Big players wouldn't do something like use a hacked TCP stack, but a P2P application might. Just as there are P2P applications that use a hacked version of their own protocol to thwart fairness efforts.
20 million P2P users with hacked stacks in this scenario would probably result in poorer performance and greater congestion than we have now.
bandwidth caps aren't the problem, pretty much everyone implements bandwidth caps. We are talking about punishing people who use their connections.
I have an eight megabit connection. But not really, the connection is actually much faster than that, my bandwidth is capped at eight megabit. I have no problem with that. After all, I pay for unlimited use of an eight megabit connection. The problems come when you can't actually deliver that eight megabits on an unlimited basis despite me paying for it.
Now, if you can't deliver what you promised AND you are giving priority to someone else who doesn't use the service they pay for I am going to be really pissed.
We are entitled with rights not because some magic man in the sky grants them but because we paid for a service. By not providing that service and taking our money the ISPs are stealing from us.
That brings up a question of entitlement. It suggests that there are users who should be punished.
Those who engage is low bandwidth activities are not entitled to more bandwidth while those engaging in high bandwidth activities are entitled to less. Both are entitled to equal bandwidth and have the right to utilize or not utilize accordingly.
'I'm not big on networking but if I'm sending data to someone and some "flow management" dumps one of the packets, won't my computer or modem just resend it?'
Yes and when the retransmission occurs the router may be able to handle your packet. The router won't be overloaded forever after all.
The bigger part of the equation is that with TCP the more packets are dropped the slower you transmit packets. With this solution the heaviest transmissions would have more packets dropped and therefore be slowed down the most.
I admit, I'd have to check the details of the protocol to see if this is open to abuse by those with a modified TCP stack. The problem is that the packets are dropped in a predictable manner and a modified TCP stack could be designed to 'filter' the noise and yet still degrade when other packets are lost and provide a reliable connection.
Software is an expression, not an invention. It is a mathematical implementation and therefore a new algorithm is a discovery, not an invention. But that is another debate.
You seem to be confusing things. The US never abolished the requirement that you actually invent something. The US could no longer warehouse all the prototypes so they removed the requirement to send in your working prototype. That doesn't mean patents are now for unimplemented ideas.
'If, as a programmer, someone gave you a really good idea about how to do X on a computer, would they need to tell you the exact code to enable you to do it?'
Well yes and no. If someone described a sunset sufficiently I could draw one, but it would be the same sunset. If I heard a bit of music I could replicate it but never repeat the original expression. That is how intangible copyrighted works like software function.
However, describing a microwave oven to me would not enable me to build one. That is what we call an invention and as such qualifies for a patent.
Apparently people still don't understand. You can patent an invention, you can copyright a tangible representation of an idea, but you can not protect an idea through any IP method.
Software is really a representation of an idea and should be copyrighted, not patented. Since patents are granted as if software were an invention you do still actually have to make the invention to qualify for a patent. I can scream my idea from the heavens all day long and that doesn't qualify as prior art, only implementing the idea would qualify as prior art.
On the contrary, it is not those of us who use the service we pay a fair rate for who are being subsidized, it is the immense profits the ISP is making that are being subsidized.
No doubt but the ISPs do successfully continue to beat demand. The biggest problems really exist for cable providers who use shared pools of bandwidth. Telcos have infrastructure that can scale for some time to come.
Cable internet has been a great competitor but if it falls due to technological limitations and CEOs that refuse to take a loss on the quarter in order to build superior infrastructure then so be it.
The net result of that scheme is that heavy users would pay the same and low usage customers would pay less. The means an overall cost reduction for the customer and a profit loss for the ISP.
This is really about one of two things. Either people just want to pay less for internet access. Or this is about people who don't utilize their connection getting annoyed that those who do so are getting more value than they are.
As for those who want unrestricted access, how about switching ISPs? Its not a perfect world, the company offering the cheapest bandwidth may not be the best choice for your needs.
Forget downtime, I want a proportional discount depending on the actual available bandwidth versus the rate I am paying for. If my connection speed is currently 80% of what i paid for, I want a 20% discount off my bill (which had best no longer include a base monthly charge).
'And that, of course, is why most Slashdotters don't want pay-as-you go pricing: They'd be at the top of the usage list and so would pay accordingly.'
You make it sound as if it is some sort of crime to actually use the connection we pay for. We already pay a fair rate for the bandwidth we use. If you don't want to pay the price of your connection because you fail to fully utilize it you should downgrade.
'I was using myself as an example of a generic hacker / power user'
And you fail to see why that is a rather bold and arrogant assumption? I do not assume I speak for all the other hackers and power users out there but I don't recall casting a vote for you as representative of the interests and needs of the group.
'Here are some concrete examples of why OS X is better:'
uh huh
'WiFi works and works properly'
I have never had issues with wifi on Linux. As for properly, what is proper? How should my wifi behave? Beyond works, the word properly becomes hyperbole.
'Suspend/hibernate work and are fast'
I thought you called yourself a hacker? On a desktop the best thing you can do with suspend is disable it.
'Desktop applications don't have interdependencies'
In other words, they are inefficient. Linux package management has made the problems that come with dependencies a thing of the past, leaving only the benefits.
'Can use industry-standard commercial applications (Office, Photoshop...) or FOSS alternatives'
You can use a small subset of those applications, just as I can use under Linux. Of course, with a few recent exceptions I am going to have a more consistent and positive feel when using those FOSS applications or the commercial alternatives.
'Parallels is the nicest VM implementation for desktop use I've seen'
Its good that you rate your opinion so highly.
'Whatever the reasons, people don't seem that interested in hacking it'
A self-appointed representative of power users and hackers who views a lack of interest in hacking the platform as a positive, fascinating.
'HFS+ (self-optimizing on-disk format, useful metadata...)'
All the modern fs on Linux are self-optimizing. Lots of metadata is interesting, its one of the most hyped forms of bloat and inefficiency used today.
'Fast, pervasive desktop search'
Yawn. I have fast search available to me on any platform and have for years. Its a much touted, pervasive, and highly overrated feature. Most of us don't have any trouble finding our information. As for other information, Google is far superior to anything mac specific.
There is no question that Macs have come a long way but they have borrowed it all from the *nix world. Pretty well every Mac feature that would appeal to a hacker or power user is borrowed from the *nix world. When you take it away you are back to OS 9, a pretty, intuitive, and simple gui that is great for certain users but frustrating to power users.
On the other hand, there are a number of advantages to Linux. First of all, you can run it on damn near anything, it is a versatile and flexible tool. Although you want to isolate the conversation to desktops, it would be remiss to ignore the fact that you can spend each day working on a platform and gaining familiarity with the same tool that will upgrade your router and turn your xbox into a wireless multimedia system that streams music and video from your fileserver regardless of platform or protocol. I can use one system for kiosks, consoles, servers of all kinds, and desktops and be using a top 3 solution in all those applications (and in most cases the top solution).
Using a Linux system I also have a dramatically larger supported hardware base. I can customize and configure my system as I please when I please. I am not limited to a single configuration that made sense at purchase time. You might find programmers buying a proprietary PC but actual power users and hackers hack the hardware as well as the software. Your options are rather limited in the Mac world these days, even if Macs would be better called IBM PC's now.
If my motherboard fails in my Linux desktop, I can literally grab one of a half dozen varied boards out of the closet and toss it in the system. In most cases no change would be needed, and at most a quick boot with a rescue disc and changing two files will restore everything to operating just as if nothing happened. Anyone who works with a lot of PC's will have parts that will get the job done. A Mac user is pretty much out of luck unless he has Apple's replacement on hand.
'Have you actually, you know, used all three as a desktop system for a reasonable period?'
Yes. Although I only managed to stomach a Vista workstation for about three months. XP and others I have used for a period of years.
'Can you give me an example of something I might actually want to do (I don't want to rewrite my GUI, thanks, I just want one which works fairly consistently) which I can't do on my Mac?'
How could I do that? I don't even know you. More to the point, what do YOUR desires and wants have to do with the conversation? I'm confident you will find that nobody much cares what you do or don't enjoy doing on your computer and your personal desires have no relevance to the issue at hand.
Actually what is surprising is that windows is allowed into the competition not the other way around. Linux has been the preferred platform of hackers and power users for a long time. Windows power users would qualify as average level Linux users, and Mac power users would qualify as mid level windows users (sorry mac guys, you can do more than the average windows user but only because the mac does it for you, you still don't actually know anything about the technology and underpinnings).
In this case, Ubuntu would be the muscle car, the mac might be a vw bug, and the windows box would fit in well as a kia. Of course pre-OSX Macs would have fit better as caddies, comfortable and leisurely but slow and inefficient.
You are missing a major part of the equation. First of all, a big label artist is making between $.25 and $.75 per CD. Don't confuse the profit made on the sale with the amount the artist gets. Second, there are a lot of middle-men. First, the biggie is the record company, they want to make say $5 on the CD. Next comes the distributor, they get another $3-4, next comes the actual retail store which wants at least $5. Combine that with the royalties of the artists and the cost to produce the discs, the packaging and cases, the cover art, etc.
It really isn't that hard to see where the price of the CD comes from. It also isn't that hard to see which part of the equation no longer needs to be there.
Personally, I think artists should sell reproduction rights for a flat rate to individual stores with a contract that they sell copies for at least $1/ea. The contract is just to stop them from giving them out for free on a large scale since that would deter others from purchasing said contract. All the sudden you've shifted the production costs to the store, you've eliminated the distribution center, and you've eliminated the record company. The artist will make at least as much as he did with the record companies and will profit from the recordings as a way to advertise for live performances.
Even better would be if the contract allowed for the songs to be combined for custom albums. This would give the stores another service and give stores the ability to have unique products if they can make a good mix. All the sudden the stores need talent to pick songs for their own albums if they want to beat out the other guy. I love it.
From LA to New York by train takes a week. In the states we don't drive from LA to New York, we fly. As annoying as the checkpoints, security, and lines are at the airport you can decide this morning you want to be in LA this afternoon. For you Europeans thats about 4500 km.
As for the nordic countries others are mentioning, they are tiny compared to the United States. Outfitting the U.S. With a transportation system comparable to those would be an expense that simply could not be shouldered. Especially without paying the ungodly taxes you guys pay over there.
The U.S. is not Asia or Europe. Our population is spread out across a landmass that makes Western Europe look tiny. Not only that, that vast majority of the population in Europe is concentrated into a few areas within the landmass they do have. Here in the states we are spread out.
Hell, I'd have to walk two miles to even get to the first likely location for a bus stop and there is no way I'd do it back and forth every day and then walk to my destination on the other end. My wife has fibromyalgia and would be hard pressed to make it to the end of the street let alone two miles.
Public transportation is fine, I even used the rails once or twice while living in Miami but its not a practical solution in the states.
What I find interesting is that the article makes it seem like this is some ridiculous myth and there is no justification to believe it.
Personally I would not be surprised to see that it is alcohol consumption rather than beer that is the problem. Alcohol is a poison that some individuals consume readily and it would not surprise me a bit to discover that it has long term affects on the body and mind. I suspect it has more to do with the brain than science specifically but the effect may be subtle and show itself more readily in a hard thinking field like science.
As for other drugs, I wouldn't make the wild leap to assume that anything that causes euphoria is bad for you. Last time I looked it was still completely preposterous that many medications list euphoria as a NEGATIVE side effect.
There are all kinds of things that it is coming to light are probably good for our brains in small doses. Nicotine, Caffeine, Cannabis, and even MSG all have negative effects at high doses and positive effects at low doses. Amusingly, MSG in high doses (which isn't much for msg) mass murders brain cells and yet we use buckets of it in our food, where Cannabis has no known permanent effects on the brain and we throw people in prison for possessing it. The difference? Euphoria of course.
'oh? when? Bear in mind, the Geneva convention is designed for when civilized nations go to war.'
The US is currently torturing POWs, the Geneva convention applies to all war, not just those against countries you consider civilized.
'I can only think of two ways you could mean this in the context of your post, both of which are wrong. Cuold you elaborate please?'
The crimes against the Jews were terrible but in two generations they will be nothing more than a story in a textbook. The abuses of power in the Roman Empire lasted for thousands of years and actually live on in governments (including the U.S.) another thousand years after its fall. The system of government and management of the population under Hitler were the true crimes of Nazi Germany. Efficient yes, but efficiency is not the highest value in a society.
'Then shut the fuck up. Let me know when you want to get off your lazy do nothing ass and get some changes done. Bad news for you is that is actually takes more work then signed some online petition.'
I don't see anything but a rant and unsubstantiated assumptions and assertions in that comment. There is nothing to answer.
'YOU are the government in this country jackass, learn to use your power, or not but don't go on spouting shit you have no clue about.'
False. Thats is propoganda. Even U.S. elections have been converted to electronic systems that are with little doubt rigged. And even that assumes you had viable options outside of an economic and social aristocracy. I never said there was much wrong with the propoganda and flowery lies the U.S. government claims as ideals. I am talking about the actual U.S. government.
If its all the same to you, I will save my precious response time for people who have points a little more substantial than 'you're spouting shit' and 'you have no fucking clue'. That amounts to nothing more than 'I'm right, you're wrong' with a bit less intellect behind it.
'Let me ask you this. If the US was the most benevolent and harmless country ever, and had NO armed forces, do you think Canada, Mexico, or other wouldn't have taken us over by now?'
Being completely defenseless is not the only alternative to being a violent and dangerous farce. It is possible to be strong enough to defend yourself without being a bully.
'I think the US, as bad as it is, is about the best we (and the world) can hope for, as the alternatives would be the same or worse.'
I beg to differ. We can have a strong defensive military without taking offensive action. Before the 'war' our defense budget was as large as that of every European nation combined.
My biggest complaints about the U.S. are not the external war but the internal issues. The government has become corrupt and all evidence indicates that our last presidential election was actually rigged. U.S. Elections actually need massive reform in order to remove the stranglehold of the wealthy elite that rule the two major parties.
Drastic action is required to fix the problems since the corrupt elements can't be expected to remove their own corruption. I had been depressed thinking that the only solution left was revolution and that our populace would suffer a dictatorship without finding the courage for another revolution but I have discovered an alternative. Popular amendment of the Constitution.
Slashdot Mirror
Big players wouldn't do something like use a hacked TCP stack, but a P2P application might. Just as there are P2P applications that use a hacked version of their own protocol to thwart fairness efforts.
20 million P2P users with hacked stacks in this scenario would probably result in poorer performance and greater congestion than we have now.
bandwidth caps aren't the problem, pretty much everyone implements bandwidth caps. We are talking about punishing people who use their connections.
I have an eight megabit connection. But not really, the connection is actually much faster than that, my bandwidth is capped at eight megabit. I have no problem with that. After all, I pay for unlimited use of an eight megabit connection. The problems come when you can't actually deliver that eight megabits on an unlimited basis despite me paying for it.
Now, if you can't deliver what you promised AND you are giving priority to someone else who doesn't use the service they pay for I am going to be really pissed.
We are entitled with rights not because some magic man in the sky grants them but because we paid for a service. By not providing that service and taking our money the ISPs are stealing from us.
That brings up a question of entitlement. It suggests that there are users who should be punished.
Those who engage is low bandwidth activities are not entitled to more bandwidth while those engaging in high bandwidth activities are entitled to less. Both are entitled to equal bandwidth and have the right to utilize or not utilize accordingly.
I fail to see how Stallman's opinion on the topic is relevant to anyone but Stallman.
I dunno but he said the flow management idea was just presented recently.
'I'm not big on networking but if I'm sending data to someone and some "flow management" dumps one of the packets, won't my computer or modem just resend it?'
Yes and when the retransmission occurs the router may be able to handle your packet. The router won't be overloaded forever after all.
The bigger part of the equation is that with TCP the more packets are dropped the slower you transmit packets. With this solution the heaviest transmissions would have more packets dropped and therefore be slowed down the most.
I admit, I'd have to check the details of the protocol to see if this is open to abuse by those with a modified TCP stack. The problem is that the packets are dropped in a predictable manner and a modified TCP stack could be designed to 'filter' the noise and yet still degrade when other packets are lost and provide a reliable connection.
Software is an expression, not an invention. It is a mathematical implementation and therefore a new algorithm is a discovery, not an invention. But that is another debate.
You seem to be confusing things. The US never abolished the requirement that you actually invent something. The US could no longer warehouse all the prototypes so they removed the requirement to send in your working prototype. That doesn't mean patents are now for unimplemented ideas.
'If, as a programmer, someone gave you a really good idea about how to do X on a computer, would they need to tell you the exact code to enable you to do it?'
Well yes and no. If someone described a sunset sufficiently I could draw one, but it would be the same sunset. If I heard a bit of music I could replicate it but never repeat the original expression. That is how intangible copyrighted works like software function.
However, describing a microwave oven to me would not enable me to build one. That is what we call an invention and as such qualifies for a patent.
Apparently people still don't understand. You can patent an invention, you can copyright a tangible representation of an idea, but you can not protect an idea through any IP method.
Software is really a representation of an idea and should be copyrighted, not patented. Since patents are granted as if software were an invention you do still actually have to make the invention to qualify for a patent. I can scream my idea from the heavens all day long and that doesn't qualify as prior art, only implementing the idea would qualify as prior art.
On the contrary, it is not those of us who use the service we pay a fair rate for who are being subsidized, it is the immense profits the ISP is making that are being subsidized.
No doubt but the ISPs do successfully continue to beat demand. The biggest problems really exist for cable providers who use shared pools of bandwidth. Telcos have infrastructure that can scale for some time to come.
Cable internet has been a great competitor but if it falls due to technological limitations and CEOs that refuse to take a loss on the quarter in order to build superior infrastructure then so be it.
OMG PONIES!!
The net result of that scheme is that heavy users would pay the same and low usage customers would pay less. The means an overall cost reduction for the customer and a profit loss for the ISP.
This is really about one of two things. Either people just want to pay less for internet access. Or this is about people who don't utilize their connection getting annoyed that those who do so are getting more value than they are.
As for those who want unrestricted access, how about switching ISPs? Its not a perfect world, the company offering the cheapest bandwidth may not be the best choice for your needs.
Of course they will. They all start out great to build a customer base and then change to an inferior quality of service.
Forget downtime, I want a proportional discount depending on the actual available bandwidth versus the rate I am paying for. If my connection speed is currently 80% of what i paid for, I want a 20% discount off my bill (which had best no longer include a base monthly charge).
'And that, of course, is why most Slashdotters don't want pay-as-you go pricing: They'd be at the top of the usage list and so would pay accordingly.'
You make it sound as if it is some sort of crime to actually use the connection we pay for. We already pay a fair rate for the bandwidth we use. If you don't want to pay the price of your connection because you fail to fully utilize it you should downgrade.
Its a level of hackability the mac lacks.
'I was using myself as an example of a generic hacker / power user'
And you fail to see why that is a rather bold and arrogant assumption? I do not assume I speak for all the other hackers and power users out there but I don't recall casting a vote for you as representative of the interests and needs of the group.
'Here are some concrete examples of why OS X is better:'
uh huh
'WiFi works and works properly'
I have never had issues with wifi on Linux. As for properly, what is proper? How should my wifi behave? Beyond works, the word properly becomes hyperbole.
'Suspend/hibernate work and are fast'
I thought you called yourself a hacker? On a desktop the best thing you can do with suspend is disable it.
'Desktop applications don't have interdependencies'
In other words, they are inefficient. Linux package management has made the problems that come with dependencies a thing of the past, leaving only the benefits.
'Can use industry-standard commercial applications (Office, Photoshop...) or FOSS alternatives'
You can use a small subset of those applications, just as I can use under Linux. Of course, with a few recent exceptions I am going to have a more consistent and positive feel when using those FOSS applications or the commercial alternatives.
'Parallels is the nicest VM implementation for desktop use I've seen'
Its good that you rate your opinion so highly.
'Whatever the reasons, people don't seem that interested in hacking it'
A self-appointed representative of power users and hackers who views a lack of interest in hacking the platform as a positive, fascinating.
'HFS+ (self-optimizing on-disk format, useful metadata...)'
All the modern fs on Linux are self-optimizing. Lots of metadata is interesting, its one of the most hyped forms of bloat and inefficiency used today.
'Fast, pervasive desktop search'
Yawn. I have fast search available to me on any platform and have for years. Its a much touted, pervasive, and highly overrated feature. Most of us don't have any trouble finding our information. As for other information, Google is far superior to anything mac specific.
There is no question that Macs have come a long way but they have borrowed it all from the *nix world. Pretty well every Mac feature that would appeal to a hacker or power user is borrowed from the *nix world. When you take it away you are back to OS 9, a pretty, intuitive, and simple gui that is great for certain users but frustrating to power users.
On the other hand, there are a number of advantages to Linux. First of all, you can run it on damn near anything, it is a versatile and flexible tool. Although you want to isolate the conversation to desktops, it would be remiss to ignore the fact that you can spend each day working on a platform and gaining familiarity with the same tool that will upgrade your router and turn your xbox into a wireless multimedia system that streams music and video from your fileserver regardless of platform or protocol. I can use one system for kiosks, consoles, servers of all kinds, and desktops and be using a top 3 solution in all those applications (and in most cases the top solution).
Using a Linux system I also have a dramatically larger supported hardware base. I can customize and configure my system as I please when I please. I am not limited to a single configuration that made sense at purchase time. You might find programmers buying a proprietary PC but actual power users and hackers hack the hardware as well as the software. Your options are rather limited in the Mac world these days, even if Macs would be better called IBM PC's now.
If my motherboard fails in my Linux desktop, I can literally grab one of a half dozen varied boards out of the closet and toss it in the system. In most cases no change would be needed, and at most a quick boot with a rescue disc and changing two files will restore everything to operating just as if nothing happened. Anyone who works with a lot of PC's will have parts that will get the job done. A Mac user is pretty much out of luck unless he has Apple's replacement on hand.
'Have you actually, you know, used all three as a desktop system for a reasonable period?'
Yes. Although I only managed to stomach a Vista workstation for about three months. XP and others I have used for a period of years.
'Can you give me an example of something I might actually want to do (I don't want to rewrite my GUI, thanks, I just want one which works fairly consistently) which I can't do on my Mac?'
How could I do that? I don't even know you. More to the point, what do YOUR desires and wants have to do with the conversation? I'm confident you will find that nobody much cares what you do or don't enjoy doing on your computer and your personal desires have no relevance to the issue at hand.
Actually what is surprising is that windows is allowed into the competition not the other way around. Linux has been the preferred platform of hackers and power users for a long time. Windows power users would qualify as average level Linux users, and Mac power users would qualify as mid level windows users (sorry mac guys, you can do more than the average windows user but only because the mac does it for you, you still don't actually know anything about the technology and underpinnings).
In this case, Ubuntu would be the muscle car, the mac might be a vw bug, and the windows box would fit in well as a kia. Of course pre-OSX Macs would have fit better as caddies, comfortable and leisurely but slow and inefficient.
You are missing a major part of the equation. First of all, a big label artist is making between $.25 and $.75 per CD. Don't confuse the profit made on the sale with the amount the artist gets. Second, there are a lot of middle-men. First, the biggie is the record company, they want to make say $5 on the CD. Next comes the distributor, they get another $3-4, next comes the actual retail store which wants at least $5. Combine that with the royalties of the artists and the cost to produce the discs, the packaging and cases, the cover art, etc.
It really isn't that hard to see where the price of the CD comes from. It also isn't that hard to see which part of the equation no longer needs to be there.
Personally, I think artists should sell reproduction rights for a flat rate to individual stores with a contract that they sell copies for at least $1/ea. The contract is just to stop them from giving them out for free on a large scale since that would deter others from purchasing said contract. All the sudden you've shifted the production costs to the store, you've eliminated the distribution center, and you've eliminated the record company. The artist will make at least as much as he did with the record companies and will profit from the recordings as a way to advertise for live performances.
Even better would be if the contract allowed for the songs to be combined for custom albums. This would give the stores another service and give stores the ability to have unique products if they can make a good mix. All the sudden the stores need talent to pick songs for their own albums if they want to beat out the other guy. I love it.
From LA to New York by train takes a week. In the states we don't drive from LA to New York, we fly. As annoying as the checkpoints, security, and lines are at the airport you can decide this morning you want to be in LA this afternoon. For you Europeans thats about 4500 km.
As for the nordic countries others are mentioning, they are tiny compared to the United States. Outfitting the U.S. With a transportation system comparable to those would be an expense that simply could not be shouldered. Especially without paying the ungodly taxes you guys pay over there.
The U.S. is not Asia or Europe. Our population is spread out across a landmass that makes Western Europe look tiny. Not only that, that vast majority of the population in Europe is concentrated into a few areas within the landmass they do have. Here in the states we are spread out.
Hell, I'd have to walk two miles to even get to the first likely location for a bus stop and there is no way I'd do it back and forth every day and then walk to my destination on the other end. My wife has fibromyalgia and would be hard pressed to make it to the end of the street let alone two miles.
Public transportation is fine, I even used the rails once or twice while living in Miami but its not a practical solution in the states.
What I find interesting is that the article makes it seem like this is some ridiculous myth and there is no justification to believe it.
Personally I would not be surprised to see that it is alcohol consumption rather than beer that is the problem. Alcohol is a poison that some individuals consume readily and it would not surprise me a bit to discover that it has long term affects on the body and mind. I suspect it has more to do with the brain than science specifically but the effect may be subtle and show itself more readily in a hard thinking field like science.
As for other drugs, I wouldn't make the wild leap to assume that anything that causes euphoria is bad for you. Last time I looked it was still completely preposterous that many medications list euphoria as a NEGATIVE side effect.
There are all kinds of things that it is coming to light are probably good for our brains in small doses. Nicotine, Caffeine, Cannabis, and even MSG all have negative effects at high doses and positive effects at low doses. Amusingly, MSG in high doses (which isn't much for msg) mass murders brain cells and yet we use buckets of it in our food, where Cannabis has no known permanent effects on the brain and we throw people in prison for possessing it. The difference? Euphoria of course.
'oh? when? Bear in mind, the Geneva convention is designed for when civilized nations go to war.'
The US is currently torturing POWs, the Geneva convention applies to all war, not just those against countries you consider civilized.
'I can only think of two ways you could mean this in the context of your post, both of which are wrong. Cuold you elaborate please?'
The crimes against the Jews were terrible but in two generations they will be nothing more than a story in a textbook. The abuses of power in the Roman Empire lasted for thousands of years and actually live on in governments (including the U.S.) another thousand years after its fall. The system of government and management of the population under Hitler were the true crimes of Nazi Germany. Efficient yes, but efficiency is not the highest value in a society.
'Then shut the fuck up. Let me know when you want to get off your lazy do nothing ass and get some changes done.
Bad news for you is that is actually takes more work then signed some online petition.'
I don't see anything but a rant and unsubstantiated assumptions and assertions in that comment. There is nothing to answer.
'YOU are the government in this country jackass, learn to use your power, or not but don't go on spouting shit you have no clue about.'
False. Thats is propoganda. Even U.S. elections have been converted to electronic systems that are with little doubt rigged. And even that assumes you had viable options outside of an economic and social aristocracy. I never said there was much wrong with the propoganda and flowery lies the U.S. government claims as ideals. I am talking about the actual U.S. government.
If its all the same to you, I will save my precious response time for people who have points a little more substantial than 'you're spouting shit' and 'you have no fucking clue'. That amounts to nothing more than 'I'm right, you're wrong' with a bit less intellect behind it.
'Let me ask you this. If the US was the most benevolent and harmless country ever, and had NO armed forces, do you think Canada, Mexico, or other wouldn't have taken us over by now?'
Being completely defenseless is not the only alternative to being a violent and dangerous farce. It is possible to be strong enough to defend yourself without being a bully.
'I think the US, as bad as it is, is about the best we (and the world) can hope for, as the alternatives would be the same or worse.'
I beg to differ. We can have a strong defensive military without taking offensive action. Before the 'war' our defense budget was as large as that of every European nation combined.
My biggest complaints about the U.S. are not the external war but the internal issues. The government has become corrupt and all evidence indicates that our last presidential election was actually rigged. U.S. Elections actually need massive reform in order to remove the stranglehold of the wealthy elite that rule the two major parties.
Drastic action is required to fix the problems since the corrupt elements can't be expected to remove their own corruption. I had been depressed thinking that the only solution left was revolution and that our populace would suffer a dictatorship without finding the courage for another revolution but I have discovered an alternative. Popular amendment of the Constitution.