Unless we have lost all pretense about living in a country where we have freedom and it is really isn't just about corporations and 1%'s fucking us over like slaves.
We have. It's just that most people don't realize it yet. But more and more are starting to.
As someone who commutes by bus and subway daily, and 3-4 cab rides a week, I disagree. I still get absolutely infuriated when the vehicle is not going as fast as conditions allow; it actually distracts me from texting, playing games, or reading. Last time a cab driver didn't go through a yellow when he had enough time (and it was safe) to do so, I got in an argument about it then refused to tip. I don't say anything on buses or trains since getting serious charges for minor shit is too easy on public transport, but it most certainly irritates me.
In fact, I'd say even more than when I'm driving myself, because of the lack of control. And it's just as bad whether I have to be somewhere or am just out having fun.
Yeah someone should set up an e-mail service with tor. They could call it MailTor... or TorMail, or something. Would be great if something like that existed.
You can take it even farther than that. I've successfully ignored them for months at a time when I was in a situation where I was unable to obtain either new contacts or suitable glasses. Average was about 3 months before they HAD to come out. But even then they could go back in a day later when the irritation went away and be fine for a few more months. Not that I'd recommend this, but it's just to say they hold up good under extended stays in extreme conditions.
Is my sarcasm detector broken or are you seriously that naive? That happens all the time. Doesn't matter if you refuse electronic tests. They drag your ass to jail and charge you with DUI, sometimes not even stopping at the hospital for a blood test. The "due process" consists of negotiating the best plea bargain unless you can afford a lawyer good enough to beat it at trial and want to take that risk since victory isn't guaranteed. I've personally seen this done to a couple people. I thought there must be more to it, but I went over their discovery and that's it. The cop said they were impaired, and they were jailed without any other tests. Their public defenders got a few better plea offers, but the prosecutors would absolutely not drop the charges. I don't know the eventual outcome, but they sure as hell sat in jail for months since they couldn't make bond. This was in the past year in Florida.
The moral of the story is, just because a good lawyer might be able to get it thrown out doesn't mean you're not going to jail and having your life fucked up. All on the word of a single police officer. That's how it is in the US, and it's only getting worse.
IMO any police officer who arrests adults for consensual activity or simply possessing a drug other than alcohol or tobacco, where no other crime has been committed and with full knowledge of the impact of a conviction, is not a good and decent person. 'Doing your job' is not an excuse for such activity for these laws any more than it was an excuse for other 'laws' that stain history. You're going to deprive someone of their freedom for months or even years and turn them into a convicted felon for life because you found them with a couple Xanax instead of a bottle of Jack? Or because they sold another adult some virtually harmless pot instead of a pack of highly addictive and carcinogenic cigarettes? You're a sadistic thug. Officers who do not participate in that kind of nonsense certainly exist, but are exceptionally rare.
One of the more egregious examples are the major banks. They're all involved in blatant money laundering for drug cartels, but every single time all they have to do is pay a fine and promise to try harder to identify illegal transactions, and that's only when it's so overt people notice. It's the whole 'too big to fail' thing- the government is preventing the fiscal chaos serious sanctions would bring, while thousands of ordinary people sit in jail for simple possession.
This country has decided that yes, we in fact do want to perpetually punish drug offenders by eliminating opportunities other than becoming more serious criminals. We've decided drug users endangering themselves is not a medical problem, but a serious criminal offense that should be handled by militarizing the police departments and eroding civil liberties because they have to be punished (you can't stop victimless crimes without trampling rights), and that the costs to society accrued by this punishment justified, because these are Bad People, and helping them in any way instead of punishing them is simply unacceptable no matter how much it makes things worse for society as a whole. It's based on the fantasy that, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that mass incarceration actually reduces availability and overall usage (better 1000 addicts die in the streets than one more person experiments at a party).
It's a disgusting state of affairs, but the only politically possible course of action is to keep making it worse, because people simply can't grasp the idea that prohibition only adds another huge set of problems on top of an already dangerous activity, and doesn't curb it at all.
Violence is a slightly different issue in most cases; and I assumed you were speaking to the specific kind of violence perpetrated by addicts out of desperation due to black market influences.
Looking for drugs is a big part of it too. Terrorist is just the latest buzzword. Just like the PATRIOT Act sneak-and-peek thing, advertised for use against terrorists, is used FAR more against drug offenders.
The problem with moving to metered pricing is that it will invariably be set up so that people can only pay more than they do now, not less. If it's $400/month now, it will become $400/month + usage*rate. You're also claiming that if a service is advertised as unlimited, average use constitutes a hard limit over which is abuse, which only telecom executives think is rational.
I'm too lazy to look up the exact figures or citation, but it has been shown that a surprisingly large percentage of people infected with STDs are unaware that they are infected. In fact, IIRC the percentage is so high that it's well over the majority for some groups/diseases. Google it before the next time you have unprotected sex with someone you're convinced is telling you the truth.
They need to take the vast majority of the money away from the cartels. No profit removes the incentive for violence and the ability to corrupt large portions of the government. Too bad that "sends the wrong message". God forbid the people getting high illegally now be able to do it legally, and receive treatment instead of a record leaving no other path than crime. (No, there's no evidence legalization means more addiction, see the Netherlands and Portugal).
I noticed one of the streets in my town was named something other than what Google Maps said it was named, and submitted a report. About 2 weeks later I got an e-mail saying that I was right, it was fixed, and should show up soon. About a week after that the map was correct. Honestly I never expected it.
It's not really all that much. Consider, downloaded 1080p movies are 8-14GB, HD tv eps are 560MB or 1.1GB.
2TB could be 150 movies, 15 seasons worth of 30min programs avg 22eps/s, 15 seasons worth of 60min programs. That's not exactly a huge collection given today's bandwidth and storage.
The rest of the constitution applies to schools about the same way the 4th amendment applies to law enforcement. That is to say, any conceivable remote justification is good enough for the courts to create exceptions and limitations to rights. The fact that there's some tiny shreds of protection from the most egregious abuses isn't sufficient to say the constitution fully applies.
Probation is not a good solution. For some very high percentage, they either violate for failing a drug test and serve a few years, or god forbid get a new charge (that's also from a consensual [trans]action), then serve 5-10 years. Probation is just a stop on the way to jail for drug users.
If there's no victim, there should be no crime. End of story. No probation, no fine, no citation, nothing. If these people do something else, like rob a house, hurt someone directly, then by all means throw them in jail. But just reducing the penalty is not a solution.
Also, your solution depends on the majority of voters believing that these 'criminals' aren't just getting what they deserve. This does not seem to be true.
You're surprisingly uninformed for considering you know how to do the CWE. Every source on prescription numbers out there shows that combination opiates are several times more prescribed than pure products. This is because doctors fear people becoming addicted and fear the increased likelihood of a law enforcement investigation for prescribing strong narcotics. And damn straight it's to prevent abuse. Why else do you think hydrocodone combination products with 10mg or less hydrocodone are DEA Schedule III while everything else is Schedule II? Do you seriously think doctors PREFER to take the risk of prescribing a much more heavily regulated drug? And do you really think more than a couple percent of abusers would bother to perform an extraction? The undertreatment of pain is such a serious problem in this country precisely because of the abuse and regulatory liability of pure opiates.
Actually it doesn't even seem like the most appropriate verb to begin with. Songer would seem to make more sense, which does take à.
Furthermore, penser would take à if you were going to use it in this sense anyway; since the non-literal but equivalent phrases are penser à->to think about.
Remember à literally translates to 'at', not 'in'. "Think in the children" would have been penser dans enfants, or perhaps penser en enfants.
The main deal breakers for me seem to be things that I can't imagine really only matter to techies:
-Multitasking. You're telling me I'm supposed to be reading on this screen for hours and can't receive instant messages or listen to music at the same time?
-Flash. Regardless of merit, it's required for the full internet experience.
Those limitations are fine for a phone, but absolutely unacceptable for a device the size of the iPad. Those things are just too important and too basic. I just don't see these not mattering.
Citing an encyclopedia beyond high school = fail too. Especially general encyclopedias.
Some professors do mention that it is an excellent starting point to find more legitimate sources. But never as a source itself. Maybe it's different outside of the sciences or in the countless institutions impersonating higher learning.
First of all, most modern conveniences are available without using your real name and without breaking the law:
-Use prepaid mobile phones.
-Establish utilities under relatives/roommates name; or even a made up name.
I have my own bedroom, glorious computer w/ 22mbps cable internet, electricity, water, and a cell phone with unlimited talk+text; NONE of which is under my name. And I'm not even hiding, it's actually the most convenient setup for me at this point. I personally pay for it all through a legitimate income, but we're talking about criminals. Criminals can get income from dealing drugs. They could buy a new identity and establish credit on it... but that's really not needed for a decent lifestyle. So what exactly would they be missing out on? ...plus you don't even have to be some criminal mastermind to accomplish any of this; if you pay on time the utilities will serve you, they're not out verifying idents.
Unless I'm missing something, there seems to be extremely little difference between this new service and what Google has displayed when you use define:whatever as a search query for as long back as I can remember.
Slashdot Mirror
Unless we have lost all pretense about living in a country where we have freedom and it is really isn't just about corporations and 1%'s fucking us over like slaves.
We have. It's just that most people don't realize it yet. But more and more are starting to.
Base 69?
As someone who commutes by bus and subway daily, and 3-4 cab rides a week, I disagree. I still get absolutely infuriated when the vehicle is not going as fast as conditions allow; it actually distracts me from texting, playing games, or reading. Last time a cab driver didn't go through a yellow when he had enough time (and it was safe) to do so, I got in an argument about it then refused to tip. I don't say anything on buses or trains since getting serious charges for minor shit is too easy on public transport, but it most certainly irritates me.
In fact, I'd say even more than when I'm driving myself, because of the lack of control. And it's just as bad whether I have to be somewhere or am just out having fun.
You consider 1-2GBP (~$1.55-3.10USD) for presumably streamed, 24 hour access to a single episode to be reasonably priced? Must be nice.
Yeah someone should set up an e-mail service with tor. They could call it MailTor... or TorMail, or something. Would be great if something like that existed.
You can take it even farther than that. I've successfully ignored them for months at a time when I was in a situation where I was unable to obtain either new contacts or suitable glasses. Average was about 3 months before they HAD to come out. But even then they could go back in a day later when the irritation went away and be fine for a few more months.
Not that I'd recommend this, but it's just to say they hold up good under extended stays in extreme conditions.
Is my sarcasm detector broken or are you seriously that naive? That happens all the time. Doesn't matter if you refuse electronic tests. They drag your ass to jail and charge you with DUI, sometimes not even stopping at the hospital for a blood test. The "due process" consists of negotiating the best plea bargain unless you can afford a lawyer good enough to beat it at trial and want to take that risk since victory isn't guaranteed. I've personally seen this done to a couple people. I thought there must be more to it, but I went over their discovery and that's it. The cop said they were impaired, and they were jailed without any other tests. Their public defenders got a few better plea offers, but the prosecutors would absolutely not drop the charges. I don't know the eventual outcome, but they sure as hell sat in jail for months since they couldn't make bond. This was in the past year in Florida.
The moral of the story is, just because a good lawyer might be able to get it thrown out doesn't mean you're not going to jail and having your life fucked up. All on the word of a single police officer. That's how it is in the US, and it's only getting worse.
IMO any police officer who arrests adults for consensual activity or simply possessing a drug other than alcohol or tobacco, where no other crime has been committed and with full knowledge of the impact of a conviction, is not a good and decent person. 'Doing your job' is not an excuse for such activity for these laws any more than it was an excuse for other 'laws' that stain history. You're going to deprive someone of their freedom for months or even years and turn them into a convicted felon for life because you found them with a couple Xanax instead of a bottle of Jack? Or because they sold another adult some virtually harmless pot instead of a pack of highly addictive and carcinogenic cigarettes? You're a sadistic thug. Officers who do not participate in that kind of nonsense certainly exist, but are exceptionally rare.
One of the more egregious examples are the major banks. They're all involved in blatant money laundering for drug cartels, but every single time all they have to do is pay a fine and promise to try harder to identify illegal transactions, and that's only when it's so overt people notice. It's the whole 'too big to fail' thing- the government is preventing the fiscal chaos serious sanctions would bring, while thousands of ordinary people sit in jail for simple possession.
This country has decided that yes, we in fact do want to perpetually punish drug offenders by eliminating opportunities other than becoming more serious criminals. We've decided drug users endangering themselves is not a medical problem, but a serious criminal offense that should be handled by militarizing the police departments and eroding civil liberties because they have to be punished (you can't stop victimless crimes without trampling rights), and that the costs to society accrued by this punishment justified, because these are Bad People, and helping them in any way instead of punishing them is simply unacceptable no matter how much it makes things worse for society as a whole. It's based on the fantasy that, despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that mass incarceration actually reduces availability and overall usage (better 1000 addicts die in the streets than one more person experiments at a party).
It's a disgusting state of affairs, but the only politically possible course of action is to keep making it worse, because people simply can't grasp the idea that prohibition only adds another huge set of problems on top of an already dangerous activity, and doesn't curb it at all.
Violence is a slightly different issue in most cases; and I assumed you were speaking to the specific kind of violence perpetrated by addicts out of desperation due to black market influences.
Looking for drugs is a big part of it too. Terrorist is just the latest buzzword. Just like the PATRIOT Act sneak-and-peek thing, advertised for use against terrorists, is used FAR more against drug offenders.
The problem with moving to metered pricing is that it will invariably be set up so that people can only pay more than they do now, not less. If it's $400/month now, it will become $400/month + usage*rate. You're also claiming that if a service is advertised as unlimited, average use constitutes a hard limit over which is abuse, which only telecom executives think is rational.
I'm too lazy to look up the exact figures or citation, but it has been shown that a surprisingly large percentage of people infected with STDs are unaware that they are infected. In fact, IIRC the percentage is so high that it's well over the majority for some groups/diseases. Google it before the next time you have unprotected sex with someone you're convinced is telling you the truth.
They need to take the vast majority of the money away from the cartels. No profit removes the incentive for violence and the ability to corrupt large portions of the government. Too bad that "sends the wrong message". God forbid the people getting high illegally now be able to do it legally, and receive treatment instead of a record leaving no other path than crime. (No, there's no evidence legalization means more addiction, see the Netherlands and Portugal).
I noticed one of the streets in my town was named something other than what Google Maps said it was named, and submitted a report. About 2 weeks later I got an e-mail saying that I was right, it was fixed, and should show up soon. About a week after that the map was correct. Honestly I never expected it.
"Words on a page. Ignore them." - Refa
It's "Ink on a page."
It's not really all that much. Consider, downloaded 1080p movies are 8-14GB, HD tv eps are 560MB or 1.1GB. 2TB could be 150 movies, 15 seasons worth of 30min programs avg 22eps/s, 15 seasons worth of 60min programs. That's not exactly a huge collection given today's bandwidth and storage.
The rest of the constitution applies to schools about the same way the 4th amendment applies to law enforcement. That is to say, any conceivable remote justification is good enough for the courts to create exceptions and limitations to rights. The fact that there's some tiny shreds of protection from the most egregious abuses isn't sufficient to say the constitution fully applies.
Probation is not a good solution. For some very high percentage, they either violate for failing a drug test and serve a few years, or god forbid get a new charge (that's also from a consensual [trans]action), then serve 5-10 years. Probation is just a stop on the way to jail for drug users.
If there's no victim, there should be no crime. End of story. No probation, no fine, no citation, nothing. If these people do something else, like rob a house, hurt someone directly, then by all means throw them in jail. But just reducing the penalty is not a solution.
Also, your solution depends on the majority of voters believing that these 'criminals' aren't just getting what they deserve. This does not seem to be true.
You're surprisingly uninformed for considering you know how to do the CWE. Every source on prescription numbers out there shows that combination opiates are several times more prescribed than pure products. This is because doctors fear people becoming addicted and fear the increased likelihood of a law enforcement investigation for prescribing strong narcotics. And damn straight it's to prevent abuse. Why else do you think hydrocodone combination products with 10mg or less hydrocodone are DEA Schedule III while everything else is Schedule II? Do you seriously think doctors PREFER to take the risk of prescribing a much more heavily regulated drug? And do you really think more than a couple percent of abusers would bother to perform an extraction? The undertreatment of pain is such a serious problem in this country precisely because of the abuse and regulatory liability of pure opiates.
Actually it doesn't even seem like the most appropriate verb to begin with. Songer would seem to make more sense, which does take à. Furthermore, penser would take à if you were going to use it in this sense anyway; since the non-literal but equivalent phrases are penser à->to think about. Remember à literally translates to 'at', not 'in'. "Think in the children" would have been penser dans enfants, or perhaps penser en enfants.
The main deal breakers for me seem to be things that I can't imagine really only matter to techies:
-Multitasking. You're telling me I'm supposed to be reading on this screen for hours and can't receive instant messages or listen to music at the same time?
-Flash. Regardless of merit, it's required for the full internet experience.
Those limitations are fine for a phone, but absolutely unacceptable for a device the size of the iPad. Those things are just too important and too basic. I just don't see these not mattering.
Citing an encyclopedia beyond high school = fail too. Especially general encyclopedias.
Some professors do mention that it is an excellent starting point to find more legitimate sources. But never as a source itself. Maybe it's different outside of the sciences or in the countless institutions impersonating higher learning.
First of all, most modern conveniences are available without using your real name and without breaking the law:
...plus you don't even have to be some criminal mastermind to accomplish any of this; if you pay on time the utilities will serve you, they're not out verifying idents.
-Use prepaid mobile phones.
-Establish utilities under relatives/roommates name; or even a made up name.
I have my own bedroom, glorious computer w/ 22mbps cable internet, electricity, water, and a cell phone with unlimited talk+text; NONE of which is under my name. And I'm not even hiding, it's actually the most convenient setup for me at this point. I personally pay for it all through a legitimate income, but we're talking about criminals. Criminals can get income from dealing drugs. They could buy a new identity and establish credit on it... but that's really not needed for a decent lifestyle. So what exactly would they be missing out on?
Unless I'm missing something, there seems to be extremely little difference between this new service and what Google has displayed when you use define:whatever as a search query for as long back as I can remember.