How many felons could be caught if police were allowed to search anyone's home to id people without cause? How many could be caught if we had id scans for all vehicle occupants to gain access to the roads? Let's have squads of id swiping police walking the streets stopping random people doing nothing suspicious, entering all their info into the database, think of all the felons and fugitives we'd nail!
Better yet, let's implant everyone with a gps tracker at birth, that way we can monitor everybody to make sure they're always where they're supposed to be.
You're either a troll or a 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear' fool whose tolerance to this sort of thing is stripping the country of civil liberties and leading down the road to a police state.
People around here might assume 'troll', but I've had conversations with people who think everything in the OP, and everything I said above, is ok. They were dead serious, they really thought security takes precedence over privacy regardless of how invasive.
I normally wouldn't correct something like this, but this is/. so minor technicalities cannot go uncorrected. The DEA, not the FDA, determines which CSA schedule a drug is placed in.
While that is a factor, it's not the only reason. Hydrocodone/NSAID combination products are CSA Schedule 3, while pure narcotics are CSA Schedule 2- much more tightly restricted. Due to various reasons including a lack of proper pain management training during med school and residency and the DEA prosecuting doctors because they think they know better, doctors are FAR less willing to prescribe CII pain relievers even with clear medical justification; the undertreatment of pain is a serious problem. So pharmaceutical companies have a strong incentive to add in a NSAID like acetaminophen since they will move far more product, which is a direct consequence of the government placing less restrictions on combination products in order to keep them out of the hands of drug abusers.
Maybe the people you know have a larger income than the people I know, because almost without exception they pirate things they wouldn't buy anyway; and still spend some money on stuff. It's only an alternative to purchasing if that purchase would have been made in the absence of the download, which in most cases it's not. Whatever extra money for entertainment they have still goes to the entertainment industry in some form, but the majority of piracy is for things they couldn't afford to buy anyway. I seriously doubt almost everyone's huge mp3 collection represents thousands of dollars they would have otherwise used to purchase those tracks.
Works fine through my Comcast connection (and yes I'm using their DNS servers too). So maybe it's a coincidence? Or maybe they just let me view it since I already pay extra for their top tier service? Or maybe the 'outrage' of the billions of people who actually noticed made them reverse policy between your posting time and now. Hmmm.
I don't think the 'clothed but provactive' sites make up the bulk of either the child porn industry or what people consider to be child porn. Not to mention I don't see how sites like that can even be thought to be more popular than the real child porn sites. Go look at a REAL child porn site then re-form your opinion. Try the Ranchi BBS or Torpedo. It's sick.
You seem to be under the impression that this politician introduced this bill in order to make a serious attempt at impeding terrorists, and not to make himself look like an American Hero trying to save the world and simultaneously branding his opponents as pro-terrorist when they try to go up against the bill.
Not only does dht routinely show over 1,000,000 these days (~936,000 at the moment), but the majority of peers I see connected are found from PeerExchange. So as long as DHT can find a few and PeerExchange can pick up the rest, I don't see the loss of Pirate Bay doing anything but maybe slowing down downloads a little bit.
I feel obligated to provide a different experience. I have Comcast's 16/2 service, and I routinely hit these speeds. In fact, last night I was downloading some things hit 18mbits down for a few minutes, but can usually sustain the 16m. Uploads almost always can be sustained at 2m, but I limit it to half that just to avoid gettting bitch slapped by 'congestion management'.
Staying connected to the network was an issue in the beginning. It took 4 service calls replacing various components before I had more than 50% uptime, and every week there's at least a few hours of spotty service, but outside of those small windows latency is never an issue.
I'd never consider switching to DSL. Comcasts service has been solid for me. I'll admit it probably has something to do with living in a low density area where most people are retired, so it's likely there's very few bandwidth hogs like me in the immediate service area.
$100 to give reviews of movies people haven't seen? Some people will have sex with a stranger for less than that. Some people KILL for less than that. You could offer $10 and you'd have people lined up a mile to say they liked a movie that they hadn't seen, it's just that on the internet, you can offer less.
I have sort of a reverse situation. I used to contact AOL tech support for the express purpose of asking them questions that, as AOL "technical support", they theoretically should've know, but don't. Like questions about FDO (the 'language' AOL content is made with) and the Secure ID keychains their internal staff logged in with. Always had a good time; sorry if I ever got any AOL techs here; I was a kid. The good techs actually wanted to learn about the stuff, which actually was even more fun, to share the knowledge.
Indeed. When I was in high school the county's filtering system could be bypassed simple by entering the IP address as a long. http://slashdot.org/ was blocked, but http://3626153261/ got me here, and the restrictions on which applications could be launched could be bypassed simply by using ShellExecute in VBA, which was installed with Office. I guess I told too many people since it had been fixed by my senior year, but then I just moved on to proxies. Not to mention that some teacher will trust some student enough to give them the admin password or type it in within visual range. The librarian's password got me into the county's private network, which I used to download all sorts of neat stuff from every school in the district, not to mention 'updating' the security policies with the IT admin's pw.
Unless these laptops are for elementary students, any protection you will install WILL be bypassed by a nerd, since telling everyone else how to look at porn on their laptops is their ticket to temporary popularity.
Not to mention there was nothing to indicate they intended to block people from connecting to tor, and everybody knows what kind of sites are publicly talked about and linked to among the hidden services. Censoring cp sites is actually counter-productive since I'd bet most of the stuff on the regular web are LEA traps.
I don't believe they think they can censor things out of existence; I think they're more about making the masses believe they're taking step to protect the children and clean up the net than mounting a serious effort to stem the flow of online cp.
Lobbyists are worth their weight in gold, but lobbyists don't outweigh enormous opposition from the press and public.
Yes, they do. The bailout is proof of this, because as far as I know public opposition didn't actually change when they made a few insignificant changes (if you have polling data suggesting otherwise, please link it).
I'm sorry, did you want me to dumb down the diagnostic list for you? It's from a site called behavenet and with a resource like that re-writing the material is pointless. You don't cite anything so why should I?
I guess we have different definitions of retarded. I've responded in a civil manner with a point-by-point counterargument based on accepted DSM-IV material, you post nothing but ad-hominem attacks with zero support for your claims. Given that all you've done is cry like a little kid with an argument consisting of "you're a stupid idiot because I'm a such a genius that I don't even need facts to prove you wrong, all I have to do is say you're a stupid asshole and therefore everybody sees you're wrong and I'm right." That's all your argument consists of. You're clearly a troll, clearly don't have a doctorate (maybe a diploma your mommy drew and put a gold star on for her special boy who's smart "in other ways than those mean kids"), and clearly don't know anything about this subject, so I'm now done feeding your childish tantrum. If you've got an argument with more support than "because you're stupid", let me know.
For your own sake, I'd investigate Antisocial Personality Disorder, just type that into Google to start looking for help, don't worry, you do at least seem smart enough to find the number of a nice person to help you.
First, prove that I can't possibly have 3 of these items (diagnosis requires 2)
(1) marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction
(2) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
(3) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
(4) lack of social or emotional reciprocity
Now, you have to show that I can't have ANY of these:
(1) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
(2) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
(3) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
(4) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects
You've already admitted people with Aspergers can have social problems, so we can skip this one:
C. The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
Maybe you can now judge my childhood based on my/. posts too:
D. There is no clinically significant general delay in language (e.g., single words used by age 2 years, communicative phrases used by age 3 years).
E. There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in the development of age-appropriate self-help skills, adaptive behavior (other than in social interaction), and curiosity about the environment in childhood.
Now part F requires no other PDD. If you want to argue for PDD-NOS, which I'm sure you will after realizing you weren't as correct about your ability to dismiss all of the above as you think you were, leading to you searching for any out to protect your massive ego, well I'll do a point-by-point rebuttal of that too.
It might have to do with my post-doctoral research into autistic spectrum disorders. Maybe. Not everyone that reads slashdot works in IT.
Or maybe not. You go on to bash self-diagnosis (which you are incorrect on) but you can make a confirmed diagnosis based on... what exactly? The fact I said I got arrested for drugs? Yeah, nobody with any part of the autism spectrum ever gets arrested. Or maybe the fact I used them at all? Last I checked, drugs that increase dopamine were part of the approved treatment. Certainly not the widely recognized diagnostic guidelines for this disorder.
If the OP actually had any sort of autistic tendencies, they wouldn't have said half the idiotic things they said.
Maybe that's because I have a regimen that controls the symptoms. Or maybe because posting on the internet is not nearly as hard as talking to real people. And ability to observe the people around me talking about computers and inferring their level of ability is not something that people something on the very mild side of the autism spectrum can't do.
You can't self-diagnose Aspergers any more than you can self diagnose a heart condition - you might be able to tell that something is wrong, but you can't just decide on the diagnosis,
I absolutely agree. Now, show me the part where I claim to have diagnosed it myself. Also, show me where enough items in the DSM-IV-TR criteria for Asperger's Disorder are precluded by my previous post, because it sure as hell sounds like you've never read them and seem to think I'm talking about having a condition on the other end of the autism spectrum. Or is your definition of what constitutes Aspergers totally different from the DSM and what the psychiatrist I saw thought it was? Maybe you could correct the ignorance of the current authorities. Let me know what you get published.
especially not with your community-college diploma in network security and A+ cert.
Wrong once more. I have a BS degree from University of Miami (in psychobiology); and no diploma in network security or an A+ certification.
What kind of institute of higher learning gives an ignorant prick like you a doctorate anyway?
That's a bit advanced for all but a tiny fraction of prisoners.
I'd say that most of the computer books should be basic things like how to use Office and send e-mail; or books introducing HTML.
Due to the drug exception to the 4th amendment and my adventures in self medicating my social anxiety and Aspergers, I unfortunately had the opportunity to meet these people one month. It was quite clear that I was the only person in that facility (county, not prison) who knew how to do anything more advanced than myspace. While I certainly would have appreciated some books on theoretical computer science, it would be far more helpful for everybody else to have books starting with the beginner stuff.
Is that supposed to be a joke? Do you have any idea how few people actually do anything besides vote for the party that they think represents their "interests" as a whole, or at best the candidate that shares their (typically unresearched and based on emotion or religion) view on some single moral issue like abortion or civil rights? I remember reading about a shockingly large percentage of voters that didn't even know where the major candidates stood on certain issues, in a poll taken in the week after they talked about those issues in one of the presidential debates. And I'd have to say at LEAST a majority of voters don't "get to understand the issues" then "form an opinion", they simply pick their side after hearing the first soundbyte for/against something which resonates with their completely unfounded biases and prejudices about how things should be, then completely close their minds to hearing any more arguments from opposing viewpoints.
Voters who actually sit down and weigh the sides of an issue and make a decision based on logic and an assessment of what would actually work and whether it's in line with the principles our nation are founded upon are a very slim minority.
MovieMakerModule.cpp Line 497:// Stolen code, begin
Line 560:// Stolen code - end
If you're going to steal code, it's not a good idea to put in comments announcing it's stolen. Of course scumbag crap is what they're about, so they probably are just fine with copy/pasting code.
The value of the global illegal drug trade is upwards of $300-500 billion by most estimates (and at least 150-200 by almost all others); of which the US market makes up about $60-100bn. Why is fact checking virtually non-existent with anything related to drug prohibition? And the other tactic, deceptive use of statistics, such as implying the $90bn maximum value of the trade is the entire value based and neglecting to mention that's only the wholesale market, is equally acceptable in even the most reputable publications. Why? Oh yeah, because virtually every actual fact contradicts the political consensus that prohibition is the best way to deal with the harms drugs create.
I'm surprised that more people here don't realize democracy isn't really that good a thing. Most people are uninformed, uneducated morons that should never be entrusted with any kind of direct, majority based control over policy. Most people form opinions of policy based on everything except logic, science and reason. That's why the US gov was set up the way it is; the problem is the people being elected to office are increasingly not being elected based on their intelligence, knowledge and trust that they will implement the best policy for the people, and instead being elected for pandering to peoples malformed prejudiced judgments on what policy should be. I see it as a continuation of the larger and more dangerous trend of intelligence no longer being valued. So as elected officials support what a simple majority of their constituents think the policies should be, the government will become more and more oppressive as the majority will supercedes the rights of minority groups. A perfect example is drug policy. The majority forms the opinion drugs=bad=ban, and only politicians who adhere to prohibition even have a shot at office; but all logic and science overwhelmingly shows prohibition maximizes harm to society while not at all accomplishing its goal of reducing use. Another example is stem cell policy. Most people on the right think stem cells=cloning=killing babies=wrong, a position which also has nothing to do with science or whats best for the progress of life saving therapies, and a Republican candidate has to agree or risk losing votes. Look for more issues to start being decided by the whim of the masses rather than what's best, science education/evolution is quickly stepping up to be another majority belief that electees must match to get votes.
So drug dealers are immoral criminals because they profit from selling a product? Drug dealers are no more inherently bad than the convenience store clerk selling tobacco and alcohol. You've been brainwashed into believing that most drug dealers are either violent minorities walking the streets selling to children and beating up their competitors or mobsters regularly killing people as they launder their profits by scamming honest businesses. Some of them are. But they're criminals in every sense of the word because of who they are, not because of what they sell. If a drug dealer shoots someone, by all means lock them in a cell and throw away the key: because they shot someone, not because they sold arbitrarily illegal chemicals to a consenting adult. Most drug dealers are at the retail end, and outside of inner city ghettos they're mostly non-violent and mostly just sell to their friends and friends of friends, commiting no other crime than selling drugs. Even at the mid-level, there's still only a small percentage of violent dealers.
Why do drugs destroy families? Tearing families apart by imprisonment: caused by prohibition. High price leading to theft from family: caused by prohibition. Spending all ones time doing drug activities: caused by prohibition.
Why do drugs destroy lives? Violence associated with gangs/cartels: caused by prohibition. Toxic contaminants: caused by prohibition. Fear of legal consequences of getting medical attention for OD: caused by prohibition.
How do drugs destroy health? Toxic contaminants: caused by prohibition. Inaccessability of effective treatment: caused by prohibition. Fear of legal consequences of getting treatment: caused by prohibition.
How do drugs destroy general peace and good order? The entire black market supply system: caused by prohibition. Property crime due to black market price markup: caused by prohibition.
It's ignorance like yours that is bad for society, too short sighted to see that the vast majority of destruction comes from the fact that drugs are illegal. Re-read the history of alcohol prohibition; yes legal alcohol is destructive, but not nearly as destructive as it was during its prohibition. Thinking that for some reason prohibition will work for drugs is ludicrous. Since no amount of resources can actually keep drugs off the streets, people need to start looking at how to minimize the harm they cause; legalization is far less harmful (though risks still exist) to both users and society than prohibition.
Slashdot Mirror
How many felons could be caught if police were allowed to search anyone's home to id people without cause? How many could be caught if we had id scans for all vehicle occupants to gain access to the roads? Let's have squads of id swiping police walking the streets stopping random people doing nothing suspicious, entering all their info into the database, think of all the felons and fugitives we'd nail!
Better yet, let's implant everyone with a gps tracker at birth, that way we can monitor everybody to make sure they're always where they're supposed to be.
You're either a troll or a 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear' fool whose tolerance to this sort of thing is stripping the country of civil liberties and leading down the road to a police state.
People around here might assume 'troll', but I've had conversations with people who think everything in the OP, and everything I said above, is ok. They were dead serious, they really thought security takes precedence over privacy regardless of how invasive.
I normally wouldn't correct something like this, but this is /. so minor technicalities cannot go uncorrected. The DEA, not the FDA, determines which CSA schedule a drug is placed in.
While that is a factor, it's not the only reason. Hydrocodone/NSAID combination products are CSA Schedule 3, while pure narcotics are CSA Schedule 2- much more tightly restricted. Due to various reasons including a lack of proper pain management training during med school and residency and the DEA prosecuting doctors because they think they know better, doctors are FAR less willing to prescribe CII pain relievers even with clear medical justification; the undertreatment of pain is a serious problem. So pharmaceutical companies have a strong incentive to add in a NSAID like acetaminophen since they will move far more product, which is a direct consequence of the government placing less restrictions on combination products in order to keep them out of the hands of drug abusers.
Maybe the people you know have a larger income than the people I know, because almost without exception they pirate things they wouldn't buy anyway; and still spend some money on stuff. It's only an alternative to purchasing if that purchase would have been made in the absence of the download, which in most cases it's not. Whatever extra money for entertainment they have still goes to the entertainment industry in some form, but the majority of piracy is for things they couldn't afford to buy anyway. I seriously doubt almost everyone's huge mp3 collection represents thousands of dollars they would have otherwise used to purchase those tracks.
Works fine through my Comcast connection (and yes I'm using their DNS servers too). So maybe it's a coincidence? Or maybe they just let me view it since I already pay extra for their top tier service? Or maybe the 'outrage' of the billions of people who actually noticed made them reverse policy between your posting time and now. Hmmm.
I don't think the 'clothed but provactive' sites make up the bulk of either the child porn industry or what people consider to be child porn. Not to mention I don't see how sites like that can even be thought to be more popular than the real child porn sites. Go look at a REAL child porn site then re-form your opinion. Try the Ranchi BBS or Torpedo. It's sick.
You seem to be under the impression that this politician introduced this bill in order to make a serious attempt at impeding terrorists, and not to make himself look like an American Hero trying to save the world and simultaneously branding his opponents as pro-terrorist when they try to go up against the bill.
Not only does dht routinely show over 1,000,000 these days (~936,000 at the moment), but the majority of peers I see connected are found from PeerExchange. So as long as DHT can find a few and PeerExchange can pick up the rest, I don't see the loss of Pirate Bay doing anything but maybe slowing down downloads a little bit.
I feel obligated to provide a different experience. I have Comcast's 16/2 service, and I routinely hit these speeds. In fact, last night I was downloading some things hit 18mbits down for a few minutes, but can usually sustain the 16m. Uploads almost always can be sustained at 2m, but I limit it to half that just to avoid gettting bitch slapped by 'congestion management'.
Staying connected to the network was an issue in the beginning. It took 4 service calls replacing various components before I had more than 50% uptime, and every week there's at least a few hours of spotty service, but outside of those small windows latency is never an issue.
I'd never consider switching to DSL. Comcasts service has been solid for me. I'll admit it probably has something to do with living in a low density area where most people are retired, so it's likely there's very few bandwidth hogs like me in the immediate service area.
So what if the teacher was reading their notes, verbatim, from a tangible notebook they authored?
$100 to give reviews of movies people haven't seen? Some people will have sex with a stranger for less than that. Some people KILL for less than that. You could offer $10 and you'd have people lined up a mile to say they liked a movie that they hadn't seen, it's just that on the internet, you can offer less.
I have sort of a reverse situation. I used to contact AOL tech support for the express purpose of asking them questions that, as AOL "technical support", they theoretically should've know, but don't. Like questions about FDO (the 'language' AOL content is made with) and the Secure ID keychains their internal staff logged in with. Always had a good time; sorry if I ever got any AOL techs here; I was a kid. The good techs actually wanted to learn about the stuff, which actually was even more fun, to share the knowledge.
Indeed. When I was in high school the county's filtering system could be bypassed simple by entering the IP address as a long. http://slashdot.org/ was blocked, but http://3626153261/ got me here, and the restrictions on which applications could be launched could be bypassed simply by using ShellExecute in VBA, which was installed with Office. I guess I told too many people since it had been fixed by my senior year, but then I just moved on to proxies. Not to mention that some teacher will trust some student enough to give them the admin password or type it in within visual range. The librarian's password got me into the county's private network, which I used to download all sorts of neat stuff from every school in the district, not to mention 'updating' the security policies with the IT admin's pw.
Unless these laptops are for elementary students, any protection you will install WILL be bypassed by a nerd, since telling everyone else how to look at porn on their laptops is their ticket to temporary popularity.
Not to mention there was nothing to indicate they intended to block people from connecting to tor, and everybody knows what kind of sites are publicly talked about and linked to among the hidden services. Censoring cp sites is actually counter-productive since I'd bet most of the stuff on the regular web are LEA traps.
I don't believe they think they can censor things out of existence; I think they're more about making the masses believe they're taking step to protect the children and clean up the net than mounting a serious effort to stem the flow of online cp.
Lobbyists are worth their weight in gold, but lobbyists don't outweigh enormous opposition from the press and public.
Yes, they do. The bailout is proof of this, because as far as I know public opposition didn't actually change when they made a few insignificant changes (if you have polling data suggesting otherwise, please link it).
I'm sorry, did you want me to dumb down the diagnostic list for you? It's from a site called behavenet and with a resource like that re-writing the material is pointless. You don't cite anything so why should I?
I guess we have different definitions of retarded. I've responded in a civil manner with a point-by-point counterargument based on accepted DSM-IV material, you post nothing but ad-hominem attacks with zero support for your claims. Given that all you've done is cry like a little kid with an argument consisting of "you're a stupid idiot because I'm a such a genius that I don't even need facts to prove you wrong, all I have to do is say you're a stupid asshole and therefore everybody sees you're wrong and I'm right." That's all your argument consists of. You're clearly a troll, clearly don't have a doctorate (maybe a diploma your mommy drew and put a gold star on for her special boy who's smart "in other ways than those mean kids"), and clearly don't know anything about this subject, so I'm now done feeding your childish tantrum. If you've got an argument with more support than "because you're stupid", let me know.
For your own sake, I'd investigate Antisocial Personality Disorder, just type that into Google to start looking for help, don't worry, you do at least seem smart enough to find the number of a nice person to help you.
Here, prove my psychiatrist wrong.
/. posts too:
First, prove that I can't possibly have 3 of these items (diagnosis requires 2)
(1) marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction
(2) failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
(3) a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
(4) lack of social or emotional reciprocity
Now, you have to show that I can't have ANY of these:
(1) encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
(2) apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
(3) stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
(4) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects
You've already admitted people with Aspergers can have social problems, so we can skip this one:
C. The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.
Maybe you can now judge my childhood based on my
D. There is no clinically significant general delay in language (e.g., single words used by age 2 years, communicative phrases used by age 3 years).
E. There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in the development of age-appropriate self-help skills, adaptive behavior (other than in social interaction), and curiosity about the environment in childhood.
Now part F requires no other PDD. If you want to argue for PDD-NOS, which I'm sure you will after realizing you weren't as correct about your ability to dismiss all of the above as you think you were, leading to you searching for any out to protect your massive ego, well I'll do a point-by-point rebuttal of that too.
It might have to do with my post-doctoral research into autistic spectrum disorders. Maybe. Not everyone that reads slashdot works in IT.
Or maybe not. You go on to bash self-diagnosis (which you are incorrect on) but you can make a confirmed diagnosis based on... what exactly? The fact I said I got arrested for drugs? Yeah, nobody with any part of the autism spectrum ever gets arrested. Or maybe the fact I used them at all? Last I checked, drugs that increase dopamine were part of the approved treatment. Certainly not the widely recognized diagnostic guidelines for this disorder.
If the OP actually had any sort of autistic tendencies, they wouldn't have said half the idiotic things they said.
Maybe that's because I have a regimen that controls the symptoms. Or maybe because posting on the internet is not nearly as hard as talking to real people. And ability to observe the people around me talking about computers and inferring their level of ability is not something that people something on the very mild side of the autism spectrum can't do.
You can't self-diagnose Aspergers any more than you can self diagnose a heart condition - you might be able to tell that something is wrong, but you can't just decide on the diagnosis,
I absolutely agree. Now, show me the part where I claim to have diagnosed it myself. Also, show me where enough items in the DSM-IV-TR criteria for Asperger's Disorder are precluded by my previous post, because it sure as hell sounds like you've never read them and seem to think I'm talking about having a condition on the other end of the autism spectrum. Or is your definition of what constitutes Aspergers totally different from the DSM and what the psychiatrist I saw thought it was? Maybe you could correct the ignorance of the current authorities. Let me know what you get published.
especially not with your community-college diploma in network security and A+ cert.
Wrong once more. I have a BS degree from University of Miami (in psychobiology); and no diploma in network security or an A+ certification.
What kind of institute of higher learning gives an ignorant prick like you a doctorate anyway?
That's a bit advanced for all but a tiny fraction of prisoners.
I'd say that most of the computer books should be basic things like how to use Office and send e-mail; or books introducing HTML.
Due to the drug exception to the 4th amendment and my adventures in self medicating my social anxiety and Aspergers, I unfortunately had the opportunity to meet these people one month. It was quite clear that I was the only person in that facility (county, not prison) who knew how to do anything more advanced than myspace. While I certainly would have appreciated some books on theoretical computer science, it would be far more helpful for everybody else to have books starting with the beginner stuff.
Is that supposed to be a joke? Do you have any idea how few people actually do anything besides vote for the party that they think represents their "interests" as a whole, or at best the candidate that shares their (typically unresearched and based on emotion or religion) view on some single moral issue like abortion or civil rights? I remember reading about a shockingly large percentage of voters that didn't even know where the major candidates stood on certain issues, in a poll taken in the week after they talked about those issues in one of the presidential debates. And I'd have to say at LEAST a majority of voters don't "get to understand the issues" then "form an opinion", they simply pick their side after hearing the first soundbyte for/against something which resonates with their completely unfounded biases and prejudices about how things should be, then completely close their minds to hearing any more arguments from opposing viewpoints. Voters who actually sit down and weigh the sides of an issue and make a decision based on logic and an assessment of what would actually work and whether it's in line with the principles our nation are founded upon are a very slim minority.
They steal source code too, example:
// Stolen code, begin // Stolen code - end
MovieMakerModule.cpp Line 497:
Line 560:
If you're going to steal code, it's not a good idea to put in comments announcing it's stolen. Of course scumbag crap is what they're about, so they probably are just fine with copy/pasting code.
The value of the global illegal drug trade is upwards of $300-500 billion by most estimates (and at least 150-200 by almost all others); of which the US market makes up about $60-100bn. Why is fact checking virtually non-existent with anything related to drug prohibition? And the other tactic, deceptive use of statistics, such as implying the $90bn maximum value of the trade is the entire value based and neglecting to mention that's only the wholesale market, is equally acceptable in even the most reputable publications. Why? Oh yeah, because virtually every actual fact contradicts the political consensus that prohibition is the best way to deal with the harms drugs create.
I'm surprised that more people here don't realize democracy isn't really that good a thing. Most people are uninformed, uneducated morons that should never be entrusted with any kind of direct, majority based control over policy. Most people form opinions of policy based on everything except logic, science and reason. That's why the US gov was set up the way it is; the problem is the people being elected to office are increasingly not being elected based on their intelligence, knowledge and trust that they will implement the best policy for the people, and instead being elected for pandering to peoples malformed prejudiced judgments on what policy should be. I see it as a continuation of the larger and more dangerous trend of intelligence no longer being valued. So as elected officials support what a simple majority of their constituents think the policies should be, the government will become more and more oppressive as the majority will supercedes the rights of minority groups. A perfect example is drug policy. The majority forms the opinion drugs=bad=ban, and only politicians who adhere to prohibition even have a shot at office; but all logic and science overwhelmingly shows prohibition maximizes harm to society while not at all accomplishing its goal of reducing use. Another example is stem cell policy. Most people on the right think stem cells=cloning=killing babies=wrong, a position which also has nothing to do with science or whats best for the progress of life saving therapies, and a Republican candidate has to agree or risk losing votes. Look for more issues to start being decided by the whim of the masses rather than what's best, science education/evolution is quickly stepping up to be another majority belief that electees must match to get votes.
So drug dealers are immoral criminals because they profit from selling a product? Drug dealers are no more inherently bad than the convenience store clerk selling tobacco and alcohol. You've been brainwashed into believing that most drug dealers are either violent minorities walking the streets selling to children and beating up their competitors or mobsters regularly killing people as they launder their profits by scamming honest businesses. Some of them are. But they're criminals in every sense of the word because of who they are, not because of what they sell. If a drug dealer shoots someone, by all means lock them in a cell and throw away the key: because they shot someone, not because they sold arbitrarily illegal chemicals to a consenting adult. Most drug dealers are at the retail end, and outside of inner city ghettos they're mostly non-violent and mostly just sell to their friends and friends of friends, commiting no other crime than selling drugs. Even at the mid-level, there's still only a small percentage of violent dealers.
Why do drugs destroy families? Tearing families apart by imprisonment: caused by prohibition. High price leading to theft from family: caused by prohibition. Spending all ones time doing drug activities: caused by prohibition.
Why do drugs destroy lives? Violence associated with gangs/cartels: caused by prohibition. Toxic contaminants: caused by prohibition. Fear of legal consequences of getting medical attention for OD: caused by prohibition.
How do drugs destroy health? Toxic contaminants: caused by prohibition. Inaccessability of effective treatment: caused by prohibition. Fear of legal consequences of getting treatment: caused by prohibition.
How do drugs destroy general peace and good order? The entire black market supply system: caused by prohibition. Property crime due to black market price markup: caused by prohibition.
It's ignorance like yours that is bad for society, too short sighted to see that the vast majority of destruction comes from the fact that drugs are illegal. Re-read the history of alcohol prohibition; yes legal alcohol is destructive, but not nearly as destructive as it was during its prohibition. Thinking that for some reason prohibition will work for drugs is ludicrous. Since no amount of resources can actually keep drugs off the streets, people need to start looking at how to minimize the harm they cause; legalization is far less harmful (though risks still exist) to both users and society than prohibition.