then the (admittedely rare) individuals who buy blank cds for legal purposes have to pay the tax and get screwed
Is backing up your (homework/thesis/research/work of any kind) really that rare? What about driver discs? I won't try and pretend that Linux makes up a big portion of the sales, but I think there's a lot of family photo albums out there. Tax season has begun, my family keeps their results on a CD, is that uncommon?
Personally I think there's a big market out there for completely legitimate uses for CDs, before you even approach the car audio compilation, which is also very popular and legal if you have a clean source.
You've described the ideal situation for patents, and I don't think anyone here or elsewhere would disagree that the situation you described is a good one, and the one intended[1] by the patent system.
The problem lies in that our system now works nothing like that. Patents are granted simply on the basis of whether the examiner understands the patent, not whether it is truely unique. Companies spend a fortune to write patents in obsfucated and ambiguous manners, making them generally useless for reference and ambiguous enough to apply to anyone who even thinks about being a competitor. It is that perversion which leads:
Then, everyone else can learn from their techniques and perhaps a different group applies it to cancer.
To fail, as the patent owner will still suit you in to oblivion faster than you can say "one click". The intentionally ambiguous patents will come out of the woodwork too, leaving you tied up in so many court cases you're almost sure to be bankrupt. Until this is fixed and things are forced to be more in line with your given scenario, the market and the lawyers are going to lie, cheat, and steal their way to victory. It's almost a common fact these days that the best way to get rich is to financially ruin someone else and cheat them out of their work.
~Rebecca
[1] The tangent of evil lawyers designing a broken system to give themselves future jobs is beyond the scope of this thread.
Backup and restore with Ghost is a piece of cake, do it on a regular basis for many different versions of Winders, no need to reinstall OS. Keep all of my data in a separate \files directory for all applications and I can backup just that then use a current Ghost image to put the OS and Apps back in about 40 minutes, then just restore current \files directory. I Ghost anytime I add a new app, both before and after just in case.
Ghost costs $70. You mean I have to pay another $70 to a third party after paying for Windows itself, just to repeatedly reinstall the OS "easily", and save my data? Man, what a deal!
You're right, Linux and its stability and recommended practice of seperating data from functionality is just too complicated. I'd much rather just reinstall all the time and pay someone else to be sure my data stays safe whenever I need to do so.
They won't send paper in the mail as that is too expensive...and too easy for me to throw away.
Clearly you haven't moved out of your parents basement yet -- when you get your own place, you'll find out it is NOT too expensive. In fact, 100% of mail I recieve is unsolicited advertisements. I have opted for paperless billing with every company I legitimately do business with. I go to the mailbox 2-3 times a week just to throw the junk mail away because the Post Office will slap me with a fine if I ignore it.
They won't call my cell phone because I'm on the do not call list and will file a claim if they do.
The only fine ever levied as a result of the "Do Not Call" list was recently to DirecTV. DirecTV was the number 1 offender with over X complaints, and was fined $5.4 million for 1.4 million complaints -- or less than $4 per complaint, not per illegal call. Incidentially the maximum fine is $11,000 per complaint, so they got off cheap. All of the other offenders haven't been touched at all.
They can send email but Thunderbird's got a great spam filter.
This costs me real money in bandwidth charges, as well as hard drive space (either locally or on my mail server), and a sysadmin (me or my ISPs) to maintain that spam filter.
The problem, besides "a little bit of inconvenience", is that it costs me both money and time to deal with this problem. Normally when you deal with someone elses problems you get paid for doing work for them. Normally when someone makes a career out of making problems for other people, they go to jail for Organized Crime.
So what you're saying is the reason you don't like innovation from a business standpoint is you expect your business to innovate in areas that it doesn't give a shit about (paperweights) and in ways that would work poorest with your needs (expensive, hard to use webservers)?
The only reason that I'd choose Open Source is if it improved my bottom line, in some way. I can't pay my bills with "innovation". I can't sell "innovation".
Innovation lowers expenses and creates new products for resale. If you don't see how these are important to business, then you my friend, are probably better suited to something other than business.
For Gods sake people, what's wrong with you?! Write your Senators & Reps, and if they don't do anything, then vote these assholes out of office when the elections come! Donate money to the ACLU.
Seriously people, technologies won't help you hold on to your freedoms. There's no silver bullet. You have to do it for yourselves!
What do you suggest if:
* - Our Senators & Representatives are bought off / unreachable.
* - Our voting machines are rigged and we're unable to vote them out of office.
* - While being monitored, we have no means of collaboration and organization to form a revolution.
* - Were a revolution organized, we have no weapons of any signifigance to mount an effective revolution.
You can disagree with me whether the first two are true or not; that's okay. This is a theoretical discussion which ultimately lands square on the third one. The fourth is provided for clarity.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Thats what the Constitution states, but does that mean a citizen gets to have anti-aircraft guns? Anti-tank systems? Does someone who doesn't break the law(1) but breaks social norms(2) with the use of Meth get to own and use(3) anything they want weapon-wise? (emphasis and markings mine)
By your own definition Timmy is not doing anything illegal(1), but simply breaking social norms(2). This then becomes a question of "where do you draw the line?". If breaking social norms(2) in one way is reason to remove this right, how about another? According to religioustolerance.org, 76.5% of Americans identify themselves as Christian. Are the others "breaking social norms"? How do you decide what and when behavior crosses from merely unpopular to "breaking social norms" to a point where they should begin to lose their rights?
Myself, and the Libertarian Party you denounce, simply decide to place the line on what is illegal and not what is abnormal.
Regarding (3), in my post you'll find that the crux of the difference relies on the USE. Ceteris Parabis, Timmy hasn't lost his rights in any other way. Thus, he retains his right to own the weapon and use it in any lawful method. As noted in my post, those type of weapons don't HAVE legal uses except for wartime, but Timmy is welcome to be prepared for the worst, or just be a collector.
If I don't think people should have access to LAW rockets, 23mm anti-aircraft guns or second hand armored fighting vehicles am I implying that people are losing fundamental rights?
Yes, you are. It's "... shall not be infringed." not "... shall only be infringed for some items."
Where did I ever say I don't like Meth-heads, private sector sidewalk barons or anyone else? I never said I don't like anyone in my post, you are either making assumptions or you are reading things I didn't type.
You implied that Timmy should lose one of his fundamental rights (See: Bill of Rights, US Constitution) because he engages in a private behavior that you (obviously) do not condone.
I realize you can't see it that way without experiencing a fundamental breakdown in your world view -- that's okay. But you DID say you didn't like meth heads, because you don't advocate loss of rights for people engaging in behaviors you approve of.
I see your point krono, however I think there's a simple disconnect in our discussion about Timmy:
Methamphetamines are not hallucinogens, they're stimulants. "Crystal Meth" is the primary one implied by the term "Meth Head". Timmy doesn't have polka dot leprechauns.
You could make a very valid medical arguement that someone who does consume hallucinogens should agree to some other constraints for the protection of society, as they are voluntarily giving up their ability to control their own actions.
That it's illegal won't stop Timmy from wreaking havoc with his arsenal (since he is a meth head), and his sentence won't bring back to life the ones he killed. So what you are saying is that in this libertarian world there exists no system for preventing mentally unstable people like Timmy the Meth Head from slaughtering innocent people. That's a problem.
Krono, well you've been the most active in this thread, so I feel compelled to reply. Bear in mind that it is okay that we disagree, politics never agrees 100% with anyone anywhere.
The first logic leap that I see is that we have jumped from recreational drug user to "mentally unstable." Timmy isn't mentally unstable until a doctor, not a lawyer, not an IT guy reading Slashdot, but a certified Psych.D says he is. At which point he gets a guardian to watch over him and be responsible for his well being and Timmy loses his rocket launcher.
A point I wish I had had time to cover earlier, but I left out for brevity, is another misconception about the "end of the War on Drugs." The idea that there would be a free-for-all on controlled substances in the Wal*Mart bargain bin is absurd, even to Libertarians. Most likely you're looking at a situation similar to our current prescription system -- if Timmy insists on recreational meth, he gets a regular physical and mental checkup, an informed consultation, and clean, accurate substances and dosages. Timmy has better access to treatment on his own, since he isn't at risk of losing his job for being caught going to a clinic. As mentioned earlier -- becoming "mentally unstable" is already a means worthy of stripping rights. Thus, if Timmy blows his mind and becomes a complete wackjob, when he goes in for those checkups his doctors find it, rescind his prescription, and send him to detox.
The second logic leap I'd like to point out is that in the GP's scenario, Timmy's primary driving factors for resorting to violent crime have been removed. Timmy can get and keep a job legally, thus he doesn't need to steal. Timmy can aquire his fix legally and safely, and thus doesn't need to deal on the streets with thugs. Finally, Timmy doesn't accidentally OD because he's got clean doses, and accurate information from his doctor*. That doesn't mean he is prevented 100% from committing a violent crime, but rather his motivations (and thus, likelyhood) are severely neutered compared with the current scenario. Timmy isn't prevented 100% in the current society either, so personally I will take this as the results of previous attempts at prevention are plainly visible and they aren't too good.
While I realize all too well that violent crime will never completely cease, in this case compare the number of people who violently hold up a place for a pack of cigarettes or a case of beer vs. the violent holdups for controlled substances that have NO other means of being aquired. I personally work in a pharmacy that contains hundreds of substances, lots of shit we won't sell without a prescription, lots of shit we won't sell if you're under 18. The only stuff that gets demanded in a robbery is the stuff to make materials you can't get any other way. I'd be glad if we reduced that level of crime to the same averages as the beer and smokes robberies.
~Rebecca
(*Side note: While doctors are capable mentally and legally of providing educational information about controlled substances, that the dosages are unable to be determined means that information always contains a large margin of error. A doctor could tell you "don't take more than one hit of this every X hours"; but your dealer could dilute your product, making it weaker and seemingly okay to double dip, and undermining the doctors knowledge. An accurate dosage system would fix this, as the primary cause of overdose, and the resulting maniacal behavior, is the inability to measure dosage or in some cases even know what you're taking.)
I own firearms and support the 2nd Amendment however statements like "I don't believe in gun control" seem broad, I mean if Timmy is a Meth-head who won't go to jail for Meth now that theres no Drug Laws, can he go buy a full auto M-4 with an M-203 underslung? Thats the issue I have with the Libertarian Party's platform, it's mighty scarce on details and refinement.
Sounds like by "refinement" you mean "special ways to stick it to people I don't like."
Under the Libertarian system, Timmy the Meth Head has every right to arm and protect himself -- as you mentioned he hasn't commited a felony deserving of having his rights stripped. So in the event of a National Emergency, Timmy the Meth Head could defend himself as well as any of the rest of us.
That's about the only situation Timmy could USE such a weapon though. The guns you named aren't hunting weapons, so that's out. They're a little overkill for private defense, so Timmy *might* (IANAL) be liable in certain cituations there, but he gets a fair day in court like anyone else. As for the homicide that you're implying Timmy the Meth Head would commit with that weapon -- that is already illegal, and already carries some of the harshest penalties we still allow in our society. Also, any accidental killings that occured while he was under the influence would face stricter penalties and in many cases be treated as pre-meditated (willingly took the chemicals, willingly operated the device impaired). That is also, already a regular part of law.
The trouble with true freedom is that you have to give it to people you don't like.
Every time one of these articles is posted, some AC shit talker gets modded up for saying "where's your proof?". And everytime, someone posts Bev Harris and all the evidence that is in shocking abundance everywhere but the mainstream news. Unfortunately, for some FSM-unknown reason -- the proof poster never gets off the ground.
Therefore, you are implying that the majority of Slashdot readers use Windows? Might want to put on your flame-retardant PJs.
Hate to break it to you, but thanks to a combination of liars and people browsing at work -- most of Slashdot's readers are using Windows. This has been a LONG known fact.
If nothing can modify your firewall rules, then are you saying you need a reboot to add a new port or permission?
Yes.
If so, doesn't this get tedious, especially if you are using it in an enterprise "Sorry folks, no internet access for 5minutes while we change permissions.
No. At the enterprise level, you tell your users to fark off. There are standard ports and permissions that cover just about everything. All web traffic to the proxy first, then to the world. New web sites are added at the proxy level. All mail traffic to/from our mail servers only. A small amount of other ports for network admin tools, like ssh. That's it.
If you're using a dedicated OpenBSD box at Securelevel 2 at the home level where you have to open and close ports on the fly all the time and have P2P apps using random port cyclingj, perhaps you're not using the right tool for the job? As you pointed out, it doesn't work well in this situation. Slackware may be a more appropriate choice.
...if a patent license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.
In effect, you must either license the patent royalty-free for derived works of the GPL'd code, or you must not use the GPL. Or, as the preamble puts it:
Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software patents. We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the program proprietary. To prevent this, we have made it clear that any patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.
Just because the GPLv2 / GPL FAQ / etc says the only way to do it is X, doesn't make it true. Here's a couple of ideas:
* Abuse of international boundaries to "comply", without complying in any signifigant portion of the world. Or in short, complying in Elbonia, while having patent tricks you can then "blame" on the United States.
* Abuse of United States interpretation of patent law which seperates the ability to see/read the code from the ability to do anything with it. In fact, this issue often makes it worse -- a programmer can become "tainted".
And my friend, if it were as cut and simple as you claim, patent problems would not be the #1 issue involved in the GPLv3. Crooked lawyers and bought precedent have created an issue where there "shouldn't" have been one. The folks at the FSF are taking it in stride and adjusting to deal with it. Law is constantly changing, and they knew someday they'd need to "get with the times" -- that's why the "or any later version" clause was put in in the first place.
Perhaps you would do well to do more than "read the GPL" and go through this thread accusing others (this isn't your only post with that claim) of not reading it. Try reading discussions on the topic, particularly anything involving actual lawyers and authors.
Are there issues with the current GPL that need to be fixed ?
The GPLv2 doesn't properly deal with patent issues, only copyright. Thus, with some legal smoke and mirrors, it is possible to comply with the letter of the GPLv2, gaining free use of other GPLv2 code in the process, while shipping your code/product under patent restrictions, preventing it from being redistrobutable or adjustable freely.
There's a lot of commercial products [link to cybersitter] that do just that. Unfortunately, opinions on what's "acceptable and non-questionable" can vary wildly.
Absolutely, and quite often even the lists themselves are skewed to promote an "acceptable" view. I have at one point had the unfortunate task of doing technical support for systems containing similar products. Quite often they offer category based restrictions; but there is noticible gaps. The filter for "Religion" for example tends to only filter non-Judeo/Christian religions. "Guns" never includes *.mil. "Politics" did not block the Republican or Democratic parties. The topic at hand, "Porn", almost never provides an effective filter to the tremendous mass of porn, which tends to be harder to pin down; but educational material is always filtered because educators tend to spell their words properly and actually TALK about the subject enough to trigger a filter -- porn sites just show you pictures and are carefully worded to not include trigger words.
Those things don't work for shit. Parental guidance works, but takes effort and can't just be a $50 fire and forget purchase to eliminate a problem. Which probably explains why as a whole American Parents aren't doing it.
You're absolutely right, and my post was never intended to provide an all encompassing list of everything questionable about the system, the insights of everyone who has been involved in the process, or any of the other things you accuse me of "not knowing my subject" about. It was a Slashdot post, not a thesis. All of the insights you've mentioned are valid in themselves, just don't apply here. Also, a majority of the items you've mentioned may not fall under the "chemical dependancy" bracket, and yes some of them also may be examples of abuses in the system -- but Schedule I covers more than just dependancy. Almost half of your list is Methamphetamines, which contain materials that can be broken down in to OTHER Schedule I materials without having redeeming medical value of their own to move them to Schedule II (a part of the scheduling process I didn't cover for brevity.) There's a very good argument for MDMA being moved to Schedule II, but because of it's high abuse potential (it's still the "rave drug"), and contents that can be broken down -- I doubt it will ever see Schedule III again. Ecstasy in the rave form, is itself more or less an "overdose" compared to the medical applications -- most street doses are 10x or more the potency of what would be used in a treatment setting. You're also very much mistaken if you think it is impossible to OD or cause permanent harm by OD'ing on MDMA.
I covered the things the post I was replying to mentioned, in a very brief method intended for an audience that does not study chemistry for pharmaceuticals. I have a one line insight in to the background of the process (that referred to Coca Cola) as a canvas to illustrate my point, which was the answer to the grandparent's post -- the reason he and many other "layman" see such inconsistancies are because there are more powers involved than just Chemistry Geeks making the rules. Again, it doesn't mean that ancient coke was a seizure inducing nightmare -- but it is true that such things were considered, and had Coke ultimately not been stopped, looking around you today in the world of vendor lock in, do you really think we'd be stopping at "miniscule amounts"?
In short, before you spout of what you "know", and how I should "know my field better", remember something you should have learned in ENG201 -- The medium and the audience are factors in anything you compose as well. I could be a Pharm.D and I'd still post such short "incomplete" information because it is a Slashdot post.
And technically, what makes a drug a drug? What about perscription, cigarettes, alcohol? Those are all mind altering and bad for you.
This is my field of study, so I feel obliged to throw in my 2 bits here.
When someone refers to a "drug" in the sense of crime, they mean more accurately a "Schedule I Material" (and rarely, Schedule II or III, but usually just I). What does this nonsense mean? Well, in theory anyway, Schedule I is reserved for materials deemed to have no redeeming medical value, with a high possibility of chemical addiction or overdose. Now, given your statement about cigarettes and booze -- you and I both realize that that isn't entirely the case.
While at the core, the doctors who worked with the FDA and the DEA to create the original controlled substances lists were doing so in good faith to protect the population at large from "Snake Oil" and soft drinks with addictive spikes (Ahem, Coca-Cola); there are unfortunately, larger powers at work than even the medical industry today. "Big Tobacco" has been in power in this country for hundreds of years before this country was even a country. So even though nicotine in all scientific methods would be a Schedule I material -- it isn't. This is also the reason THC is Schedule I despite having qualities that should qualify it for Schedule III (your usual prescription medications). Alcohol, for similar social reasons, is not Schedule I either.
Your usual prescription medications are Schedule III; which roughly defined is materials that have useful medical value and low possibility for addiction, but have other qualities such as allergens or drug interactions that merit having a doctor or two check you out before giving you them.
Slashdot Mirror
then the (admittedely rare) individuals who buy blank cds for legal purposes have to pay the tax and get screwed
Is backing up your (homework/thesis/research/work of any kind) really that rare? What about driver discs? I won't try and pretend that Linux makes up a big portion of the sales, but I think there's a lot of family photo albums out there. Tax season has begun, my family keeps their results on a CD, is that uncommon?
Personally I think there's a big market out there for completely legitimate uses for CDs, before you even approach the car audio compilation, which is also very popular and legal if you have a clean source.
~Rebecca
You've described the ideal situation for patents, and I don't think anyone here or elsewhere would disagree that the situation you described is a good one, and the one intended[1] by the patent system.
The problem lies in that our system now works nothing like that. Patents are granted simply on the basis of whether the examiner understands the patent, not whether it is truely unique. Companies spend a fortune to write patents in obsfucated and ambiguous manners, making them generally useless for reference and ambiguous enough to apply to anyone who even thinks about being a competitor. It is that perversion which leads:
Then, everyone else can learn from their techniques and perhaps a different group applies it to cancer.
To fail, as the patent owner will still suit you in to oblivion faster than you can say "one click". The intentionally ambiguous patents will come out of the woodwork too, leaving you tied up in so many court cases you're almost sure to be bankrupt. Until this is fixed and things are forced to be more in line with your given scenario, the market and the lawyers are going to lie, cheat, and steal their way to victory. It's almost a common fact these days that the best way to get rich is to financially ruin someone else and cheat them out of their work.
~Rebecca
[1] The tangent of evil lawyers designing a broken system to give themselves future jobs is beyond the scope of this thread.
So you don't think warrants are required for any phone taps?
No, they're not.
~Rebecca
Wow, a flamebait mod on a comment about Windows being worse than Linux in an article about Windows being worse than Linux.
Now, I truely have seen it all.
~Rebecca
Backup and restore with Ghost is a piece of cake, do it on a regular basis for many different versions of Winders, no need to reinstall OS. Keep all of my data in a separate \files directory for all applications and I can backup just that then use a current Ghost image to put the OS and Apps back in about 40 minutes, then just restore current \files directory. I Ghost anytime I add a new app, both before and after just in case.
Ghost costs $70. You mean I have to pay another $70 to a third party after paying for Windows itself, just to repeatedly reinstall the OS "easily", and save my data? Man, what a deal!
You're right, Linux and its stability and recommended practice of seperating data from functionality is just too complicated. I'd much rather just reinstall all the time and pay someone else to be sure my data stays safe whenever I need to do so.
~Rebecca
They won't send paper in the mail as that is too expensive...and too easy for me to throw away.
Clearly you haven't moved out of your parents basement yet -- when you get your own place, you'll find out it is NOT too expensive. In fact, 100% of mail I recieve is unsolicited advertisements. I have opted for paperless billing with every company I legitimately do business with. I go to the mailbox 2-3 times a week just to throw the junk mail away because the Post Office will slap me with a fine if I ignore it.
They won't call my cell phone because I'm on the do not call list and will file a claim if they do.
The only fine ever levied as a result of the "Do Not Call" list was recently to DirecTV. DirecTV was the number 1 offender with over X complaints, and was fined $5.4 million for 1.4 million complaints -- or less than $4 per complaint, not per illegal call. Incidentially the maximum fine is $11,000 per complaint, so they got off cheap. All of the other offenders haven't been touched at all.
They can send email but Thunderbird's got a great spam filter.
This costs me real money in bandwidth charges, as well as hard drive space (either locally or on my mail server), and a sysadmin (me or my ISPs) to maintain that spam filter.
The problem, besides "a little bit of inconvenience", is that it costs me both money and time to deal with this problem. Normally when you deal with someone elses problems you get paid for doing work for them. Normally when someone makes a career out of making problems for other people, they go to jail for Organized Crime.
~Rebecca
So what you're saying is the reason you don't like innovation from a business standpoint is you expect your business to innovate in areas that it doesn't give a shit about (paperweights) and in ways that would work poorest with your needs (expensive, hard to use webservers)?
~Rebecca
The only reason that I'd choose Open Source is if it improved my bottom line, in some way. I can't pay my bills with "innovation". I can't sell "innovation".
Innovation lowers expenses and creates new products for resale. If you don't see how these are important to business, then you my friend, are probably better suited to something other than business.
~Rebecca
2 of the teachers at my school (computers and science) both have minors in Greek mythology.
And look where that got them![/rimshot]
~Rebecca
For Gods sake people, what's wrong with you?! Write your Senators & Reps, and if they don't do anything, then vote these assholes out of office when the elections come! Donate money to the ACLU.
Seriously people, technologies won't help you hold on to your freedoms. There's no silver bullet. You have to do it for yourselves!
What do you suggest if:
* - Our Senators & Representatives are bought off / unreachable.
* - Our voting machines are rigged and we're unable to vote them out of office.
* - While being monitored, we have no means of collaboration and organization to form a revolution.
* - Were a revolution organized, we have no weapons of any signifigance to mount an effective revolution.
You can disagree with me whether the first two are true or not; that's okay. This is a theoretical discussion which ultimately lands square on the third one. The fourth is provided for clarity.
~Rebecca
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Thats what the Constitution states, but does that mean a citizen gets to have anti-aircraft guns? Anti-tank systems? Does someone who doesn't break the law(1) but breaks social norms(2) with the use of Meth get to own and use(3) anything they want weapon-wise? (emphasis and markings mine)
By your own definition Timmy is not doing anything illegal(1), but simply breaking social norms(2). This then becomes a question of "where do you draw the line?". If breaking social norms(2) in one way is reason to remove this right, how about another? According to religioustolerance.org, 76.5% of Americans identify themselves as Christian. Are the others "breaking social norms"? How do you decide what and when behavior crosses from merely unpopular to "breaking social norms" to a point where they should begin to lose their rights?
Myself, and the Libertarian Party you denounce, simply decide to place the line on what is illegal and not what is abnormal.
Regarding (3), in my post you'll find that the crux of the difference relies on the USE. Ceteris Parabis, Timmy hasn't lost his rights in any other way. Thus, he retains his right to own the weapon and use it in any lawful method. As noted in my post, those type of weapons don't HAVE legal uses except for wartime, but Timmy is welcome to be prepared for the worst, or just be a collector.
If I don't think people should have access to LAW rockets, 23mm anti-aircraft guns or second hand armored fighting vehicles am I implying that people are losing fundamental rights?
Yes, you are. It's "... shall not be infringed." not "... shall only be infringed for some items."
~Rebecca
Where did I ever say I don't like Meth-heads, private sector sidewalk barons or anyone else? I never said I don't like anyone in my post, you are either making assumptions or you are reading things I didn't type.
You implied that Timmy should lose one of his fundamental rights (See: Bill of Rights, US Constitution) because he engages in a private behavior that you (obviously) do not condone.
I realize you can't see it that way without experiencing a fundamental breakdown in your world view -- that's okay. But you DID say you didn't like meth heads, because you don't advocate loss of rights for people engaging in behaviors you approve of.
~Rebecca
I see your point krono, however I think there's a simple disconnect in our discussion about Timmy:
Methamphetamines are not hallucinogens, they're stimulants. "Crystal Meth" is the primary one implied by the term "Meth Head". Timmy doesn't have polka dot leprechauns.
You could make a very valid medical arguement that someone who does consume hallucinogens should agree to some other constraints for the protection of society, as they are voluntarily giving up their ability to control their own actions.
~Rebecca
That it's illegal won't stop Timmy from wreaking havoc with his arsenal (since he is a meth head), and his sentence won't bring back to life the ones he killed. So what you are saying is that in this libertarian world there exists no system for preventing mentally unstable people like Timmy the Meth Head from slaughtering innocent people. That's a problem.
Krono, well you've been the most active in this thread, so I feel compelled to reply. Bear in mind that it is okay that we disagree, politics never agrees 100% with anyone anywhere.
The first logic leap that I see is that we have jumped from recreational drug user to "mentally unstable." Timmy isn't mentally unstable until a doctor, not a lawyer, not an IT guy reading Slashdot, but a certified Psych.D says he is. At which point he gets a guardian to watch over him and be responsible for his well being and Timmy loses his rocket launcher.
A point I wish I had had time to cover earlier, but I left out for brevity, is another misconception about the "end of the War on Drugs." The idea that there would be a free-for-all on controlled substances in the Wal*Mart bargain bin is absurd, even to Libertarians. Most likely you're looking at a situation similar to our current prescription system -- if Timmy insists on recreational meth, he gets a regular physical and mental checkup, an informed consultation, and clean, accurate substances and dosages. Timmy has better access to treatment on his own, since he isn't at risk of losing his job for being caught going to a clinic. As mentioned earlier -- becoming "mentally unstable" is already a means worthy of stripping rights. Thus, if Timmy blows his mind and becomes a complete wackjob, when he goes in for those checkups his doctors find it, rescind his prescription, and send him to detox.
The second logic leap I'd like to point out is that in the GP's scenario, Timmy's primary driving factors for resorting to violent crime have been removed. Timmy can get and keep a job legally, thus he doesn't need to steal. Timmy can aquire his fix legally and safely, and thus doesn't need to deal on the streets with thugs. Finally, Timmy doesn't accidentally OD because he's got clean doses, and accurate information from his doctor*. That doesn't mean he is prevented 100% from committing a violent crime, but rather his motivations (and thus, likelyhood) are severely neutered compared with the current scenario. Timmy isn't prevented 100% in the current society either, so personally I will take this as the results of previous attempts at prevention are plainly visible and they aren't too good.
While I realize all too well that violent crime will never completely cease, in this case compare the number of people who violently hold up a place for a pack of cigarettes or a case of beer vs. the violent holdups for controlled substances that have NO other means of being aquired. I personally work in a pharmacy that contains hundreds of substances, lots of shit we won't sell without a prescription, lots of shit we won't sell if you're under 18. The only stuff that gets demanded in a robbery is the stuff to make materials you can't get any other way. I'd be glad if we reduced that level of crime to the same averages as the beer and smokes robberies.
~Rebecca
(*Side note: While doctors are capable mentally and legally of providing educational information about controlled substances, that the dosages are unable to be determined means that information always contains a large margin of error. A doctor could tell you "don't take more than one hit of this every X hours"; but your dealer could dilute your product, making it weaker and seemingly okay to double dip, and undermining the doctors knowledge. An accurate dosage system would fix this, as the primary cause of overdose, and the resulting maniacal behavior, is the inability to measure dosage or in some cases even know what you're taking.)
I own firearms and support the 2nd Amendment however statements like "I don't believe in gun control" seem broad, I mean if Timmy is a Meth-head who won't go to jail for Meth now that theres no Drug Laws, can he go buy a full auto M-4 with an M-203 underslung? Thats the issue I have with the Libertarian Party's platform, it's mighty scarce on details and refinement.
Sounds like by "refinement" you mean "special ways to stick it to people I don't like."
Under the Libertarian system, Timmy the Meth Head has every right to arm and protect himself -- as you mentioned he hasn't commited a felony deserving of having his rights stripped. So in the event of a National Emergency, Timmy the Meth Head could defend himself as well as any of the rest of us.
That's about the only situation Timmy could USE such a weapon though. The guns you named aren't hunting weapons, so that's out. They're a little overkill for private defense, so Timmy *might* (IANAL) be liable in certain cituations there, but he gets a fair day in court like anyone else. As for the homicide that you're implying Timmy the Meth Head would commit with that weapon -- that is already illegal, and already carries some of the harshest penalties we still allow in our society. Also, any accidental killings that occured while he was under the influence would face stricter penalties and in many cases be treated as pre-meditated (willingly took the chemicals, willingly operated the device impaired). That is also, already a regular part of law.
The trouble with true freedom is that you have to give it to people you don't like.
~Rebecca
Karma burning gripe ahead ...
Every time one of these articles is posted, some AC shit talker gets modded up for saying "where's your proof?". And everytime, someone posts Bev Harris and all the evidence that is in shocking abundance everywhere but the mainstream news. Unfortunately, for some FSM-unknown reason -- the proof poster never gets off the ground.
Ivan, if I had mod points today they'd be yours.
~Rebecca
Therefore, you are implying that the majority of Slashdot readers use Windows? Might want to put on your flame-retardant PJs.
Hate to break it to you, but thanks to a combination of liars and people browsing at work -- most of Slashdot's readers are using Windows. This has been a LONG known fact.
~Rebecca
If nothing can modify your firewall rules, then are you saying you need a reboot to add a new port or permission?
Yes.
If so, doesn't this get tedious, especially if you are using it in an enterprise "Sorry folks, no internet access for 5minutes while we change permissions.
No. At the enterprise level, you tell your users to fark off. There are standard ports and permissions that cover just about everything. All web traffic to the proxy first, then to the world. New web sites are added at the proxy level. All mail traffic to/from our mail servers only. A small amount of other ports for network admin tools, like ssh. That's it.
If you're using a dedicated OpenBSD box at Securelevel 2 at the home level where you have to open and close ports on the fly all the time and have P2P apps using random port cyclingj, perhaps you're not using the right tool for the job? As you pointed out, it doesn't work well in this situation. Slackware may be a more appropriate choice.
Take care,
~Rebecca
I second that, though I'd like to point out that it is all your fault I just lost my only chance in my life to mod up a Soviet Russia post.
* Abuse of international boundaries to "comply", without complying in any signifigant portion of the world. Or in short, complying in Elbonia, while having patent tricks you can then "blame" on the United States.
* Abuse of United States interpretation of patent law which seperates the ability to see/read the code from the ability to do anything with it. In fact, this issue often makes it worse -- a programmer can become "tainted".
And my friend, if it were as cut and simple as you claim, patent problems would not be the #1 issue involved in the GPLv3. Crooked lawyers and bought precedent have created an issue where there "shouldn't" have been one. The folks at the FSF are taking it in stride and adjusting to deal with it. Law is constantly changing, and they knew someday they'd need to "get with the times" -- that's why the "or any later version" clause was put in in the first place.
Perhaps you would do well to do more than "read the GPL" and go through this thread accusing others (this isn't your only post with that claim) of not reading it. Try reading discussions on the topic, particularly anything involving actual lawyers and authors.
~Rebecca
Are there issues with the current GPL that need to be fixed ?
The GPLv2 doesn't properly deal with patent issues, only copyright. Thus, with some legal smoke and mirrors, it is possible to comply with the letter of the GPLv2, gaining free use of other GPLv2 code in the process, while shipping your code/product under patent restrictions, preventing it from being redistrobutable or adjustable freely.
~Rebecca
There's a lot of commercial products [link to cybersitter] that do just that. Unfortunately, opinions on what's "acceptable and non-questionable" can vary wildly.
Absolutely, and quite often even the lists themselves are skewed to promote an "acceptable" view. I have at one point had the unfortunate task of doing technical support for systems containing similar products. Quite often they offer category based restrictions; but there is noticible gaps. The filter for "Religion" for example tends to only filter non-Judeo/Christian religions. "Guns" never includes *.mil. "Politics" did not block the Republican or Democratic parties. The topic at hand, "Porn", almost never provides an effective filter to the tremendous mass of porn, which tends to be harder to pin down; but educational material is always filtered because educators tend to spell their words properly and actually TALK about the subject enough to trigger a filter -- porn sites just show you pictures and are carefully worded to not include trigger words.
Those things don't work for shit. Parental guidance works, but takes effort and can't just be a $50 fire and forget purchase to eliminate a problem. Which probably explains why as a whole American Parents aren't doing it.
~Rebecca
You're absolutely right, and my post was never intended to provide an all encompassing list of everything questionable about the system, the insights of everyone who has been involved in the process, or any of the other things you accuse me of "not knowing my subject" about. It was a Slashdot post, not a thesis. All of the insights you've mentioned are valid in themselves, just don't apply here. Also, a majority of the items you've mentioned may not fall under the "chemical dependancy" bracket, and yes some of them also may be examples of abuses in the system -- but Schedule I covers more than just dependancy. Almost half of your list is Methamphetamines, which contain materials that can be broken down in to OTHER Schedule I materials without having redeeming medical value of their own to move them to Schedule II (a part of the scheduling process I didn't cover for brevity.) There's a very good argument for MDMA being moved to Schedule II, but because of it's high abuse potential (it's still the "rave drug"), and contents that can be broken down -- I doubt it will ever see Schedule III again. Ecstasy in the rave form, is itself more or less an "overdose" compared to the medical applications -- most street doses are 10x or more the potency of what would be used in a treatment setting. You're also very much mistaken if you think it is impossible to OD or cause permanent harm by OD'ing on MDMA.
I covered the things the post I was replying to mentioned, in a very brief method intended for an audience that does not study chemistry for pharmaceuticals. I have a one line insight in to the background of the process (that referred to Coca Cola) as a canvas to illustrate my point, which was the answer to the grandparent's post -- the reason he and many other "layman" see such inconsistancies are because there are more powers involved than just Chemistry Geeks making the rules. Again, it doesn't mean that ancient coke was a seizure inducing nightmare -- but it is true that such things were considered, and had Coke ultimately not been stopped, looking around you today in the world of vendor lock in, do you really think we'd be stopping at "miniscule amounts"?
In short, before you spout of what you "know", and how I should "know my field better", remember something you should have learned in ENG201 -- The medium and the audience are factors in anything you compose as well. I could be a Pharm.D and I'd still post such short "incomplete" information because it is a Slashdot post.
And technically, what makes a drug a drug? What about perscription, cigarettes, alcohol? Those are all mind altering and bad for you.
:)
This is my field of study, so I feel obliged to throw in my 2 bits here.
When someone refers to a "drug" in the sense of crime, they mean more accurately a "Schedule I Material" (and rarely, Schedule II or III, but usually just I). What does this nonsense mean? Well, in theory anyway, Schedule I is reserved for materials deemed to have no redeeming medical value, with a high possibility of chemical addiction or overdose. Now, given your statement about cigarettes and booze -- you and I both realize that that isn't entirely the case.
While at the core, the doctors who worked with the FDA and the DEA to create the original controlled substances lists were doing so in good faith to protect the population at large from "Snake Oil" and soft drinks with addictive spikes (Ahem, Coca-Cola); there are unfortunately, larger powers at work than even the medical industry today. "Big Tobacco" has been in power in this country for hundreds of years before this country was even a country. So even though nicotine in all scientific methods would be a Schedule I material -- it isn't. This is also the reason THC is Schedule I despite having qualities that should qualify it for Schedule III (your usual prescription medications). Alcohol, for similar social reasons, is not Schedule I either.
Your usual prescription medications are Schedule III; which roughly defined is materials that have useful medical value and low possibility for addiction, but have other qualities such as allergens or drug interactions that merit having a doctor or two check you out before giving you them.
Hope that I have helped
~Rebecca
Because anything written in a book by a doctor must be true...right?
Relative to anything posted on Slashdot, yes.
~Rebecca