> if narcotics were legalized, who would end up being the distributors? Likely the cartels and networks of dealers that have been selling it illegally for years.
Highly unlikely. Drugs such as heroin and cocaine are typically transported across great distances at considerable risk, resulting in a high price. If legal, they could be produced from plants grown in greenhouses in the country where they are wanted and supplied directly to stores. The savings would be vast and the illegal market would not be able to compete. The drug production process could be regulated just as other consumables are, such as by the FDA. Remember this - when you support the 'war on drugs', you support the 'brutal cartels' and all the violence involved.
The Senate was concerned that some of the less educated and enlightened members of the public may have problems understanding the assessment. Therefore, sparing no expense to the taxpayer, they have carefully documented the method that lead to the conclusion of pacman being 64% violent.
At the top of the scale at 100% is, of course, violence itself. At the bottom of the scale is something not at all violent, like having a bit of a lie down. Pacman lies somewhere in the middle, towards the upper end. If you find this score excessive, clearly you have never been a dot.
They are also taking a lot of stick for their online work. Many see the quality of it to be unfair competition to private companies and in conflict with their charter, which is soon up for review. Those in the government such as Tory Blair that consider themselves above criticism may present this as proof that the BBC has willfully failed to fulfill its obligations. They could then change the charter to suit their own ends, ruining the BBC in the process. The BBC knows this, but it has to do online work or it will fall behind the competition. Hence it is attempting to demonstrate that their online presence is largely an extension of broadcasting, as befits the charter - hence things like this and the creative archive.
Re:The Mysterious Stanislav Blingstein
on
The Escapist
·
· Score: 1
So they do. How very sad. Stanislav Blingstein, and indeed James Morris, goes to my kickboxing club. On behalf of the slashdot community, when we next spar I will give him an extra hard slap for wasting our valuable(ish) time. It won't be difficult. He's no Mr. Anderson.
and yes, I realise that admitting to using windows on slashdot at the same time as revealing my site's location is more than a little masochistic. It's a work machine, what can you do.:)
Perhaps the DMCA could be used against the RIAA. This idea may need some fleshing out, but in the US it is illegal (under the DMCA) to decrypt things you have not been given authority to decrypt, right? I suggest, every time someone gets an MP3 file from someone, it should be encrypted at the source (so you can't tell whether it's copyrighted or not) using a key which can only be retrieved from an encrypted file attached to the MP3, and permission to decrypt the key file is only given to people with no association with the RIAA. So if an RIAA spy tries to spy on what people are transferring, they are in breach of the DMCA and can be sent to prison. It needs some work but I think the basic idea might be sound. Suggestions anyone?
Trinity wasn't with Neo when he visited the Oracle, and doesn't know about the incident with the spoon. So when they're standing on the top of the lift and Neo suddenly says 'there is no spoon' she must think he's a right nutter.:)
When may a driver refuse a fare?
The driver is not obliged to stop when flagged down, but if he does he must accept the fare unless it is over 6 miles in distance...
This apparently is to do with the Hackney Carriage Act. It's about six miles from Victoria to Kew. So next time you're in town, walk to hyde park, flag a cab, and if they refuse to take you, place them under arrest. You'll be home in no time!
A few years ago on a hot summers day one of the sysadmins at the company I worked for warned the CEO that using his laptop for too long might cause it to overheat. A few hours work later the CEO solved this problem by putting the laptop in the freezer. This cured the overheating, but in a more permanent fashion than he had presumably hoped for...
Whilst walking around Camden market last summer I saw one of the few remaining old fashioned mohawk-and-safety-pin punks that hang around there drinking a can of alcohol-free lager. So much for nihilism. Punk is clearly as dead as a can of spam.:)
Presumably they have already paid for the W2K licenses, so W2K will effectively be free for them to use from now on (unless theirs is a per-seat licensing or licensed over time, but this is covered below). If they were to switch to Linux they still won't have to pay any more money for the OS, since it is free. The money they have paid for W2K is gone no matter which path they choose. The decision hinges on how much they pay to move to linux. If they stay with MS, they will have to continue paying for a potentially limitless number of newer versions of Windows in future (and any per-seat fees etc.). Assuming general maintenance and development costs are the same for both OSes (quite an assumption I know, but opinion is very much divided on the subject and it is hard to say for sure which is likely to be cheaper) then the question is 'will the cost of all future Windows licensing fees be greater than the cost of changing over to linux now?' I say 'now' because presumably their system will be become larger and more complex over time, and the more it will cost to change it to linux in future. If the answer to the question is 'yes, the windows fees will cost more' then they should switch over now.
Slashdot Mirror
> if narcotics were legalized, who would end up being the distributors? Likely the cartels and networks of dealers that have been selling it illegally for years.
Highly unlikely. Drugs such as heroin and cocaine are typically transported across great distances at considerable risk, resulting in a high price. If legal, they could be produced from plants grown in greenhouses in the country where they are wanted and supplied directly to stores. The savings would be vast and the illegal market would not be able to compete. The drug production process could be regulated just as other consumables are, such as by the FDA. Remember this - when you support the 'war on drugs', you support the 'brutal cartels' and all the violence involved.
The Senate was concerned that some of the less educated and enlightened members of the public may have problems understanding the assessment. Therefore, sparing no expense to the taxpayer, they have carefully documented the method that lead to the conclusion of pacman being 64% violent.
http://www.beigebloke.com/pacman_violence.gif
At the top of the scale at 100% is, of course, violence itself. At the bottom of the scale is something not at all violent, like having a bit of a lie down. Pacman lies somewhere in the middle, towards the upper end. If you find this score excessive, clearly you have never been a dot.
I'll second that. We've been using BE for a few months now and easily get the 200Gb the parent mentioned without complaint.
They are also taking a lot of stick for their online work. Many see the quality of it to be unfair competition to private companies and in conflict with their charter, which is soon up for review. Those in the government such as Tory Blair that consider themselves above criticism may present this as proof that the BBC has willfully failed to fulfill its obligations. They could then change the charter to suit their own ends, ruining the BBC in the process. The BBC knows this, but it has to do online work or it will fall behind the competition. Hence it is attempting to demonstrate that their online presence is largely an extension of broadcasting, as befits the charter - hence things like this and the creative archive.
So they do. How very sad. Stanislav Blingstein, and indeed James Morris, goes to my kickboxing club. On behalf of the slashdot community, when we next spar I will give him an extra hard slap for wasting our valuable(ish) time. It won't be difficult. He's no Mr. Anderson.
They're magical invisible pink elephants.
I never expected to see this:
:)
Google error
and yes, I realise that admitting to using windows on slashdot at the same time as revealing my site's location is more than a little masochistic. It's a work machine, what can you do.
Maybe they should pay the fines in vouchers for spam. That's how microsoft likes things isn't it?
> But for god's sake, don't be a common criminal and steal someone else's implementation.
:)
You'll probably find that stealing code will make you a pretty uncommon criminal.
Perhaps the DMCA could be used against the RIAA. This idea may need some fleshing out, but in the US it is illegal (under the DMCA) to decrypt things you have not been given authority to decrypt, right? I suggest, every time someone gets an MP3 file from someone, it should be encrypted at the source (so you can't tell whether it's copyrighted or not) using a key which can only be retrieved from an encrypted file attached to the MP3, and permission to decrypt the key file is only given to people with no association with the RIAA. So if an RIAA spy tries to spy on what people are transferring, they are in breach of the DMCA and can be sent to prison. It needs some work but I think the basic idea might be sound. Suggestions anyone?
I don't see 'linux' anywhere on the list. Or 'beowulf cluster', 'hot grits', 'micro$oft sucks' etc. Don't expect slashdot to change over just yet. :)
Trinity wasn't with Neo when he visited the Oracle, and doesn't know about the incident with the spoon. So when they're standing on the top of the lift and Neo suddenly says 'there is no spoon' she must think he's a right nutter. :)
This black cab website says:
When may a driver refuse a fare?
The driver is not obliged to stop when flagged down, but if he does he must accept the fare unless it is over 6 miles in distance...
This apparently is to do with the Hackney Carriage Act. It's about six miles from Victoria to Kew. So next time you're in town, walk to hyde park, flag a cab, and if they refuse to take you, place them under arrest. You'll be home in no time!
Give it a shove, that would move it. Just not very much.
A few years ago on a hot summers day one of the sysadmins at the company I worked for warned the CEO that using his laptop for too long might cause it to overheat. A few hours work later the CEO solved this problem by putting the laptop in the freezer. This cured the overheating, but in a more permanent fashion than he had presumably hoped for...
Whilst walking around Camden market last summer I saw one of the few remaining old fashioned mohawk-and-safety-pin punks that hang around there drinking a can of alcohol-free lager. So much for nihilism. Punk is clearly as dead as a can of spam. :)
I take it you're not a porn photographer then? :)
Presumably they have already paid for the W2K licenses, so W2K will effectively be free for them to use from now on (unless theirs is a per-seat licensing or licensed over time, but this is covered below). If they were to switch to Linux they still won't have to pay any more money for the OS, since it is free. The money they have paid for W2K is gone no matter which path they choose. The decision hinges on how much they pay to move to linux. If they stay with MS, they will have to continue paying for a potentially limitless number of newer versions of Windows in future (and any per-seat fees etc.). Assuming general maintenance and development costs are the same for both OSes (quite an assumption I know, but opinion is very much divided on the subject and it is hard to say for sure which is likely to be cheaper) then the question is 'will the cost of all future Windows licensing fees be greater than the cost of changing over to linux now?' I say 'now' because presumably their system will be become larger and more complex over time, and the more it will cost to change it to linux in future. If the answer to the question is 'yes, the windows fees will cost more' then they should switch over now.