement all that's required is to continue to donate time to providing excellent software free to anyone who needs it. Would that be so terrible?
Believe me, this is not insignificant. I had to pay the $800 yearly compiler tax from Microsoft for some years and it IS a barrier, especially for young people asking their parents for the money. Helping anyone with sufficient interest to be able to obtain good development tools does a lot to allow people without means to consider programming as a career.
On the hardware side, maybe its just a matter of taking a few minutes to make sure that old machine gets a better home than your closet or dumpster. Not *too* draconian, eh?
I suspect that it may not be all that helpful to involve race in the question. Not that I believe there aren't still real issues, but just that its easier to promote the idea that if any kid really wants a computer, and for whatever reason can't obtain one or use one, helping them is a Good Thing(tm).
Jim
"It has a 8 Gigabytes hard drive to make your computer go faster...."
:)
Funny now. Not funny at all 20 years ago
You may have heard that Microsoft is pretty good at marketing. They can sell computers to people who have no idea what a monitor, hard drive, mouse, or memory is. You may rightfully hate their products, but that's genius!
Not alone certainly, but I'll disagree.
From what I understand Mandrake asked RedHat first. They were told ok. Young has said he doesn't mind CheapBytes either. This, IMO, is very smart.
RedHat right now makes all their revenue from box sales, true. But they know this can't last, their business model has to be brand name and support, not boxing software. When broadband goes in lots of people will be downloading, not buying, unless they can get good help, documentation, and support.
If you thought distributions were going to IPO, then not compete with one another I don't know what to say. Thats what its all about. This is not bad for us - it will mean more innovation, more full-time open source programmers, and cheaper prices.
There are some worries, like if one distribution tries an embrace and extend to become the "one true distribution". We should be watching for this, and let it be known that engaging in certain competitive tactics will not be tolerated. And the weird thing is they have to care, cause we write their code. Funny, eh?
What about kinetic art? That often has to be designed and debugged, and to some degree aesthetics have to be ruled by functionality.
How about architecture? Function is every bit as important as aesthetics there, maybe more, but some architecture has to be viewed as art as well as engineering, I think.
There isn't a definite boundary line, some things are artier than others in some peoples opinion.
In fact if code is designed to be elegant and appealing, sound in structure and fit to purpose, isn't there an aspect of art to it? Don't try selling microfiches of Linux source at any art shows, but lets give the creators some credit for aesthetics as well as engineering.
How else can you explain the nearly universal rejection of Hungarian notation "because its ugly"?
Jim
"But we sometimes just don't realize how foreign this little world of ours is."
:)
True. But do I get cut any slack when I pick up the wrong fork at dinner?
Linux World Domination reality check: the users described here are the ones that are going to need to be able to install and administrate systems.
I think server is already in place, business desktop is nearly there if not already (assuming a sysadmin present), but more work needs to be done for the home desktop market in order to be taken seriously.
Jim
I don't get the same impression of smugness from the site you seem to. I find BOFH much more guilty of that, though still very funny. Some of the stories are about his father and wife for example, so I really don't think he's *trying* to be derogatory. There is also a section for dumb tech support reps so he's even aware it works both ways.
A few stories may come off as smug, I won't argue, but given the amount of abuse tech support reps take over the phone, some return venting is fair maybe?
Fact is newbies in any field mess up, often hilariously. The sanest will laugh right along with you anyway.
Total agreement here. I read the book first, and the movie was not a disappointment at all. I'm still trying to figure out what Starship Troopers had to do with the book. Oh well, at least it was more amusing than "Destination Moon".
You seem to labor under some misperceptions. Moderators do not pick stories, CmdrTaco and those he delegates to do. As to CmdrTaco's method, there is an interview in which he states he simply picks stories that interest him and it usually works out ok. Here's a URL:
t ure.html
http://www.salon.com/21st/feature/1998/06/15fea
You're not an AC, so its within your power to click on preferences and block stories about movies and TV. Its also pretty easy to tell from the icon attached to a story if its about entertainment. Why should those interested in Ender's Game miss a story they like if you can simply block it?
Your last paragraph really sums it up. We all like some stories better than others. Unfortunately, there is no agreement on which.
Jim
"Have you ever tried to convince someone of the benefits of Linux and/or Open Source Software?"
Sure, but I don't tell them that if they don't agree that Linus is merciful and all-loving and start using Linux he will torture them even past the end of the physical universe. I don't even tell them Bill Gates will, though that's closer to the truth. That's emotional blackmail, not conversation. If one of them asked me to shut up about Linux, I would.
In other words I have conversations with friends, sometimes about religion sometimes about Linux, but I try to argue objectively, if passionately, and with respect for their core beliefs, which may differ from mine without harm to either of us.
Trust me, being subjected to an attempted religious conversion is not the same at all. Two people can't really converse if one of them thinks they already know all the important answers.
Jim
"I personally believe that the moralistic, misguided, utterly confused perversion of Xianity that the majority adhere to in America shares a large portion of the fault, but being just a dumb webhead fresh out of the worst CS program in the nation, my opinion may not qualify for much."
Well, as a 47 year old dweeb, I have to say I agree. I'd trace it back to Puritanism. The notion that the purpose of life is to work and make your local CEO richer, not for exploration and enjoyment. Anything like music or sex that suggests otherwise is to branded sinful and corrupting and carefully controlled. Brainwash the young especially carefully -- they're the most likely to think for themselves! Violence in the pursuit of purity is no sin.
Plus corporations have become ends in themselves instead of a means for individuals to work together.
Jim
Sorry, but the government is already too good at sabatoging the educational system. Don't give them more motivation.
Most really religious people would call me an atheist too. I don't, because I can imagine things in the universe that math and science can't explain, like the origin of physical laws. I think there will be other disciplines, just as unimaginable now as science was 2000 years ago. This is belief, personal, and unprovable.
To say religion is dumb is just not helpful. You're impugning an awful lot of people, more than half the world's population, some of whom are very obviously not dumb. Even if it were true, so what, what can you do about dumb? Ignorant can be cured, but not stupid or dumb. I don't think religion "needs" curing, but it sounds like you do, so better call it ignorance.
Atheism has a large problem, it essentially is just the refusal to believe in something, it offers no knowledge and suggests no way of life. I think it better to be called a skeptic - one who only believes in what can be shown by direct evidence. Hey, the religious folks may be wrong, but at least they're trying to understand the universe and our place in it!
Jim
See, the problem is I've been pitched on the subject of Christianity hundreds of times during my life. I started out life as a Catholic and voluntarily left the church just before confirmation. I've since met many rational religious people who have my greatest respect, and discussed religion with them as well. I know what its about.
When someone insists on trying to convince me, they are being somewhat arrogant in assuming I haven't already thought the issue out for myself. Do you REALLY think there is anyone who, if drawn to Christianity, can't find the resources to help them? Sure there's not a component of recruiting for YOUR particular brand of Christianity, rather than helping people find the religious support suited best for them?
Basically - why play missionary when its infinitely more effective to show people by making a difference in the way you live your life?Thats how your religion started, remember? If Christianity could produce people that emulated Christ it would be great. It has failed miserably at that in my opinion.
You sound like a reasonable Christian, and I didn't mean to jump on you. But I'm fed up with those that think they've got a lock on truth and are duty bound to spread it. We've all heard about Christianity, some of us have decided its not for us. Deal.
Jim
They're calling it "3 dimensional calculus" now? Arrggh. I think I liked "multivariable analysis" better.
The problem you bring up is exactly why schools have to concentrate harder on teaching students to research and solve problems. Whatever facts you learn in college, be sure they will be largely obsolete or irrelevant in 20 years. Your problem solving skills will last your lifetime.
Jim
Ok, you may not want to do any drugs, aspirin, coffee, and valium included. That's fine, its a choice and you're free to make it. For me this rings too close to those that don't want to put "chemicals" into their body, but its your choice, not mine.
The point is that some people will do drugs whether they are legal or not. You do remember prohibition from history class, no? It's therefore a valid question whether more harm comes to society by forcing drug use underground into criminal channels, or by use of the drug itself.
How do we gauge the effects of legalizing marijuana? One way is to compare its effects with other drugs that have been deemed legal, like alcohol or tobacco.
If you don't believe the war on drugs is doing great harm to our country and others, you probably don't see the point of all this. For those that are concerned with the effect of the government lying to youth, defranchisement of statistically significant portions of society, and general loss of civil liberties, all without significantly denting drug use or sales, its a real question.
Jim
That comment was butt ass ugly, that's for sure. Superficiality is its own reward I suppose.