It appears that 'net neutrality' is being used by people to cover every bad ISP behavior. This incident had nothing to do with net neutrality. Their entire service was throttled, it wasn't a particular 3rd party website that was throttled or put in the slow lane because the 3rd party hadn't paid Verizon, nor a specific protocol that was throttled-- those are what net neutrality addresses, and that's it. And that myth seems to go hand in hand with people thinking net neutrality prohibits basic QoS. Nope.
All this misusing the term is ultimately going to be counterproductive in getting good rules in place.
Even worse, in a case like this where a man has been held 3 years now for his claim of forgetting a password not being believed, whether that was legitimate or not, if a password is even a little complex just going a few months without using it and you're likely to have forgotten, nevermind multiple years. So the longer they hold you the less likely compliance is, and a contempt of court hold is supposed to produce the opposite effect. That's why I'm always saying that it carries an effective possible life sentence for forgetting a password.
Since different courts are currently split, SCOTUS is eventually going to have to settle this, and unfortunately wiping your ass with any part of the Bill of Rights that interferes with law enforcement is the favorite passtime of the right wing*, who are now in control of the court.
* And almost as sad, for all the crying about how Merrick Garland would have protected civil liberties if only the nomination had not been stolen, when it came to criminal justice and national security related civil rights, Garland was solidly right-wing, because the left has decided social justice issues are way more important than the basic rights our country fought and died to give us. A pattern I suspect we're likely to see play out again in 2020 or 2024 with Kamala Harris, the former state AG tough-on-crime prosecutor who is also way out to the right on criminal justice/civil rights, then further has no problem tearing up even more of the BoR to appease SJWs.
Since most/. readers are in the US, that section was talking about here in comparison to the UK, not referring to him. I'm unsure of how high the burden of proof is given the law in the UK (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) for forgetting a password; this seems to be the relevent section if a password counts as a key:
(2)In proceedings against any person for an offence under this section, if it is shown that that person was in possession of a key to any protected information at any time before the time of the giving of the section 49 notice, that person shall be taken for the purposes of those proceedings to have continued to be in possession of that key at all subsequent times, unless it is shown that the key was not in his possession after the giving of the notice and before the time by which he was required to disclose it.
(3) For the purposes of this section a person shall be taken to have shown that he was not in possession of a key to protected information at a particular time ifâ"
----(a)sufficient evidence of that fact is adduced to raise an issue with respect to it; and
----(b)the contrary is not proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
In what universe does Facebook respect privacy enough to even consider that? Of course they don't do that, in fact they mine the conversations for information about you. Allegedly not for advertising, but for their own use and to enforce rules against abuse definitely.
Not buying it. I'd say, if a suspect in a case forgot his password and told the judge that, AND that he'd be willing to attempt to guess it, or work with password reset mechanisms to assist, (s)he'd be free to go.
I couldn't tell you any of my passwords, either. I don't know them. But I could tell you how to access my password storage thing to retrieve a password. I really don't think a judge would jail me on contempt of court for having a password manager, or forgetting a password and being willing to help get it reset or whatnot.
But if someone is lying, those steps are easily faked, and someone telling the truth would have to admit they could in fact access it. Courts don't ask for the password itself, they ask you to sit at the computer/phone and decrypt/unlock it.
Writing in a language (ie cypher text) the reader doesn't understand, I don't think a judge would find you in contempt in this case either. Unless of course, in the case of cypher, you refuse to assist in reading it. That's what contempt of court means, you refuse to do what the court instructs you to do. And when you decide to behave with contempt in a court, you can expect to be punished for your behavior, and rightly so.
But how is this not self-incrimination? The 5th Amendment has been interpreted to mean using information in your mind to assist in your own defense, and there's no universe where that doesn't qualify. The court can't order you to waive one of your rights. You have completely unfounded confidence that people wouldn't be asked to provide information they don't have too. What if the police think you killed someone, could they demand you tell them where the body is, and if you say you don't know, but they think you do, it's off to jail? How would that be any different?
Y'all think it has something to do with passwords, or access to materials, or whatever you want to think it has to do with, when that's not really what it is. It's contempt of court. And that is a serious matter, in my perspective.
No, it has to do with the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. You seem to be arguing that a court order supersedes that, as you've offered no case for it not falling under that. Is it information, that resides (and may not) inside your head, that would aid in a prosecution of yourself? Then being forced to provide it is barred by the 5th. It's awful that you don't seem to understand how dangerous a precedent it is to jail people for not incriminating themselves with knowledge that resides only in their head, especially when they may have forgotten. And it's just sad that I really doubt you will until you're on the receiving end of a civil rights violation yourself.
Firstly of course the poster above mentioned written ciphers. Second and even more important, you do realize people forget passwords right? Fortunately in the UK it appears if you don't remember the password to every encrypted item or account the police want you only get 14 months, in the US you can effectively get life (they hold you on contempt of court until you enter it, one man is approaching 3 years in for this).
Plus here in the US we're supposed to (and some other courts have recognized) have the 5th Amendment, which prevents you from using the contents of your mind to assist in your own prosecution. In the most well known precedent, the court explained that while you were obligated to turn over a key to a safe, you could not be made to disclose the combination to one. They're trying to argue a password is more like a key than a combination, which is absurd. If it's something you can forget, it's the contents of your mind, and should be off limits. Computers don't become some magic space exempt from that just because police don't have any other way to get the information.
Ugh, haven't you been on Slashdot long enough to see that 'can't claim trademark' argument debunked 50 times? Ignoring a tiny non-profit fan mod project would absolutely not trigger a trademark forfeiture. There's absolutely no requirement to go after every fan who dares to do something trivial. And even if that was a concern, they could instead offer a perpetual license for a penny.
Locking the file or not is specified in standard Windows APIs for opening files, the underlying file system doesn't come into play, so that's the lowest level you'd need to drop down to. And is determining which parts have changed something actually accomplished by NTFS or FAT32 or whatever specific calls, instead of just reading the file, hashing chunks, and comparing?
Supposed you lived in The Dakota, a toney apartment building overlooking Central Park, and worked at Chase Bank in the financial district seven miles away. Your commute, including walking to and from the subway, would be half an hour on the dot *at the height of rush hour*.
Except for all the days where it takes 90 minutes because of signal problems, a sick passenger, someone pulling the brake, a train overrunning the platform, police activity, broken rail... and of course the major delays where you just have to walk to another line or take an Uber because it will be hours after someone was hit by a train, or there was a track fire. Then there's all the less common things we all nonetheless run into... stuck between stations for hours for various reasons.
The Rebels were fighting for freedom from an oppressive dictatorial government, not for lowering requirements for minorities, eliminating due process for men accused of sex crimes, and establishing equality-of-outcome based quotas on the composition of races staffing high paying white collar jobs only. I don't think you understand the objections to SJWs; the term is used mockingly precisely because they stand *against* equality and justice for all, instead seeking to take past injustices and continue them, merely switching which groups have the edge.
California allows for extreme aggressive driving to be charged as felony assault with a deadly weapon. It's hard to see how driving 100 the wrong way and killing two people wouldn't qualify.
So basically your idea is to drop all attempts at meaningful regulations aimed at preventing monopoly abuse, and instead focus exclusively on something that will never happen? Sometimes I think people who talk like you do are anti-NN... you know ending ISP monopolies isn't something that has any realistic chance of happening any time soon, so the net result of your plan is just abandoning NN period. It seems like a really dishonest way to argue against it. There's simply no valid reason why both shouldn't be done: implement strong NN regulation now, while working towards ending the monopolies.
Not to mention even if we had the strong competition from the public ownership of the last mile, there's still no good reason why net neutrality shouldn't still be on the books. I could easily envision a situation where we had 10 different ISP choices but each offered some different internet a la carte options.
They're welcome to have their '3 strikes and you're out' policies, but naturally each strike has to come from being found to have infringed by a real court of law. This nonsense where the infringed party themselves determine your guilt is absurd. Not only do they have a conflict of interest, their tools that identified you can't be examined and are notoriously unreliable. There's good reasons why we don't allow guilt-on-accusation.
And not only that, there should be a 'repeat offender' termination policy for the *AA and their ilk too. 3 abusive notices like accusing a printer, targeting birdsong/noise/other things clearly not their work, or targeting what's clearly obvious fair use, and they lose their ability to accuse.
Conflating being incorrect with having a different opinion is of vital importance to both sides these days, but the right, and Trump in particular, have built their entire world view on it.
How ironic, someone from a country with the highest imprisonment rate in the western world calling Australia penal colony.
How dare you sir. I will not stand here while you insult the great land of freedom that is the United States. We have the highest number of prisoners, in both raw number and per capita, in the entire world, not just the Western world. Rest of the world always trying to minimize our accomplishments... We're Number 1! And not even the most oppressive authoritarian and totalitarian regimes in the world can touch our incarceration rate. Wait a second... if... Nevermind! Credit where credit is due, we take great pride in this achievement, especially in our non-violent drug user mass incarceration program.
It's currently an open question as to whether or not you can plead the 5th in the US. Some courts have dishonestly tried to claim a passphrase/PIN is more like a key than a combination to a safe, and therefore can be ordered to be used. If you say no or say you forget, you can be held indefinitely under a contempt of court charge. The case that's gone the furthest has seen the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirm this nonsense, ruling it's basically just fine to hold anyone for an effective life sentence because they forgot a password. Even if the guy knew it and was lying at the start of the case, he's still in jail now 3 years later and who remembers a complicated password you don't use for that long.
As is always the case when they seek a civil rights stomping precedent, it's a case against an accused pedophile hiding his CP collection. So of course not even the courts are particularly interested in standing up for his rights. But once that precedent is set...
Having an encrypted container you don't know the password to is now a de facto crime carrying a life sentence. Because courts never run out of excuses and exceptions when a civil right runs up against police power.
So because your colleague solved the easiest problem in self-driving, you conclude that the hardest problems are also solvable in the near future?
When I was 13 I made a chatbot for AOL, that must mean GAI will be here in the nearish future too!
Of course level 4 type automation, geofenced areas in good weather conditions, is right around the corner. But you're missing the leap it takes to get to level 5, anywhere in any condition, able to handle unexpected situations, with no human available. It's a lot more than just expanding your object recognition. Although I suppose it depends on exactly how you're defining 'nearish future'... if that can mean 'minimum several decades' then sure I guess nearish future.
Wait I thought that was the entire game plan. Invest a fortune in supplanting the existing taxi monopoly by hiring armies of poorly compensated drivers using their own vehicles and providing service far below cost. Then right around the time that's complete, their self-driving cars will be ready and bam, they lay off all their drivers, jack up the price, and have a large profit margin by operating their own self-driving fleet.
Someone else said they didn't need to make self-driving cars, just purchase them. But that would seriously reduce their profitability. What if nobody would even sell to Uber, insisting on renting them out per mile? Or just run their own rideshare? No... if Uber's plan for world domination is going to work, having their own source of self-driving cars is critical.
Personally I think the whole thing is moot anyway; I can't see investors willing to sustain these losses long enough... you need minimum SAE Level 4, and the most important markets, major urban areas with their extreme congestion, poorly marked roads, poor maintenance, and complete inability to get anywhere without driving aggressively.. you need SAE 5. Also peak demand is during bad weather, again needing 5. 5 is just too far off.
One of the many side effects of our awful War on Drugs in the US is that this kind of research is essentially banned here, on account of DMT being a Schedule 1 drug. LSD falls into that category as well, along with the well known case of marijuana. Drugs like DMT and LSD offer incredible insight into some of the most mysterious processes in our brain, like the nature of consciousness and perception of reality. It's sickening how much we've let drug agents and drug warrior politicians (both sides, WoD is entirely bipartisan) stand against scientific progress, especially with drugs entirely lacking addictiveness and overdose potential like DMT/LSD/pot. Imagine our state of knowledge had these not been just about impossible to research in humans in the US for the last 50 years, with no change on the horizon.
I had been hoping we'd see the failure in my lifetime, and marijuana reform provided some optimism, until the opioid crisis squelched it with more of 'The War on Drugs has failed!' 'So what should we do about opiates?' 'More police! More laws! More regulation! Longer sentences! Crack down on supply! Fuck how many people have to suffer in agony or kill themselves when they can't get pain relief!' like if we just try prohibition a little harder it will magically start working, because this time it's Really Bad. Oh well, at least we have other countries that can do this great research.
You can't suck money and resources out of the system and expect the same results.
Of course you can. All you have to do is say the results are the same or better, then to your supporters that's the new reality. Whether they actually are is immaterial, since anything contradicting your narrative is just Fake News. Lying enemy of the people? Fake News. Congressional Budget Office? Fake News. Congressional Research Service? Fake News!
Being conservative in the USA means believe in individual liberty, natural law, and limited government.
This is a fucking joke coming from the anti-abortion, drug war maximalist, police maximalist, civil asset forfeiture loving, domestic surveillance maximalist, foreign war loving party. Individual liberty, natural law, limited government, you've gotta be kidding me. Conservatives haven't stood for any of that in a long time if ever, only in the certain narrow areas where they favor a right. The left has its own set of rights violations but this is a damn joke.
Except center in US politics won't accomplish the reforms the extremes are *right* about and stand for our entirely untenable status quo.
Also, modding me offtopic but not the also offtopic comment I was replying to... I guess it's the right that takes the 'most butthurt by fafalone's unending disdain of both right and left' award today, though maybe this comment will get the center good and pissed too.
Slashdot Mirror
It appears that 'net neutrality' is being used by people to cover every bad ISP behavior. This incident had nothing to do with net neutrality. Their entire service was throttled, it wasn't a particular 3rd party website that was throttled or put in the slow lane because the 3rd party hadn't paid Verizon, nor a specific protocol that was throttled-- those are what net neutrality addresses, and that's it. And that myth seems to go hand in hand with people thinking net neutrality prohibits basic QoS. Nope.
All this misusing the term is ultimately going to be counterproductive in getting good rules in place.
Even worse, in a case like this where a man has been held 3 years now for his claim of forgetting a password not being believed, whether that was legitimate or not, if a password is even a little complex just going a few months without using it and you're likely to have forgotten, nevermind multiple years. So the longer they hold you the less likely compliance is, and a contempt of court hold is supposed to produce the opposite effect. That's why I'm always saying that it carries an effective possible life sentence for forgetting a password.
Since different courts are currently split, SCOTUS is eventually going to have to settle this, and unfortunately wiping your ass with any part of the Bill of Rights that interferes with law enforcement is the favorite passtime of the right wing*, who are now in control of the court.
* And almost as sad, for all the crying about how Merrick Garland would have protected civil liberties if only the nomination had not been stolen, when it came to criminal justice and national security related civil rights, Garland was solidly right-wing, because the left has decided social justice issues are way more important than the basic rights our country fought and died to give us. A pattern I suspect we're likely to see play out again in 2020 or 2024 with Kamala Harris, the former state AG tough-on-crime prosecutor who is also way out to the right on criminal justice/civil rights, then further has no problem tearing up even more of the BoR to appease SJWs.
In what universe does Facebook respect privacy enough to even consider that? Of course they don't do that, in fact they mine the conversations for information about you. Allegedly not for advertising, but for their own use and to enforce rules against abuse definitely.
Not buying it. I'd say, if a suspect in a case forgot his password and told the judge that, AND that he'd be willing to attempt to guess it, or work with password reset mechanisms to assist, (s)he'd be free to go.
I couldn't tell you any of my passwords, either. I don't know them. But I could tell you how to access my password storage thing to retrieve a password. I really don't think a judge would jail me on contempt of court for having a password manager, or forgetting a password and being willing to help get it reset or whatnot.
But if someone is lying, those steps are easily faked, and someone telling the truth would have to admit they could in fact access it. Courts don't ask for the password itself, they ask you to sit at the computer/phone and decrypt/unlock it.
Writing in a language (ie cypher text) the reader doesn't understand, I don't think a judge would find you in contempt in this case either. Unless of course, in the case of cypher, you refuse to assist in reading it. That's what contempt of court means, you refuse to do what the court instructs you to do. And when you decide to behave with contempt in a court, you can expect to be punished for your behavior, and rightly so.
But how is this not self-incrimination? The 5th Amendment has been interpreted to mean using information in your mind to assist in your own defense, and there's no universe where that doesn't qualify. The court can't order you to waive one of your rights. You have completely unfounded confidence that people wouldn't be asked to provide information they don't have too. What if the police think you killed someone, could they demand you tell them where the body is, and if you say you don't know, but they think you do, it's off to jail? How would that be any different?
Y'all think it has something to do with passwords, or access to materials, or whatever you want to think it has to do with, when that's not really what it is. It's contempt of court. And that is a serious matter, in my perspective.
No, it has to do with the 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination. You seem to be arguing that a court order supersedes that, as you've offered no case for it not falling under that. Is it information, that resides (and may not) inside your head, that would aid in a prosecution of yourself? Then being forced to provide it is barred by the 5th.
It's awful that you don't seem to understand how dangerous a precedent it is to jail people for not incriminating themselves with knowledge that resides only in their head, especially when they may have forgotten. And it's just sad that I really doubt you will until you're on the receiving end of a civil rights violation yourself.
Firstly of course the poster above mentioned written ciphers. Second and even more important, you do realize people forget passwords right? Fortunately in the UK it appears if you don't remember the password to every encrypted item or account the police want you only get 14 months, in the US you can effectively get life (they hold you on contempt of court until you enter it, one man is approaching 3 years in for this).
Plus here in the US we're supposed to (and some other courts have recognized) have the 5th Amendment, which prevents you from using the contents of your mind to assist in your own prosecution. In the most well known precedent, the court explained that while you were obligated to turn over a key to a safe, you could not be made to disclose the combination to one. They're trying to argue a password is more like a key than a combination, which is absurd. If it's something you can forget, it's the contents of your mind, and should be off limits. Computers don't become some magic space exempt from that just because police don't have any other way to get the information.
Surprisingly light? You're either joking or have never driven or been in a taxi/rideshare below 59th during daylight hours.
Ugh, haven't you been on Slashdot long enough to see that 'can't claim trademark' argument debunked 50 times? Ignoring a tiny non-profit fan mod project would absolutely not trigger a trademark forfeiture. There's absolutely no requirement to go after every fan who dares to do something trivial. And even if that was a concern, they could instead offer a perpetual license for a penny.
Locking the file or not is specified in standard Windows APIs for opening files, the underlying file system doesn't come into play, so that's the lowest level you'd need to drop down to. And is determining which parts have changed something actually accomplished by NTFS or FAT32 or whatever specific calls, instead of just reading the file, hashing chunks, and comparing?
Supposed you lived in The Dakota, a toney apartment building overlooking Central Park, and worked at Chase Bank in the financial district seven miles away. Your commute, including walking to and from the subway, would be half an hour on the dot *at the height of rush hour*.
Except for all the days where it takes 90 minutes because of signal problems, a sick passenger, someone pulling the brake, a train overrunning the platform, police activity, broken rail... and of course the major delays where you just have to walk to another line or take an Uber because it will be hours after someone was hit by a train, or there was a track fire. Then there's all the less common things we all nonetheless run into... stuck between stations for hours for various reasons.
I don't think they have the capability of torrenting.
Android definitely does. uTorrent is right there in the Play Store, you don't even have to side load.
The Rebels were fighting for freedom from an oppressive dictatorial government, not for lowering requirements for minorities, eliminating due process for men accused of sex crimes, and establishing equality-of-outcome based quotas on the composition of races staffing high paying white collar jobs only. I don't think you understand the objections to SJWs; the term is used mockingly precisely because they stand *against* equality and justice for all, instead seeking to take past injustices and continue them, merely switching which groups have the edge.
California allows for extreme aggressive driving to be charged as felony assault with a deadly weapon. It's hard to see how driving 100 the wrong way and killing two people wouldn't qualify.
So basically your idea is to drop all attempts at meaningful regulations aimed at preventing monopoly abuse, and instead focus exclusively on something that will never happen? Sometimes I think people who talk like you do are anti-NN... you know ending ISP monopolies isn't something that has any realistic chance of happening any time soon, so the net result of your plan is just abandoning NN period. It seems like a really dishonest way to argue against it. There's simply no valid reason why both shouldn't be done: implement strong NN regulation now, while working towards ending the monopolies.
Not to mention even if we had the strong competition from the public ownership of the last mile, there's still no good reason why net neutrality shouldn't still be on the books. I could easily envision a situation where we had 10 different ISP choices but each offered some different internet a la carte options.
They're welcome to have their '3 strikes and you're out' policies, but naturally each strike has to come from being found to have infringed by a real court of law. This nonsense where the infringed party themselves determine your guilt is absurd. Not only do they have a conflict of interest, their tools that identified you can't be examined and are notoriously unreliable. There's good reasons why we don't allow guilt-on-accusation.
And not only that, there should be a 'repeat offender' termination policy for the *AA and their ilk too. 3 abusive notices like accusing a printer, targeting birdsong/noise/other things clearly not their work, or targeting what's clearly obvious fair use, and they lose their ability to accuse.
Conflating being incorrect with having a different opinion is of vital importance to both sides these days, but the right, and Trump in particular, have built their entire world view on it.
How ironic, someone from a country with the highest imprisonment rate in the western world calling Australia penal colony.
How dare you sir. I will not stand here while you insult the great land of freedom that is the United States. We have the highest number of prisoners, in both raw number and per capita, in the entire world, not just the Western world. Rest of the world always trying to minimize our accomplishments... We're Number 1! And not even the most oppressive authoritarian and totalitarian regimes in the world can touch our incarceration rate. Wait a second... if... Nevermind! Credit where credit is due, we take great pride in this achievement, especially in our non-violent drug user mass incarceration program.
It's currently an open question as to whether or not you can plead the 5th in the US. Some courts have dishonestly tried to claim a passphrase/PIN is more like a key than a combination to a safe, and therefore can be ordered to be used. If you say no or say you forget, you can be held indefinitely under a contempt of court charge. The case that's gone the furthest has seen the 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals affirm this nonsense, ruling it's basically just fine to hold anyone for an effective life sentence because they forgot a password. Even if the guy knew it and was lying at the start of the case, he's still in jail now 3 years later and who remembers a complicated password you don't use for that long.
As is always the case when they seek a civil rights stomping precedent, it's a case against an accused pedophile hiding his CP collection. So of course not even the courts are particularly interested in standing up for his rights. But once that precedent is set...
Having an encrypted container you don't know the password to is now a de facto crime carrying a life sentence. Because courts never run out of excuses and exceptions when a civil right runs up against police power.
So because your colleague solved the easiest problem in self-driving, you conclude that the hardest problems are also solvable in the near future?
When I was 13 I made a chatbot for AOL, that must mean GAI will be here in the nearish future too!
Of course level 4 type automation, geofenced areas in good weather conditions, is right around the corner. But you're missing the leap it takes to get to level 5, anywhere in any condition, able to handle unexpected situations, with no human available. It's a lot more than just expanding your object recognition. Although I suppose it depends on exactly how you're defining 'nearish future'... if that can mean 'minimum several decades' then sure I guess nearish future.
Wait I thought that was the entire game plan. Invest a fortune in supplanting the existing taxi monopoly by hiring armies of poorly compensated drivers using their own vehicles and providing service far below cost. Then right around the time that's complete, their self-driving cars will be ready and bam, they lay off all their drivers, jack up the price, and have a large profit margin by operating their own self-driving fleet.
Someone else said they didn't need to make self-driving cars, just purchase them. But that would seriously reduce their profitability. What if nobody would even sell to Uber, insisting on renting them out per mile? Or just run their own rideshare? No... if Uber's plan for world domination is going to work, having their own source of self-driving cars is critical.
Personally I think the whole thing is moot anyway; I can't see investors willing to sustain these losses long enough... you need minimum SAE Level 4, and the most important markets, major urban areas with their extreme congestion, poorly marked roads, poor maintenance, and complete inability to get anywhere without driving aggressively.. you need SAE 5. Also peak demand is during bad weather, again needing 5. 5 is just too far off.
One of the many side effects of our awful War on Drugs in the US is that this kind of research is essentially banned here, on account of DMT being a Schedule 1 drug. LSD falls into that category as well, along with the well known case of marijuana. Drugs like DMT and LSD offer incredible insight into some of the most mysterious processes in our brain, like the nature of consciousness and perception of reality. It's sickening how much we've let drug agents and drug warrior politicians (both sides, WoD is entirely bipartisan) stand against scientific progress, especially with drugs entirely lacking addictiveness and overdose potential like DMT/LSD/pot. Imagine our state of knowledge had these not been just about impossible to research in humans in the US for the last 50 years, with no change on the horizon.
I had been hoping we'd see the failure in my lifetime, and marijuana reform provided some optimism, until the opioid crisis squelched it with more of 'The War on Drugs has failed!' 'So what should we do about opiates?' 'More police! More laws! More regulation! Longer sentences! Crack down on supply! Fuck how many people have to suffer in agony or kill themselves when they can't get pain relief!' like if we just try prohibition a little harder it will magically start working, because this time it's Really Bad. Oh well, at least we have other countries that can do this great research.
You can't suck money and resources out of the system and expect the same results.
Of course you can. All you have to do is say the results are the same or better, then to your supporters that's the new reality. Whether they actually are is immaterial, since anything contradicting your narrative is just Fake News. Lying enemy of the people? Fake News. Congressional Budget Office? Fake News. Congressional Research Service? Fake News!
Being conservative in the USA means believe in individual liberty, natural law, and limited government.
This is a fucking joke coming from the anti-abortion, drug war maximalist, police maximalist, civil asset forfeiture loving, domestic surveillance maximalist, foreign war loving party. Individual liberty, natural law, limited government, you've gotta be kidding me. Conservatives haven't stood for any of that in a long time if ever, only in the certain narrow areas where they favor a right. The left has its own set of rights violations but this is a damn joke.
Except center in US politics won't accomplish the reforms the extremes are *right* about and stand for our entirely untenable status quo.
Also, modding me offtopic but not the also offtopic comment I was replying to... I guess it's the right that takes the 'most butthurt by fafalone's unending disdain of both right and left' award today, though maybe this comment will get the center good and pissed too.
Maybe something like 243% voter turnout?