Right now im in love w/ this cool technology called Cash.
Very hard to trace, portable, convienent, accepted at all major locations.
Well, you can expect them to close that loophole before too much longer. It's a pretty obvious next step. Banks already report you to the feds if you simply use too much of it.
Only the graph is saved, and the graphs are compared to verify identity. The fingerprint data that my company uses is less than 1k of data consisting of only minutiae type, links to other minutiae, and distances. So in other words, there is no way to get an image of the finger back, so the police can't use it(for manual matching).
All they have to do is use your equipment to generate a matching graph of the fingerprint in question, and the police can match against your records that way. In other words, your company *is* storing information useful to the police. The fact that there is one extra (and very easy) step involved for them to use it is entirely irrelevant.
The fact is, if you store data unique to a person, it can be used against them if it can be retrieved by any other person. That's the nature of the act.
Now, if you had built in a security system that melts the data set(s) into a pool of crud if anyone tries to get at the records in any way other than one at a time against an input sensor, including opening the case for the memory units, I'd say you maybe had something that would at least inconvenience those who would invade our privacy. But you didn't do any of that, did you? Because that would annoy the feds no end, and your company knows better than to do that.
Iris scanners are not that expensive anymore, and I don't understand why thumb scanners are used anywhere outside of having a little usb toy attached to your computer.
Perhaps because most people are more comfortable with having a finger chopped off than having an eye (or both) ripped out of their head?
On a smaller scale, they're probably also more comfortable with laying a finger on a pad than putting their eye up to an eyecup or having a "guaranteed safe" laser probe them in the eye.
There are some people willing to steal a wallet. There are not very many that will steal a finger.
The argument is that stealing a wallet has, historically speaking, been a profit-making enterprise. Stealing a finger, however, has not. The use of a fingerprint for authentication changes the status quo; now stealing a finger offers the same motivation: Profit. The argument is that this will create the pool of folks who will steal fingers in a natural manner.
Before you attempt to bring to the argument any ethical or moral claims that finger stealing faces a barrier of moral or ethical construction that wallet stealing does not, I would simply point out that stealing entire people for sexual and other gratification is a very popular industry world-wide.
There's nothing inherently secure about biometrics. There's nothing inherently difficult about making a severed finger or removed eye show lifesigns, from pulse to micromovements to blinking. There's nothing inherently unstealable or untransmittable about biometric information either, and so the question is, what does biometrics give you that you can't get some other way?
You can lose a finger accidentally (or to a gang member who covets it), so loss prevention isn't it. You can use someone else's biometrics, so security isn't it. You can have your ID recorded, so privacy isn't it. You can be scarred or injured or amputated or otherwise deprived of your bio-measured faculty, so reliability isn't it.
The only thing I've been able to come up with is that it is a relatively new technology, and so some people stand to profit from the implementations. Strangely enough, these seem to be the source of most of the pro-biometric stances we read about.
While I laud the search for an ID technology that is 100% reliable, cannot be falsified, stolen, or otherwise hoaxed, I think we have to face the fact that there probably is no such thing available to us at our current level of technology.
The CIA and NSA aren't necessary to stop a pissed-off terrorist with a nuke - just a few people with Geiger counters screening international flights at each airport is all.
No, that won't work. Nukes are most efffective when set off above the target. So the odds are that the nuke would go off before the aircraft landed. That takes care of the geiger counter at the receiving end. At the take-off end, there are any number of countries that would look the other way in order to see a terrorist effort go forward, so that's not an issue at all.
You didn't stop the torture when they decided it was OK to do to terrorists. Now it's OK to do to you.
You didn't stop the muzzling when it was some wank yelling "Fuck" on the radio, now they can shut you up if you simply "offend" someone.
You didn't stop them when they told the states that it was OK to take some rich guy's property for any reason they liked. Now they can take your property, too, for any reason, or none.
You didn't stop them when they redefined "interstate commerce" as "growing crops physically in California, for use inside the borders California", and now the phrase "Interstate Commerce means *nothing* and your state laws are now subordinate to federal laws on every possible ground and meaning.
You didn't stop them when they said they were just tapping the communications of "Terrorists" without a warrant... and now they're tapping yours. You terrorist.
You didn't stop them when they made piercing a crime; now your (or your girl's) nipple, eyebrow, ear, labia, or belly button has created a criminal.
You didn't object when the Supreme court said it was OK to punish sexual offenders ex post facto; now they can punish you more than once (they just have to claim it isn't punishment, easily done.)
You didn't stop them when they said your neighbor couldn't put up a flag. Now you can't put up a fence, an antenna tower, a flag, let your lawn grow an inch longer than your neighbors, or park your car anywhere but in your driveway.
You didn't stop them when they said that only corporations can broadcast over the airwaves, because (ahem) "the airwaves are a limited resource." Now you can't broadcast in the middle of fanny fumbling nowhere where you couldn't pick up a radio station to literally save your life.
You didnt' stop them when they told those "damned druggies" they couldn't choose what to swallow; now you can't buy Nyquill (pseudoephedrine, you know) without an ID. Your kid can't get you a bottle when you're bedridden. Enjoy those symptoms, fool. But don't worry. Soon, it'll be off the market altogether, I'm sure.
You didn't stop them when they said you had to drive 55 to "save you from yourself", now you're trying not to murder the old putz in the passing line driving 54 MPH. And you're not sure you're going to succeed.
...and in the meantime, your congresscritter makes a 6-figure salary, and 40+% of the country can't afford healthcare.
Now... tell me again why you're worried about gambling?
It's not about money, or about the rich keeping the poor down.
No, it's not. It is about the world not being inherently fair, it is about the playing field being tilted in manifold dimensions all at once and where some of us start in the minima, and others on the maxima, and others everywhere in between, it is about the right of the individual to attempt to navigate this interesting place we live in without some dumbass interfering because they're under the awesomely harmful illusion they are everyone else's mother.
As for drugs, I won't take stimulants without talking to someone who's willing to prescribe them. There's a reason things like Ritalin and Adderall are perscription[sic] medications. They either have side-effects that can harm you, or they haven't been in use long enough to prove that they're generally safe.
That's fine for you; I wouldn't think of arguing with you about these choices you have made for yourself. You didn't ask for advice, nor am I under any obligation to offer any without such a request. More power to you for at least trying to figure out what will work for you. You should have the freedom to make this decision; I am arguing in your favor.
As long as you don't start telling me and the rest of the world what it is we must do, you're golden. And that is the point.
You might get short term improvements, but they're countered by long term negatives. These long term negatives can be the better choice compared to certain illnesses
You're being way too general — the facts do not back you up. For instance, what are my long term negative drug-induced side effects of having a single cup of coffee in the morning? What are they from a joint a day? What are they from a glass of wine with my evening meal (I mean, other than better cardiac health?) You see, your broad strokes do not actually apply; you're just parroting a lifetime of conditioning by the government. The FACT of the matter is that not all drug use results in side effects, and not only that, not all side effects are bad.
Moderation is key, but you should recognize that a healthy person already has everything in moderation.
No. Come on. That isn't even a caricature of the true state of affairs. The IQ curve goes from way below 100 to way above. In "healthy" people. My IQ is way, way over 100. I'm healthy. No moderation about either issue. I'm *very* healthy, and compared to the median, I'm also very smart. Who am I to say that Joe Sixpack isn't to have access to my kind of smarts if the simple act of gunning down a pill can hand it to him for a period of time when he thinks it would be useful to him? Who are you to say so? Are you the kind of person who would refuse a crutch to a person born without a leg just at the juncture when crossing the street would get him laid? I mean, it is bad enough you want to "protect" me from having my coffee in the morning, but really! If a drug helps a person learn, and they're in school, you'd go so far as to deny the drug? You're cruel, is what you are.
If you only use a little, you only get a little effect and a little negative side effect. If you want a noticeable effect, then you get noticeable negative effects too. So what's the point?
You're just hand-waving again. Some drugs give a little effect, and some give a lot. Sometimes the little effect is what you want (ie morning coffee -- caffiene in small doses.) Sometimes the large effect is what you want. But the fact is, your attempt to tie large negative effects with large drug effects is unscientific and frankly, smacks of total ignorance. Many drugs have large desired effects without large side effects. I could write all day about them. The idea that because a drug is recreational, that it somehow cannot be without side effects... that's just the department of homeland stupidity talking, there. Some drugs have large side effects, some don't. Some develop them over time. Some don't. Some develop them immediately and noticably; some don't. Drugs, like everything else on this planet, are all over the map. So we have to turn to what is constant here, and *that* is the right of a person to make choices for themselves. And what is the best thing we can do there? Educate. Stop lying, the way the government has been doing for many years now, since well before "Reefer Madness." If we don't know something, just admit it, instead of making things up. That'll encourage people to find out what the facts are, instead of making up crap to fit some moronic agenda like the "war on drugs."
I am not telling you that you can't use these drugs, but if you do use them (and by use I mean abuse if you're normally healthy) you have to assume all risk.
The risk is indeed mine. As it should be. There is no reason it should be yours, or society's. I absolutely agree. Personal responsibility for one's actions should be unavoidable, and avoiding responsibility is undesirable for an ethical person in any case. Making it easy to avoid is just encouraging unethical behavior.
Your environment shouldn't feel obliged to help you when you screw yourself up, which is practically inevitable if you go for a noticeable ef
The problem with "performance enhancing drugs" is that they aren't.
Are you saying that Dayquill doesn't enhance your performance over sitting there with your sinuses plugged, your head pounding, your throat so sore you can hardly speak? Are you saying that a cup of good coffee in the morning doesn't bring your focus tighter, your alertness up, enhance your willingness to face the day? Are you saying that steroids don't increase muscle mass? Are you saying that amphetimines don't decrease reaction time? Are you saying that midol doesn't help a lady get through the day when her body is cranking out a period?
These drugs have negative side effects. Sometimes they only become apparent much further down the road, but they're always there.
Everything has negative side effects if taken too far. Exercising too much can kill you. Moderation is the key. Further, side effects (such as a mild buzz from dayquill) may be entirely worth the performance gain. It's not for you to decide. It's up to the individual. You were not elected anyone's mother. Nor was anyone else; and for those of you who actually might be a mother (or a father, etc), those rights expire when your kid reaches adulthood, whenever that is.
In the meantime you just instill the same feeling of inadequacy in other perfectly healthy smart kids.
I utterly fail to see why I should feel "inadequate" because you're taking performance enhancers. Or because you're not. Or because you're naturally better at something, or you have money. Please explain this concept of yours. I am fascinated by your view of the world.
[the other problem] is that drugs can have nasty side effects both short and long term (yes I include caffine in this, but caffine is pretty damn mild as stimulants go).
Sure. They might have side effects. So can staying up late, studying too long, partying, overstressing one's self in the gym, not going to the gym, having a bad coach, facing a much better opponent, eating too much (or too little, or the wrong things), getting laid instead of getting sleep. Then again, moderation will help reach towards a balance — you can get laid *and* you can get sleep, for instance. You can study a reasonable amount of time. And, you can use drugs in a reasonable manner. The possibility of side effects cannot be justification for prohibition; if it were so, your meals would be controlled, your sex life would be controlled, religion would be forbidden, suntanning would be illegal... etc., ad infinitum. These are personal choices, no more, no less. There is no possible justification for prohibition with regard to them. The state is not your mommy, and there is no legitimate justification for it in its attempt to be your mommy. There is no basis for the state's attempt to be your mommy in the constitution, and frankly, you didn't sign or formulate the constitution so you're not ethically or morally bound by the state's interpretation of it unless you choose to be, anyway.
It is also very important to note that in many cases, the "side effects" are either vastly exaggerated (marijuana is the poster child for this) or outright lies (LSD's reputation for "damaging genes" was complete hogwash.) Sometimes side effects are beneficial -- for instance, aspirin can reduce the risk of heart attacks, marijuana acts directly to improve the state of the eye, and hash brownies taste really, really good.
The objective — of course — is to create performance enhancers without side effects, or minimal side effects. Everyone knows that, or would, if they'd stop to think about it for even a second. There is nothing inherently bad about the idea of a drug that insists there be side effects, and the presumption that all drugs will cause the user to experience nasty side effects is a false one from the word go. Moderation is one of the keys to avoiding side effects. Everything has side effects if taken too far. You can kill yourself by drinking too much water, for crying out loud. Should we forbid water drinking, or large glasses, or drinking water under age 18? Should we put additives in water that will force you to vomit before you get to a point where you've drank so much it will kill you? Or... here's a wild idea... should we let the citizen decide how much is enough? Oh, wait.;-)
Moderation in all things is a much better guideline than the awesomely stupid "this is your brain on drugs" message put out by the drug war morons. Drugs are tools. Sometimes they are tools to beat other organisms in contest with us such as viri, bacteria, parasites and poisons such as snake, spider and scorpion bites. And... is that "fair"? Sometimes they are tools to save us from our emotional excesses, sometimes they are tools to make us more effective so we can work, or work better in the face of various challenges, internal and external (everything from aspirin to dayquil to more modern performance enhancers and symptom supressors fits here.) Sometimes they are tools to make life more enjoyable — viagra, alchohol, a nice latte, marijuana, etc.
...the worrying bit is that people could feel pressured into using drugs without a proper understanding of any bad side effects they may have, I wonder if this was more of the reason for drug testing in sports than fairness considerations.
(a) Teaching is the answer, not prohibition, to the informed, or not, status of drug consumers, and...
(b) your instincts are right — there is absolutely no fairness in sports. Nature deals bet
If your parents are rich and willing, you can go to college and just study. Otherwise, you work and study.
If you own a portable music player, you can listen to your own playlist of music as you bop around. Otherwise, you don't.
If you have (for instance) a Bowflex and a personal trainer, you now have the opportunity to outperform most of your fellow atheletes in terms of how long it takes you to reach your potential, and how close you are going to get to it.
If you have a car, you drive to school. Otherwise, you walk, sponge, or use pubtrans.
If you have a laptop, you have many performance-enhancing tools. Otherwise, not.
All of these "advantages" have one thing in common: Money; the ability to purchase the advantage.
Here's an example that isn't money related: If I go to class A, and have Mr Smith, who is a pretty lousy, unmotivated instructor who smells bad and has one drippy glass eye, and you go to class B, and have Ms. Hubbahubba, who is not only a great, motivated instructor but compels your constant attention by her manner, intimate knowledge of the subject and clever sense of humor, and you and I have equal intelligence, take just one guess who is most likely to come out of class knowing more?
Here's another: You make it a point to get enough sleep, eat a proper breakfast, and skip the partying during the months of the year that school is in session. You never miss class. Melvin, who is otherwise as smart as you are, behaves almost the exact opposite. Sometimes he doesn't sleep at all, he parties every night, sometimes twice, and he usually arrives in class not quite yet awake, never mind breakfast or brushing his teeth. But he never misses class, either. Who do you think will have performed better by the time the bell rings? Let me clue you in -- it won't be Melvin.
Now, why is it again, that if someone decides to use performance enhancing drugs, which are probably more affordable and/or easier to arrange than any of the other examples I've given you here, that "wrong morals" are encouraged? Are you saying that if you're born stupid, you should live with it, not try to find ways to supercede your condition, never try to better the hand that life gave you if it harms no one else? Or, how exactly do you think it harms others?
Also, more to the point, why is it, exactly, that the "naturally smart kid" is screwed over? Wouldn't that be because that kid decided not to take the performance enhancers? Let's say (just hand waving) that kid A has IQ 105 and kid B has IQ 120. Kid A takes these performance enhancers and for a few hours, operates at IQ 130. Kid B can choose to ignore kid A (because after all, school isn't about competition, it is about learning) or, simply in the interest of learning, perhaps he will choose to also take the drug, driving his IQ higher, presumably past the 130 that Kid A achieved, since he started further ahead. Or maybe he ends up in the same place. Either way, what is the down side, exactly? The "unfairness"? We have two smart kids, and perhaps some of that is temporary. This is bad, exactly how? Remember: "Smart" isn't the same as "knows a lot." For the less smart kid, this is an opportunity.
I think you've been confused by the (absolutely incorrect) idea that using drugs is immoral and/or unethical. The morals and ethics of performance enhancement are context dependent; it is not a simple matter of just ruling them out (unless you're a member of the government, but we know those people act without the interests of the public in mind, being funded by PACs and corporations.) If performance enhancement may be used in the pursuit of knowledge, it seems to me that the only thing that might make it unfair is if some kids can use it, and other kids can't. That would be very sad for the kids who can't.
What we need to do is to hand over religion to computers. That way, we won't have to deal with it any more. They can just run it in the background as a time-wasting task. And the simplicity of the program is beauty itself. Just an unending stream of divide-by-zeros, followed by traps which the computer ignores, see, and then just picks up where it left off. Has to be run at a low priority, but that just adds more realism...
You know absolutely nothing about how our system works.
On the contrary, I do know how the system works. Jury nullification is pretty much as I have described it, but *the courts* (you know, the ones you said "just judge") have been working to destroy that mechanism (of course, since they are there for power, not for right.) It still exists in some venues, however. The courts haven't managed to stamp the citizens completely into the mud as yet.
I thought you were capable of discussion. Instead, you wipe the slate clean, deriding it as systematically and fatally flawed, and you sound, sir, like a crackpot.
It is, in point of fact, my belief that the legal system is completely, utterly broken, rarely providing anything that remotely resembles justice, often dispensing injustice, almost entirely bereft of fairness, yet standing ready to dispense favor to those with power, money, or both. Compounding matters, it is my belief that a huge number of the laws that the system finds worthy of enforcing are bad, in the sense of being inherently wrong (which I call "evil"), laws. It is my right (still, just barely) to hold and espouse these opinions.
If debate is what you seek, then all you have to do is bring a winning argument to the table. I am perfectly capable of saying, "why sir, you are right, and I stand corrected." That you have failed to do that is not my problem. It is yours. That you have put into a public forum statements that show you do not understand the area of argument is also your fault; but that is not an uncommon result when an attempt is made to defend an inherently flawed idea, ideal, or social structure.
As for the name-calling... definitely a point for you sir, to have so successfully demonstrated your devotion to the character of your profession.:-)
Until you learn about how the system currently works, you will continue to be frustrated, and you will never make progress as you will be fighting something that only exists in your mind.
It would appear that I do know how it works. Which raises the question as to why you really ran off, O jewel of Legal Authority.:-) As regards my "frustration", you are simply mistaken. I have found that the populace in general, and the legal profession as a specific sub-sector of the population, very rarely fails to meet my expectations. The both of you have made this mess; and now you shall simply have to live in it. I am certainly not interested in trying to save you from yourself. I just think you should be interested in doing so. But this, alas, requires that you have a fully developed set of ethics, and being in law... well, I'm sure you know what I'm thinking. And why.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, you can expect them to close that loophole before too much longer. It's a pretty obvious next step. Banks already report you to the feds if you simply use too much of it.
I swear to gawd...
Anything I do with a consenting gummibear in the privacy of my own home is none of your business, you rights-constricting lowlife!
All they have to do is use your equipment to generate a matching graph of the fingerprint in question, and the police can match against your records that way. In other words, your company *is* storing information useful to the police. The fact that there is one extra (and very easy) step involved for them to use it is entirely irrelevant.
The fact is, if you store data unique to a person, it can be used against them if it can be retrieved by any other person. That's the nature of the act.
Now, if you had built in a security system that melts the data set(s) into a pool of crud if anyone tries to get at the records in any way other than one at a time against an input sensor, including opening the case for the memory units, I'd say you maybe had something that would at least inconvenience those who would invade our privacy. But you didn't do any of that, did you? Because that would annoy the feds no end, and your company knows better than to do that.
Perhaps because most people are more comfortable with having a finger chopped off than having an eye (or both) ripped out of their head?
On a smaller scale, they're probably also more comfortable with laying a finger on a pad than putting their eye up to an eyecup or having a "guaranteed safe" laser probe them in the eye.
The argument is that stealing a wallet has, historically speaking, been a profit-making enterprise. Stealing a finger, however, has not. The use of a fingerprint for authentication changes the status quo; now stealing a finger offers the same motivation: Profit. The argument is that this will create the pool of folks who will steal fingers in a natural manner.
Before you attempt to bring to the argument any ethical or moral claims that finger stealing faces a barrier of moral or ethical construction that wallet stealing does not, I would simply point out that stealing entire people for sexual and other gratification is a very popular industry world-wide.
There's nothing inherently secure about biometrics. There's nothing inherently difficult about making a severed finger or removed eye show lifesigns, from pulse to micromovements to blinking. There's nothing inherently unstealable or untransmittable about biometric information either, and so the question is, what does biometrics give you that you can't get some other way?
You can lose a finger accidentally (or to a gang member who covets it), so loss prevention isn't it. You can use someone else's biometrics, so security isn't it. You can have your ID recorded, so privacy isn't it. You can be scarred or injured or amputated or otherwise deprived of your bio-measured faculty, so reliability isn't it.
The only thing I've been able to come up with is that it is a relatively new technology, and so some people stand to profit from the implementations. Strangely enough, these seem to be the source of most of the pro-biometric stances we read about.
While I laud the search for an ID technology that is 100% reliable, cannot be falsified, stolen, or otherwise hoaxed, I think we have to face the fact that there probably is no such thing available to us at our current level of technology.
No, that won't work. Nukes are most efffective when set off above the target. So the odds are that the nuke would go off before the aircraft landed. That takes care of the geiger counter at the receiving end. At the take-off end, there are any number of countries that would look the other way in order to see a terrorist effort go forward, so that's not an issue at all.
No. It's more like a sheer cliff.
But don't worry. It doesn't matter.
You didn't stop the torture when they decided it was OK to do to terrorists. Now it's OK to do to you.
You didn't stop the muzzling when it was some wank yelling "Fuck" on the radio, now they can shut you up if you simply "offend" someone.
You didn't stop them when they told the states that it was OK to take some rich guy's property for any reason they liked. Now they can take your property, too, for any reason, or none.
You didn't stop them when they redefined "interstate commerce" as "growing crops physically in California, for use inside the borders California", and now the phrase "Interstate Commerce means *nothing* and your state laws are now subordinate to federal laws on every possible ground and meaning.
You didn't stop them when they said they were just tapping the communications of "Terrorists" without a warrant... and now they're tapping yours. You terrorist.
You didn't stop them when they made piercing a crime; now your (or your girl's) nipple, eyebrow, ear, labia, or belly button has created a criminal.
You didn't object when the Supreme court said it was OK to punish sexual offenders ex post facto; now they can punish you more than once (they just have to claim it isn't punishment, easily done.)
You didn't stop them when they said your neighbor couldn't put up a flag. Now you can't put up a fence, an antenna tower, a flag, let your lawn grow an inch longer than your neighbors, or park your car anywhere but in your driveway.
You didn't stop them when they said that only corporations can broadcast over the airwaves, because (ahem) "the airwaves are a limited resource." Now you can't broadcast in the middle of fanny fumbling nowhere where you couldn't pick up a radio station to literally save your life.
You didnt' stop them when they told those "damned druggies" they couldn't choose what to swallow; now you can't buy Nyquill (pseudoephedrine, you know) without an ID. Your kid can't get you a bottle when you're bedridden. Enjoy those symptoms, fool. But don't worry. Soon, it'll be off the market altogether, I'm sure.
You didn't stop them when they said you had to drive 55 to "save you from yourself", now you're trying not to murder the old putz in the passing line driving 54 MPH. And you're not sure you're going to succeed.
Now... tell me again why you're worried about gambling?
It's maroon if you red carefully, anyway.
No, it's not. It is about the world not being inherently fair, it is about the playing field being tilted in manifold dimensions all at once and where some of us start in the minima, and others on the maxima, and others everywhere in between, it is about the right of the individual to attempt to navigate this interesting place we live in without some dumbass interfering because they're under the awesomely harmful illusion they are everyone else's mother.
That's fine for you; I wouldn't think of arguing with you about these choices you have made for yourself. You didn't ask for advice, nor am I under any obligation to offer any without such a request. More power to you for at least trying to figure out what will work for you. You should have the freedom to make this decision; I am arguing in your favor.
As long as you don't start telling me and the rest of the world what it is we must do, you're golden. And that is the point.
You're being way too general — the facts do not back you up. For instance, what are my long term negative drug-induced side effects of having a single cup of coffee in the morning? What are they from a joint a day? What are they from a glass of wine with my evening meal (I mean, other than better cardiac health?) You see, your broad strokes do not actually apply; you're just parroting a lifetime of conditioning by the government. The FACT of the matter is that not all drug use results in side effects, and not only that, not all side effects are bad.
No. Come on. That isn't even a caricature of the true state of affairs. The IQ curve goes from way below 100 to way above. In "healthy" people. My IQ is way, way over 100. I'm healthy. No moderation about either issue. I'm *very* healthy, and compared to the median, I'm also very smart. Who am I to say that Joe Sixpack isn't to have access to my kind of smarts if the simple act of gunning down a pill can hand it to him for a period of time when he thinks it would be useful to him? Who are you to say so? Are you the kind of person who would refuse a crutch to a person born without a leg just at the juncture when crossing the street would get him laid? I mean, it is bad enough you want to "protect" me from having my coffee in the morning, but really! If a drug helps a person learn, and they're in school, you'd go so far as to deny the drug? You're cruel, is what you are.
You're just hand-waving again. Some drugs give a little effect, and some give a lot. Sometimes the little effect is what you want (ie morning coffee -- caffiene in small doses.) Sometimes the large effect is what you want. But the fact is, your attempt to tie large negative effects with large drug effects is unscientific and frankly, smacks of total ignorance. Many drugs have large desired effects without large side effects. I could write all day about them. The idea that because a drug is recreational, that it somehow cannot be without side effects... that's just the department of homeland stupidity talking, there. Some drugs have large side effects, some don't. Some develop them over time. Some don't. Some develop them immediately and noticably; some don't. Drugs, like everything else on this planet, are all over the map. So we have to turn to what is constant here, and *that* is the right of a person to make choices for themselves. And what is the best thing we can do there? Educate. Stop lying, the way the government has been doing for many years now, since well before "Reefer Madness." If we don't know something, just admit it, instead of making things up. That'll encourage people to find out what the facts are, instead of making up crap to fit some moronic agenda like the "war on drugs."
The risk is indeed mine. As it should be. There is no reason it should be yours, or society's. I absolutely agree. Personal responsibility for one's actions should be unavoidable, and avoiding responsibility is undesirable for an ethical person in any case. Making it easy to avoid is just encouraging unethical behavior.
I'd mod you up if I could moderate and post in the same thread. :)
Are you saying that Dayquill doesn't enhance your performance over sitting there with your sinuses plugged, your head pounding, your throat so sore you can hardly speak? Are you saying that a cup of good coffee in the morning doesn't bring your focus tighter, your alertness up, enhance your willingness to face the day? Are you saying that steroids don't increase muscle mass? Are you saying that amphetimines don't decrease reaction time? Are you saying that midol doesn't help a lady get through the day when her body is cranking out a period?
Everything has negative side effects if taken too far. Exercising too much can kill you. Moderation is the key. Further, side effects (such as a mild buzz from dayquill) may be entirely worth the performance gain. It's not for you to decide. It's up to the individual. You were not elected anyone's mother. Nor was anyone else; and for those of you who actually might be a mother (or a father, etc), those rights expire when your kid reaches adulthood, whenever that is.
I utterly fail to see why I should feel "inadequate" because you're taking performance enhancers. Or because you're not. Or because you're naturally better at something, or you have money. Please explain this concept of yours. I am fascinated by your view of the world.
Sure. They might have side effects. So can staying up late, studying too long, partying, overstressing one's self in the gym, not going to the gym, having a bad coach, facing a much better opponent, eating too much (or too little, or the wrong things), getting laid instead of getting sleep. Then again, moderation will help reach towards a balance — you can get laid *and* you can get sleep, for instance. You can study a reasonable amount of time. And, you can use drugs in a reasonable manner. The possibility of side effects cannot be justification for prohibition; if it were so, your meals would be controlled, your sex life would be controlled, religion would be forbidden, suntanning would be illegal... etc., ad infinitum. These are personal choices, no more, no less. There is no possible justification for prohibition with regard to them. The state is not your mommy, and there is no legitimate justification for it in its attempt to be your mommy. There is no basis for the state's attempt to be your mommy in the constitution, and frankly, you didn't sign or formulate the constitution so you're not ethically or morally bound by the state's interpretation of it unless you choose to be, anyway.
It is also very important to note that in many cases, the "side effects" are either vastly exaggerated (marijuana is the poster child for this) or outright lies (LSD's reputation for "damaging genes" was complete hogwash.) Sometimes side effects are beneficial -- for instance, aspirin can reduce the risk of heart attacks, marijuana acts directly to improve the state of the eye, and hash brownies taste really, really good.
The objective — of course — is to create performance enhancers without side effects, or minimal side effects. Everyone knows that, or would, if they'd stop to think about it for even a second. There is nothing inherently bad about the idea of a drug that insists there be side effects, and the presumption that all drugs will cause the user to experience nasty side effects is a false one from the word go. Moderation is one of the keys to avoiding side effects. Everything has side effects if taken too far. You can kill yourself by drinking too much water, for crying out loud. Should we forbid water drinking, or large glasses, or drinking water under age 18? Should we put additives in water that will force you to vomit before you get to a point where you've drank so much it will kill you? Or... here's a wild idea... should we let the citizen decide how much is enough? Oh, wait. ;-)
Moderation in all things is a much better guideline than the awesomely stupid "this is your brain on drugs" message put out by the drug war morons. Drugs are tools. Sometimes they are tools to beat other organisms in contest with us such as viri, bacteria, parasites and poisons such as snake, spider and scorpion bites. And... is that "fair"? Sometimes they are tools to save us from our emotional excesses, sometimes they are tools to make us more effective so we can work, or work better in the face of various challenges, internal and external (everything from aspirin to dayquil to more modern performance enhancers and symptom supressors fits here.) Sometimes they are tools to make life more enjoyable — viagra, alchohol, a nice latte, marijuana, etc.
(a) Teaching is the answer, not prohibition, to the informed, or not, status of drug consumers, and...
(b) your instincts are right — there is absolutely no fairness in sports. Nature deals bet
If your parents are rich and willing, you can go to college and just study. Otherwise, you work and study.
If you own a portable music player, you can listen to your own playlist of music as you bop around. Otherwise, you don't.
If you have (for instance) a Bowflex and a personal trainer, you now have the opportunity to outperform most of your fellow atheletes in terms of how long it takes you to reach your potential, and how close you are going to get to it.
If you have a car, you drive to school. Otherwise, you walk, sponge, or use pubtrans.
If you have a laptop, you have many performance-enhancing tools. Otherwise, not.
All of these "advantages" have one thing in common: Money; the ability to purchase the advantage.
Here's an example that isn't money related: If I go to class A, and have Mr Smith, who is a pretty lousy, unmotivated instructor who smells bad and has one drippy glass eye, and you go to class B, and have Ms. Hubbahubba, who is not only a great, motivated instructor but compels your constant attention by her manner, intimate knowledge of the subject and clever sense of humor, and you and I have equal intelligence, take just one guess who is most likely to come out of class knowing more?
Here's another: You make it a point to get enough sleep, eat a proper breakfast, and skip the partying during the months of the year that school is in session. You never miss class. Melvin, who is otherwise as smart as you are, behaves almost the exact opposite. Sometimes he doesn't sleep at all, he parties every night, sometimes twice, and he usually arrives in class not quite yet awake, never mind breakfast or brushing his teeth. But he never misses class, either. Who do you think will have performed better by the time the bell rings? Let me clue you in -- it won't be Melvin.
Now, why is it again, that if someone decides to use performance enhancing drugs, which are probably more affordable and/or easier to arrange than any of the other examples I've given you here, that "wrong morals" are encouraged? Are you saying that if you're born stupid, you should live with it, not try to find ways to supercede your condition, never try to better the hand that life gave you if it harms no one else? Or, how exactly do you think it harms others?
Also, more to the point, why is it, exactly, that the "naturally smart kid" is screwed over? Wouldn't that be because that kid decided not to take the performance enhancers? Let's say (just hand waving) that kid A has IQ 105 and kid B has IQ 120. Kid A takes these performance enhancers and for a few hours, operates at IQ 130. Kid B can choose to ignore kid A (because after all, school isn't about competition, it is about learning) or, simply in the interest of learning, perhaps he will choose to also take the drug, driving his IQ higher, presumably past the 130 that Kid A achieved, since he started further ahead. Or maybe he ends up in the same place. Either way, what is the down side, exactly? The "unfairness"? We have two smart kids, and perhaps some of that is temporary. This is bad, exactly how? Remember: "Smart" isn't the same as "knows a lot." For the less smart kid, this is an opportunity.
I think you've been confused by the (absolutely incorrect) idea that using drugs is immoral and/or unethical. The morals and ethics of performance enhancement are context dependent; it is not a simple matter of just ruling them out (unless you're a member of the government, but we know those people act without the interests of the public in mind, being funded by PACs and corporations.) If performance enhancement may be used in the pursuit of knowledge, it seems to me that the only thing that might make it unfair is if some kids can use it, and other kids can't. That would be very sad for the kids who can't.
Yes, that makes many things into planets that are not planets now. I don't give a darn. ;-)
(With apologies to Yoda.)
What we need to do is to hand over religion to computers. That way, we won't have to deal with it any more. They can just run it in the background as a time-wasting task. And the simplicity of the program is beauty itself. Just an unending stream of divide-by-zeros, followed by traps which the computer ignores, see, and then just picks up where it left off. Has to be run at a low priority, but that just adds more realism...
The precise definition of pure democracy is:
A political system where any two idiots outvote a genius.
Ok, maybe in Scotland you don't have a voice, but your voice sounds better than everyone else's does. :-)
Yeah, and the next problem is avoiding the survivors, who are going to have re-evaluated what "civilized behavior" consists of...
Yeah. Now he shouts "I'm the Decider!" and runs for cover. After giving what is left of our civil rights a good reaming, of course.
George Bush: The man who finally killed the myth of white supremacy.
On the contrary, I do know how the system works. Jury nullification is pretty much as I have described it, but *the courts* (you know, the ones you said "just judge") have been working to destroy that mechanism (of course, since they are there for power, not for right.) It still exists in some venues, however. The courts haven't managed to stamp the citizens completely into the mud as yet.
It is, in point of fact, my belief that the legal system is completely, utterly broken, rarely providing anything that remotely resembles justice, often dispensing injustice, almost entirely bereft of fairness, yet standing ready to dispense favor to those with power, money, or both. Compounding matters, it is my belief that a huge number of the laws that the system finds worthy of enforcing are bad, in the sense of being inherently wrong (which I call "evil"), laws. It is my right (still, just barely) to hold and espouse these opinions.
If debate is what you seek, then all you have to do is bring a winning argument to the table. I am perfectly capable of saying, "why sir, you are right, and I stand corrected." That you have failed to do that is not my problem. It is yours. That you have put into a public forum statements that show you do not understand the area of argument is also your fault; but that is not an uncommon result when an attempt is made to defend an inherently flawed idea, ideal, or social structure.
As for the name-calling... definitely a point for you sir, to have so successfully demonstrated your devotion to the character of your profession. :-)
It would appear that I do know how it works. Which raises the question as to why you really ran off, O jewel of Legal Authority. :-) As regards my "frustration", you are simply mistaken. I have found that the populace in general, and the legal profession as a specific sub-sector of the population, very rarely fails to meet my expectations. The both of you have made this mess; and now you shall simply have to live in it. I am certainly not interested in trying to save you from yourself. I just think you should be interested in doing so. But this, alas, requires that you have a fully developed set of ethics, and being in law... well, I'm sure you know what I'm thinking. And why.