> I have never once used drugs.
Then you admittedly have a biased frame of reference and are basing many of your "facts" regarding the effects and morality of all drug use. Thanks for letting us know that right at the beginning of your statement.
> The problem here is the interpretation of 'freedom.'
I think the DEA's and Bush administration's problem with 'freedom' is not the interpretation of the word, but the execution of those rights.
> Legalize drugs because we should have dominion over our own bodies?
If not ourselves, who then? Who should say that I cannot drink a beer? Who will decide if I can get a tattoo? Who will decide if I have to get surgery or would rather pray the tumor away?
> This country is founded on morals and values.
And a substantial history of drug use. It might come in alcohol form, as early American brewmeisters Samuel Adams and Benjamin Franklin were fond of, or the extract of various plants and herbs in tea form. The tobacco of the native tribes became one of our earliest major exports to the world. Don't forget the morals and values that purposely gave horrible, ravaging diseases to the native populations to ease our transition into their lands. Or the wholesale import and trade of humans as work animals. I think what you mean to say was "The country I imagine in my head, that does not really exist in any sort of reality, was founded on morals and values."
> Just because you have none, nor the self control to do what is right shouldn't mean we should encourage others to do the same. With that logic we should get rid of all laws besides murder because we shouldn't be constricted.
That's a mighty leap from a person believing that they have the right to determine what they put into their own body to definitive knowledge that the person has no morals, values, or self-contol. With that logic, because you note that another has no morals or values, you must know that no one else but yourself has any morals or values in this entire world.
> We all know, at one point or another, that there are limits to what should be legal and what should not.
We don't all know that. However, I agree. The limits to what should be illegal is when whatever I am doing causes direct harm to you or another person. If Joe wants to sit in his house and get high all day, that should be legal. If he kills someone, that should be illegal, whether he was high or not.
> It's not because of the lack of technology or money that we can't keep out these drugs, but lack of a real dedication on the eradication of that which is wrong.
Wrong. It has nothing to do with tech or cash or dedication. Throughout the entirety of human history, people have used things to enhance their mood. Eating a big meal makes me drowsy and euphoric. Drinking a cold glass of water after running makes me feel energized and refreshed. Listening to Django Reinhardt makes me want to dance. If eating, drinking, or Django were illegal, you know what? I'd still do every one of them.
> Case in point. The two border patrol agents (http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4141562) that were convicted of crimes because they were doing their job. What kind of message does this send?
Border agents are not drug enforcement agents. I read the article, and it definitely sounds like these two agents got a shitty deal, though hardly black-and-white. Their job requires them to not shoot at someone running away from you. Since the guy they were shooting at got away, I suspect that implies he was indeed running away from them. I agree that 20 years is unfair, but the case really has little to do with the drug war and morality points you're trying to make.
>And if we can't do that, then we will hopefully catch them when they are distributing those drugs. If we can't do that, we will just the kids in grade school that are taking them. But if we miss that, we will watch them shoot their classmates on prime time television and blame the teachers for not recognizing that they were troubled.
Of course, if it were lega
But a fairly seamless method of immersion in alternate settings could be done well. I'm not a fantasy gamer, but I'd find it humorous if among the various Inns and Taverns and Groghouses there was a thatch-roofed, stone-walled Burger King with stables in the back where you could pick your cow.
Or offer a benefit for the intrusion. In a game like Second Life, if someone manages to suffer through the "interactive" ad for the latest Mercedes E class car, they receive a virtual car. Driving around SL in a fly Benz would be okay. Of course, even better if it's the 2030 edition with VTOL, Warp speed, and Plasma guns.
There might be some freeware that does it as well, but Photoshop Elements does a lot of this. You can scan several photos in one pass and it will find, straighten, and save each photo individually. it has the color correction features of photoshop, but quicker for most uses. It has a nice sorting/cataloging setup and lets you group, add keywords, and archive to CD/DVD.
(full disclosure: i work at adobe, but have nothing to do with the photoshop stuff.)
I'd be more willing to listen to proposals such as this were the same transparency policies applied to the government as well. Every law, every bill, every proposal, every act accompanied by irrefutable evidence as to who was involved, and when.
"National secrets? Sorry, Uncle Sam. If YOU get to keep secrets from your citizens, we get to keep secrets, too. What do I have to hide? Well, if YOU'RE not breaking the law, either, what are you hiding? See? You just made my point for me. There are secrets worth keeping that have nothing to do with hiding criminal activity."
And then I woke up from my little nap.
TripMaster Monkey:
> Here's the problem...the phrase "Americans that the government is suspicious of", can (and is) defined differently every day. Such vagueness virtually invites a police state.
Exactly. Cindy Sheehan was an asset for awhile - her son died heroically in Iraq, fighting Bush's war. When she began protesting, successfully, she became a major liability for the administration. We find out down the road that the government was infilitrating and monitoring several similar peace organizations.
Following the logic of "monitoring suspicious Americans," does that mean it's now ok for the administration to begin monitoring the mothers of all soldiers that die in combat as we've already seen at least one become a liability?
portwojc:
> "where I come from people are innocent until proven guilty"
If it's the same place that I come from, the United States of America, the same administration you're defending does not believe that. Also, people tend to be considered guilty upon public admission of the act, regardless of how they try to justify it.
Bottom line: When following the existing law became a liability, he chose to ignore it. The idea that it has to be top-secret or the enemy will know we're spying on them is ludicrous. Find me a terrorist who doesn't already suspect the US government is trying to monitor their communications and find out what sneaky thing they're up to.
Where have you been? The eclectic people all got pushed out by the Burke octopus years ago. All that's left is the Fremont Sunday Market. The codename makes perfect sense.
> is it not possible that the iPod was developed w/o Apple having any knowledge of this?
Highly unlikely. It's not as if the TR-1 is some ultra-rare object - it probably comes up in week 3 of every Intro to Product Design course. The idea that every single person involved in the design and legal process not having any notion of its existence has got to be zero, i hope.
However, it's a recurring design for a reason - it's clean and easy. The entire UI consists of the 2 most basic geometric shapes we know: Rectangle and Circle. The interaction is entirely based on this opposable thumb we've come to love so much. Even the larger ipods have nice, big buttons that you can still completely access with one hand.
Look at some of the competition to see tiny, silver, rounded buttons whose command icons are etched into the surface and require you to angle to the light just right to see. you may even need to use two hands to get the proper pressure to push them. This is not good product design - this is someone with CAD experience drooling over the metallic shaders his rendering engine can display.
I don't demand extensive free support after the sale, provided the program wasn't riddled with bugs and security holes to begin with. If you want to give away or sell nice new features after the fact, that's up to you - and an additional benefit to convince customers to use your program - but if the program you sold doesn't work, then the expectation and demand is that the seller give me a fix.
While they certainly don't HAVE to, I can guarantee I wouldn't be buying anything else from them after that.
> Once again: it is FINE to use JS to enhance your web site, but making it a REQUIRED part of your site is foolish.
You nailed the key argument in your synopsis. "to enhance YOUR website.."
I can do anydangdiddlything I want to my website. You don't have to go there. If I wanted to make it nothing but animated dancing hamsters with the worlds most annoying song at high volume, no one is making you visit. change the channel. turn off the monitor.
that said, i hate it when javascript's required, or i have to register to read an article, or when i have to hunt for the secret hidden link to download the free version when all the obvious links are for the retail version, regardless of what the first link on the home page said. I resolve those personal issues by not reading washingtonpost.comor using real player.
But seriously, what happens when, out in the field, your equipment is broken. or stolen. or there weren't enough to go around. or you're captured and held as a POW, and the escape plan is encrypted and scratched into a tree behind a chunk of bark? bet you'll wish you read that manual then.
Continuing the Copyrightorwrong idea, could piracy be seen, at some level, as protest against the corruption of the copyright system? If I pirate a Disney DVD, could that be seen as an effective F-you to Disney for their manipulation of copyright laws in recent years?
Laws which preserved their copyright for a specific amount of time to ensure they make a sufficient profit from their R&D, yet made those works available to the public domain at the end of their fair cycle?
Are the lawbooks for sale to anyone with a financial interest in changing them, regardless of history or the original intent of the law itself?
Back in the mid-90's, Red Hook beer mixed up a brew with Starbucks that was a dark espresso stout. i was skeptical, and it wasn't "blow off my socks" great, but it was surprisingly good stuff.
It did not have guarana or ginseng or any other asian vegetable bits mixed in to give it that "red bull/herbal ecstacy" vibe.
Slashdot Mirror
> I have never once used drugs. Then you admittedly have a biased frame of reference and are basing many of your "facts" regarding the effects and morality of all drug use. Thanks for letting us know that right at the beginning of your statement. > The problem here is the interpretation of 'freedom.' I think the DEA's and Bush administration's problem with 'freedom' is not the interpretation of the word, but the execution of those rights. > Legalize drugs because we should have dominion over our own bodies? If not ourselves, who then? Who should say that I cannot drink a beer? Who will decide if I can get a tattoo? Who will decide if I have to get surgery or would rather pray the tumor away? > This country is founded on morals and values. And a substantial history of drug use. It might come in alcohol form, as early American brewmeisters Samuel Adams and Benjamin Franklin were fond of, or the extract of various plants and herbs in tea form. The tobacco of the native tribes became one of our earliest major exports to the world. Don't forget the morals and values that purposely gave horrible, ravaging diseases to the native populations to ease our transition into their lands. Or the wholesale import and trade of humans as work animals. I think what you mean to say was "The country I imagine in my head, that does not really exist in any sort of reality, was founded on morals and values." > Just because you have none, nor the self control to do what is right shouldn't mean we should encourage others to do the same. With that logic we should get rid of all laws besides murder because we shouldn't be constricted. That's a mighty leap from a person believing that they have the right to determine what they put into their own body to definitive knowledge that the person has no morals, values, or self-contol. With that logic, because you note that another has no morals or values, you must know that no one else but yourself has any morals or values in this entire world. > We all know, at one point or another, that there are limits to what should be legal and what should not. We don't all know that. However, I agree. The limits to what should be illegal is when whatever I am doing causes direct harm to you or another person. If Joe wants to sit in his house and get high all day, that should be legal. If he kills someone, that should be illegal, whether he was high or not. > It's not because of the lack of technology or money that we can't keep out these drugs, but lack of a real dedication on the eradication of that which is wrong. Wrong. It has nothing to do with tech or cash or dedication. Throughout the entirety of human history, people have used things to enhance their mood. Eating a big meal makes me drowsy and euphoric. Drinking a cold glass of water after running makes me feel energized and refreshed. Listening to Django Reinhardt makes me want to dance. If eating, drinking, or Django were illegal, you know what? I'd still do every one of them. > Case in point. The two border patrol agents (http://www.dailybulletin.com/news/ci_4141562) that were convicted of crimes because they were doing their job. What kind of message does this send? Border agents are not drug enforcement agents. I read the article, and it definitely sounds like these two agents got a shitty deal, though hardly black-and-white. Their job requires them to not shoot at someone running away from you. Since the guy they were shooting at got away, I suspect that implies he was indeed running away from them. I agree that 20 years is unfair, but the case really has little to do with the drug war and morality points you're trying to make. >And if we can't do that, then we will hopefully catch them when they are distributing those drugs. If we can't do that, we will just the kids in grade school that are taking them. But if we miss that, we will watch them shoot their classmates on prime time television and blame the teachers for not recognizing that they were troubled. Of course, if it were lega
But a fairly seamless method of immersion in alternate settings could be done well. I'm not a fantasy gamer, but I'd find it humorous if among the various Inns and Taverns and Groghouses there was a thatch-roofed, stone-walled Burger King with stables in the back where you could pick your cow. Or offer a benefit for the intrusion. In a game like Second Life, if someone manages to suffer through the "interactive" ad for the latest Mercedes E class car, they receive a virtual car. Driving around SL in a fly Benz would be okay. Of course, even better if it's the 2030 edition with VTOL, Warp speed, and Plasma guns.
oh, shut up.
There might be some freeware that does it as well, but Photoshop Elements does a lot of this. You can scan several photos in one pass and it will find, straighten, and save each photo individually. it has the color correction features of photoshop, but quicker for most uses. It has a nice sorting/cataloging setup and lets you group, add keywords, and archive to CD/DVD. (full disclosure: i work at adobe, but have nothing to do with the photoshop stuff.)
I'd be more willing to listen to proposals such as this were the same transparency policies applied to the government as well. Every law, every bill, every proposal, every act accompanied by irrefutable evidence as to who was involved, and when. "National secrets? Sorry, Uncle Sam. If YOU get to keep secrets from your citizens, we get to keep secrets, too. What do I have to hide? Well, if YOU'RE not breaking the law, either, what are you hiding? See? You just made my point for me. There are secrets worth keeping that have nothing to do with hiding criminal activity." And then I woke up from my little nap.
TripMaster Monkey: > Here's the problem...the phrase "Americans that the government is suspicious of", can (and is) defined differently every day. Such vagueness virtually invites a police state. Exactly. Cindy Sheehan was an asset for awhile - her son died heroically in Iraq, fighting Bush's war. When she began protesting, successfully, she became a major liability for the administration. We find out down the road that the government was infilitrating and monitoring several similar peace organizations. Following the logic of "monitoring suspicious Americans," does that mean it's now ok for the administration to begin monitoring the mothers of all soldiers that die in combat as we've already seen at least one become a liability?
portwojc: > "where I come from people are innocent until proven guilty" If it's the same place that I come from, the United States of America, the same administration you're defending does not believe that. Also, people tend to be considered guilty upon public admission of the act, regardless of how they try to justify it. Bottom line: When following the existing law became a liability, he chose to ignore it. The idea that it has to be top-secret or the enemy will know we're spying on them is ludicrous. Find me a terrorist who doesn't already suspect the US government is trying to monitor their communications and find out what sneaky thing they're up to.
Where have you been? The eclectic people all got pushed out by the Burke octopus years ago. All that's left is the Fremont Sunday Market. The codename makes perfect sense.
> is it not possible that the iPod was developed w/o Apple having any knowledge of this? Highly unlikely. It's not as if the TR-1 is some ultra-rare object - it probably comes up in week 3 of every Intro to Product Design course. The idea that every single person involved in the design and legal process not having any notion of its existence has got to be zero, i hope. However, it's a recurring design for a reason - it's clean and easy. The entire UI consists of the 2 most basic geometric shapes we know: Rectangle and Circle. The interaction is entirely based on this opposable thumb we've come to love so much. Even the larger ipods have nice, big buttons that you can still completely access with one hand. Look at some of the competition to see tiny, silver, rounded buttons whose command icons are etched into the surface and require you to angle to the light just right to see. you may even need to use two hands to get the proper pressure to push them. This is not good product design - this is someone with CAD experience drooling over the metallic shaders his rendering engine can display.
I don't demand extensive free support after the sale, provided the program wasn't riddled with bugs and security holes to begin with. If you want to give away or sell nice new features after the fact, that's up to you - and an additional benefit to convince customers to use your program - but if the program you sold doesn't work, then the expectation and demand is that the seller give me a fix. While they certainly don't HAVE to, I can guarantee I wouldn't be buying anything else from them after that.
> Once again: it is FINE to use JS to enhance your web site, but making it a REQUIRED part of your site is foolish.
You nailed the key argument in your synopsis. "to enhance YOUR website.."
I can do anydangdiddlything I want to my website. You don't have to go there. If I wanted to make it nothing but animated dancing hamsters with the worlds most annoying song at high volume, no one is making you visit. change the channel. turn off the monitor.
that said, i hate it when javascript's required, or i have to register to read an article, or when i have to hunt for the secret hidden link to download the free version when all the obvious links are for the retail version, regardless of what the first link on the home page said. I resolve those personal issues by not reading washingtonpost.comor using real player.
Let's do something like this with the side of a building. I'm tired of playing tetris on commercial skyscrapers. Time for some side-scrolling action!
But seriously, what happens when, out in the field, your equipment is broken. or stolen. or there weren't enough to go around. or you're captured and held as a POW, and the escape plan is encrypted and scratched into a tree behind a chunk of bark? bet you'll wish you read that manual then.
Continuing the Copyrightorwrong idea, could piracy be seen, at some level, as protest against the corruption of the copyright system? If I pirate a Disney DVD, could that be seen as an effective F-you to Disney for their manipulation of copyright laws in recent years? Laws which preserved their copyright for a specific amount of time to ensure they make a sufficient profit from their R&D, yet made those works available to the public domain at the end of their fair cycle? Are the lawbooks for sale to anyone with a financial interest in changing them, regardless of history or the original intent of the law itself?
Back in the mid-90's, Red Hook beer mixed up a brew with Starbucks that was a dark espresso stout. i was skeptical, and it wasn't "blow off my socks" great, but it was surprisingly good stuff.
It did not have guarana or ginseng or any other asian vegetable bits mixed in to give it that "red bull/herbal ecstacy" vibe.
So with this technology, we could get the complete, directors cut version of each of the Lord of the Rings movies onto 3 disks? Awesome!
I wonder if being forced to read your report aloud to the class can be considered a violation of a kids intellectual property rights.