That sounds to me like the same philosophy behind massive national debts. As long as people are willing to lend you money, just keep borrowing and spending. Eventually, the time will come to pay it back, but if the debt is large enough, you'll never have to pay it all.
The older US pennies were made from copper and are worth more than their face value. More recent ones aren't pure copper, so they're not worth melting down. Besides, it's illegal to melt US money.
I don't understand your actual point. If the current situation is so corrupt, then surely we can only benefit from changing it.
You think that people who have lost someone to drugs will be anti-legalization, but that makes no sense whatsoever. If you've been personally affected, then why would you want the current situation to stay the same? Why not make it easier for people in trouble to get help rather than stigmatizing them and ensuring that they feel like outcasts?
No matter how bad the government is, the first step to dealing with drug problems is to take some measure of control which involves legalizing drugs. Keeping them illegal just increases the number of problems and never mind the moral implications of imprisoning people with problems rather than trying to help them.
Surely they're the least likely to claim that as they're actually working to improve the security of linux. If it was already secure, then there wouldn't be much demand for enhanced security.
Oh, I see. Wait, what was that bit in the middle again?
Look, I understand your point about the free market not being a good way of determining what should be legal, but I was highlighting that there is a qualitative difference between your examples and drugs.
You absinth drinkers are so rigid in your discussions.
I appreciate that laws/politics are influenced by lots of different factors, but it's absolutely ridiculous to base laws purely on morality without taking the practicality into account. (Not calling you ridiculous - just the present system)
Humans invariably disagree on what is moral and not. For example, a lot of people (myself included) think that raising animals in cages just so that we can eat them is immoral. However, outlawing caged animal farming would probably cause more problems than it solves.
Imagine, if you will, a car that has all the latest security features conceivable (biometrics up to and including your eyeballs). Also, imagine that there is a flaw with the radio aerial that enable someone to easily unscrew it and gain access to the engine compartment. By getting to the engine compartment, you can then exploit an electrical flaw to start the car and open the doors.
Now, why would it be even possible for an aerial flaw to allow your car to be stolen?
Obviously, they just need to put on a few warning stickers and that'll solve that problem. There's plenty of "unsafe" products on sale already - it's surprisingly easy to die from drinking a whole bottle of vodka.
I've heard of second-hand smoke, but the scientific studies have either been very flawed or inconclusive. However, it's surprisingly easy to deal with second-hand smoke - just make it illegal to smoke indoors in public areas. It's easy to enforce - you just go to the person who's smoking and kick them out.
It amuses me that you mention the conduct of the drug users. This is typically one of the most drastically skewed responses to the affects of illegal drugs versus the affects of alcohol. If we're concerned about people's actions on substances, then alcohol should be banned first.
I personally think that people should take responsibility for their actions no matter what substance they have chosen to take. If someone's conduct is a problem, then deal with their conduct rather than trying to pin the blame on something else.
Yep, I'm in the UK and wish our government would wise up to this, but it looks like they've got too much vested interest in keeping as many things illegal as possible.
The problem with assassinations and polluting rivers is that those acts affect other people detrimentally, so ultimately those acts would still get punished through lots of lawsuits.
Drugs, however, don't usually affect other people directly (most side effect are due to them being illegal which begs the question of why are they illegal?).
Slashdot Mirror
That sounds to me like the same philosophy behind massive national debts. As long as people are willing to lend you money, just keep borrowing and spending. Eventually, the time will come to pay it back, but if the debt is large enough, you'll never have to pay it all.
The older US pennies were made from copper and are worth more than their face value. More recent ones aren't pure copper, so they're not worth melting down. Besides, it's illegal to melt US money.
I don't understand your actual point. If the current situation is so corrupt, then surely we can only benefit from changing it.
You think that people who have lost someone to drugs will be anti-legalization, but that makes no sense whatsoever. If you've been personally affected, then why would you want the current situation to stay the same? Why not make it easier for people in trouble to get help rather than stigmatizing them and ensuring that they feel like outcasts?
No matter how bad the government is, the first step to dealing with drug problems is to take some measure of control which involves legalizing drugs. Keeping them illegal just increases the number of problems and never mind the moral implications of imprisoning people with problems rather than trying to help them.
No, I won't!
Shame they don't use c# for all of Windows, then. Most of it is written in C for speed and low-level access.
***puts hands up***
You got me, it's a fair cop. I'll go quietly
Okay, who, except for Lumpy, is claiming that linux is super secure and impenetrable?
Surely they're the least likely to claim that as they're actually working to improve the security of linux. If it was already secure, then there wouldn't be much demand for enhanced security.
Oh, I see. Wait, what was that bit in the middle again?
Look, I understand your point about the free market not being a good way of determining what should be legal, but I was highlighting that there is a qualitative difference between your examples and drugs.
You absinth drinkers are so rigid in your discussions.
Oh yes it is.
Who are you, the argument police?
You posted a point and I posted a counterpoint.
You'd be better off posting there, then.
Too late - I've already forgotten about it.
I appreciate that laws/politics are influenced by lots of different factors, but it's absolutely ridiculous to base laws purely on morality without taking the practicality into account. (Not calling you ridiculous - just the present system)
Humans invariably disagree on what is moral and not. For example, a lot of people (myself included) think that raising animals in cages just so that we can eat them is immoral. However, outlawing caged animal farming would probably cause more problems than it solves.
Morality is for the philosophers.
Sounds like a straw man kind of argument. Who is claiming that linux is super secure and impenetrable?
Oh, I didn't realise there'd be opposition. Best forget the whole idea then.
I'd recommend running the same tool (cppcheck) on the Windows source code before trying to be ironic.
I'm running on Ubuntu and X is run as root. I'm just glad that the internet servers I set up don't run X.
Imagine, if you will, a car that has all the latest security features conceivable (biometrics up to and including your eyeballs). Also, imagine that there is a flaw with the radio aerial that enable someone to easily unscrew it and gain access to the engine compartment. By getting to the engine compartment, you can then exploit an electrical flaw to start the car and open the doors.
Now, why would it be even possible for an aerial flaw to allow your car to be stolen?
Obviously, they just need to put on a few warning stickers and that'll solve that problem. There's plenty of "unsafe" products on sale already - it's surprisingly easy to die from drinking a whole bottle of vodka.
I've heard of second-hand smoke, but the scientific studies have either been very flawed or inconclusive. However, it's surprisingly easy to deal with second-hand smoke - just make it illegal to smoke indoors in public areas. It's easy to enforce - you just go to the person who's smoking and kick them out.
It amuses me that you mention the conduct of the drug users. This is typically one of the most drastically skewed responses to the affects of illegal drugs versus the affects of alcohol. If we're concerned about people's actions on substances, then alcohol should be banned first.
I personally think that people should take responsibility for their actions no matter what substance they have chosen to take. If someone's conduct is a problem, then deal with their conduct rather than trying to pin the blame on something else.
Yep, I'm in the UK and wish our government would wise up to this, but it looks like they've got too much vested interest in keeping as many things illegal as possible.
It's a tough choice between crime cartels and the government, but at least the government sometimes pretends to be benevolent.
The problem with assassinations and polluting rivers is that those acts affect other people detrimentally, so ultimately those acts would still get punished through lots of lawsuits.
Drugs, however, don't usually affect other people directly (most side effect are due to them being illegal which begs the question of why are they illegal?).
Was it recently? Has anyone told him as I don't think he knows yet?
You should let his doctors know as they're treating his hyperthyroidism at the moment - probably a waste of time if he's already dead.
Also, who's going to replace him in "Expendables 3"? (Or did they film all his stuff already).