> Entirely possible. That's what happened with the reintroduction of beer and wine after prohibition. > Whisky use fell not increased. That's why I favor regulation to try and make scenarios like that play > out.
Yet, we have seen, over and over, that prohibition causes this concentration of the drug availability into the highest potency/highest profit, and we have seen that, when people are left to their own free choices, they regularly make better choices.
Through all this, you still want to solve it with regulation? Regulation is not only not the answer its unjustified meddling in peoples personal lives and rights over their own body and mind. It is a basic denial of the freedom to pursue happiness.
I think we should ban any attempt of the government to regulate personal choices. Full ban on prohibition....and commencement of truth and reconciliation commissions to deal with the damage prohibition has done to society.
We wont have that, and I would not support us even trying to rebuild that, so long as we mis-use it to prosecute people for victimless crimes like drug laws. Thats why I have no respect for the so-called justice system, advocate not using it, not respecting it, and not talking highly of it.
Its just an abuse system now, and has been since before I was born. Thats what it is, thats the reputation we deserve, its why i cheer Anonymous when they get all vigilante. Thats what we need right now, a disintegration of the abusive old system.
Thats not a very reasonable analasys of the situation. Why would meth use come in so high? Do you want to use meth? Are you going to run out and start shooting heroin?
Seriously, do you actually think the numbers will increase that much? How about this scenario.... price of drugs comes down, people don't need to buy pure meth anymore, addicts can afford to not inject it.... other, less potent drugs (which have been pushed off the market) re-enter, and many of the people attracted to stims.... switch to those.
Heroin? Why? When opium is available, and there is no pressure on dealers to make the highest profit off the lowest volume, do you really think heroin addicts wouldn't turn to opium in droves? Wouldn't pick safer, less potent drugs and forms of drugs?
> The reason drugs can get banned is because they are so incredibly devastating to individuals to > families and to communities when their use becomes common. Pretending they are harmless > undermines other points.
All of which is made WORST, not better by prohibition. It doesn't even lower addiction rates. Rates have not changed over time, and problems just get worst. We see the same problems with alcohol and even non-drug related issues. Yet, drugs are somehow "special". Its BS is what it is....drugs can get banned because they make a convinenet scapegoat and present an easy (if impossible to achieve and highly ineffective) solution.... which makes for good talking points and easy campaign promises.
Right so, maybe the real answer is we have long since reached the point of diminishing returns on enforcement and its time to.... stop hiring so many cops, and give them the opportunity to retrain for useful jobs?
> The day someone makes the natural Excel of programming will be glorious. But every way I can > think of such a style, it just feels obtuse in so many ways.
I wasn't aware that patient medical data privacy and the international reputation of doctors and aid workers was a racist issue. So its racism not to say that we Americans should treat others the way that we insist that we be treated? Its racism to suggest that people in Pakistan deserve every bit as much honest medical care which respects their privacy and dignity in the same way that we here are supposed to get it?
Bottom line, what he did would have been a serious crime here in the US. Suggesting that we should hold ourselves up to our own standards in what we encourage be done to others is hardly racism.
Seriously. In south korea it is illegal to "insult the president", clearly not on our side with individual liberties. So why should I care what happens to their country? We have a defense department, our boarders are not in Korea. Fuck sending bombers, we should pull the fuck out of that country, and let them defend themselves.
I was agast when Secretarty of state Clinton said that doctor should be freed. What that man did would have been highly illegal here in the US, where we have specific patient medical records laws that specifically defend our right to privacy. It is disgusting that she would encourage and defend the violation of that right anywhere, for any reason. If anything, she should commend pakistan for punishing grievous violations of patient medical privacy rights.
Its sad when people in developing countries look at aid workers with a jaundiced eye and spread rumors about sham vaccination programs. Its an absolute travesty when their fears are justified.
....tourists? does the DPRK really have that many tourists? Like....can I get a visa to go there?
I mean yes, I am an American, and its probably illegal and my own government will probably threaten me and insist on detaining me for interviews after I try to return but, it could totally be worth it for the experience of seeing some of the things I have read about first hand.
Course if the DPRK did any searching on my online posts they would never give me a visa but.... tourists? That just boggles me. I mean, I hear they have some paper thin displays of modern city scapes and things setup just to fool foriegn visitors but, I never imagined anybody but officials and occasional journalists would be allowed in.
I wonder how many minutes I would be there before I said something that got my Visa revoked and me shoved back on a plane?
That is tangential to the real point though. Its not about whether they care, its about the future that is coming, and that future is being shaped, not by their higher birth rate, but by their inability to keep the flock together.
Their increased birth rate is not increasing their community; how they personally feel about it is a different issue entirely. The fact that they are a shrinking demographic despite their best efforts however, well....is hopeful.
While true, he can still get a passport, many countries will not allow him to enter based on the fact that he is on the list of convicted felons here. So while you are technically right, in practice, this is problematic.
Secondly, yes, I get it, it was wrong and stupid and he was irresponsible. Never said otherwise, I just question what it really takes to prevent him from doing it again and frankly, I look at all this commotion and hassle, court dates, lawyers etc, and, I am skeptical that either 1 day or 30 years would make a difference.... likely, the message has already been recieved loud and clear.,...and putting him all over the news for a few days will do more to set an example for others than putting him away in a cell to be out of the public eye for 3ish years.
So no, its not a good thing because its not necessary. Punishment should strive to be minimal whenever reasonable to be so.
Actually, I would consider that more appropriate. No harm no foul, lesson learned. The punishment isn't really what sets the example for others, its the getting caught and publically shamed. The perception of "you will get caught" has a much larger effect on behaviour than "if you get caught X will happen".
actually, I question the utility of jail time of any amount for all but the worst of violent/habitual offenders. So I wont be glad hes going to jail, id rather him spend his time in a soup kitchen helping people.... ie being seen, out in the community, showing people that people get caught for this sort of thing and it is bad....rather than tossed in a little room to be forgotten about for a couple of years... on the publics dime no less.
As far as I can tell from what I have seen, when it comes to being arrested or not, what you got caught doing matters, but your attitude matters too. So ability to think fast and inihibit impulses? Would that maybe include the impulse to blurt out confessions? The impulse to tell the cop what you really think about him "helping you" by confiscating that joint?
I know a few people that got more trouble than they deserved because they couldn't keep their mouths shut, and conversely those who, in almost identical situations, walked away because they cast their eyes down all submissive and sorry like and said "yes officer, your right officer, im sorry officer" even though they didn't mean a word of it.
Maybe these researchers are really on to something.
> It's just like legalizing weed. We have a huge chunk of the population that are drug addicts,
Not even close. We don't Have anything, those people are human beings who have every right to be addicts if they want to. Their body, their choice. Nobody is enslaved, and most of the serious issues around that.... the fact that they are exposed to a violent criminal underground.... is actually a result of prohibition not weed.
If weed were perfectly legal, people would buy it at the store, and if anyone came to their house with a gun and robbed them for their money and weed, they would have police to call who would investigate the crime and arrest the actual violent criminal. This is not the case now, so all you have done is take addicts, and hand them over to violent criminals to use and abuse.
1. Kevlar takes time to put on and takes up a lot of space, glasses are small and can be put on quickly. 2. A person with a gun at short/medium range is much more likely to hit you in a meaningful way than a moron on the ground with a laser. I would bet that the pilot would have plenty of time to see the dot and grab the protection after he sees it, are there even any documented cases of a pilot being blinded by a laser? How many compared to reports of beams on aircraft? (also of note, passengers being blinded, while not life threatening to the whole plane, is still bad and unconscionable) 3. Embrace the power of AND. Is it perfect? No. However, when you have several hundred $ to transfer across town, you put it in a pocket or wallet, right? You don't, walk down the road with it clenched in your fist, do you? Do you lock the doors on your house? You know, people aren't supposed to break in (its illegal).
Quite simply, there are lots of things we "shouldn't have to do" that we accept we need to do because we know that there are and always will be people out there who are either not too bright, or not terribly morally oriented. Taking precautions against them, especially small, cheap precautions (like door locks and protective glasses) which are effective against some of the more common problems, makes sense.... more sense than doing nothing and dealing with the fallout.
Ok this guy did something monumentally stupid which, most certainly should serve as example for others. Done. Now whats with the 30 months in prison? Why must this guy be a felon? Now unable to leave the country, unable to vote in most places, unable to own a firearm.... all for something stupid that, he is unlikely to ever do again.
The punishment fetish in this country really needs to be checked, punishments are totally out of whack with crimes when we have people losing their rights indefinitely over something which, while it could have been disasterous wasn't, and more would have been served (and just as useful an example set) by using it as a teaching moment than by ruining this guys life and making crime one of his best options going forward.
But hey, the harsh punishment crowd can go stroke themselves over it, so someone benefits.
I think you are right on ESXi, actually. I Found it a while back when I was reviewing VMWare workstation. I never considered that ESXi would be under a less restrictive license than the workstation version. I guess that makes sense though, it gives small users who might otherwise use free hypervisors a step in their door.... but people using workstation are, like I was, trying to meet a specific need, less need to coax us in.
Check out that license again.... last I looked it was non-commercial use. Not only that, but its limited, no VSphere or any of that.
So this wouldn't really fly for...any of the use cases we are discussing. They may be best in breed for many features, but there is vanishingly little that they are the only game in town for.
Not only that, but as a "free" offering, they could stop offering it and stop updating it at any time, leaving anyone using it on the same buggy insecure version forever.
While its true an open source project may die, at least it dies, leaving you with options....and lets face it...nothing as high profile and highly used as the free hypervisors is just going to die off anytime soon.
And then they were suspended from school for bringing a pill dispenser, which could contain drugs, onto school property.
No drugs were found in the dispenser, but school officials are defending their decision, along with the decision to suspend their classmate when, upon hearing the news, made a gun with his fingers and said "they got em good".
Look you can produce a product, put it on the market, blah blah blah. Fuck that. Do what lockheed does.
1. Open a number of plants within the US, get the politicians to give speeches about how wonderful each plant will be locally. Make sure to choose towns that would be as deastated as possible by any future plant closure.
2. Lobby congress directly to buy the solar panels as a national security issue, and ignoring any irresponsible departments who claim they are not cost effective or they don't need them.
3. If #2 doesn't work right away, threaten to close individual plants, rinse and repeat until congress orders enough to ensure your profits. Be sure to tell your employees that the plant might be closing because of the uncertainty around government orders. Try to get the whole town involved.
4. Once they are buying them, get them to throw a few orders into the foriegn aid bucket. (Isreal needs solar power to keep it safe from Iran!)
Nice try dude, might wanna check the number of digits in the userid you reply to before you complain about/. becoming anything.
You are right though, I wasn't quite alive yet then. I was in time for the B actor to steal the election, but, I was a bit young to be paying attention.
and.... wasn't this essentially the exact same tactic in '79 where it is alleged that the Reagan campaign made moves to sink hostage negotiations before the election against Carter?
But of course, that was never proven....but now seeing evidence of the same tactic alleged, by the same cabal, 10 years earlier than it was alleged.... does certainly stink.
You are absolutely correct, its not different. Except, that it IS treated as if its different by the administration.
Nobody is really complaining about the use of drones in the battlefield. Thats not the issue at all. The CIA drone strikes are happening in places like Yemen and Pakistan. Since when do US missles launched from ships, or fighter jets get aimed at yemen or pakistan? Why should drones suddenly be treated differently?
Differently in that they are in the CIA hands, differently in that they have been used in a far broader way that other, similar capabilities.
It doesn't matter as much how you prosecute a war in theater as it does how you decide when and where a theater of war exists, because it is nothing less than the ability to decide when the rule of law applies and when its suspended.
I never made any statement as to what is right or wrong, only what I have seen people do, and what, as far as I can tell the trend is. The question of whats right or wrong in this case is kind of besides the point.
Slashdot Mirror
> Entirely possible. That's what happened with the reintroduction of beer and wine after prohibition.
> Whisky use fell not increased. That's why I favor regulation to try and make scenarios like that play
> out.
Yet, we have seen, over and over, that prohibition causes this concentration of the drug availability into the highest potency/highest profit, and we have seen that, when people are left to their own free choices, they regularly make better choices.
Through all this, you still want to solve it with regulation? Regulation is not only not the answer its unjustified meddling in peoples personal lives and rights over their own body and mind. It is a basic denial of the freedom to pursue happiness.
I think we should ban any attempt of the government to regulate personal choices. Full ban on prohibition....and commencement of truth and reconciliation commissions to deal with the damage prohibition has done to society.
We wont have that, and I would not support us even trying to rebuild that, so long as we mis-use it to prosecute people for victimless crimes like drug laws. Thats why I have no respect for the so-called justice system, advocate not using it, not respecting it, and not talking highly of it.
Its just an abuse system now, and has been since before I was born. Thats what it is, thats the reputation we deserve, its why i cheer Anonymous when they get all vigilante. Thats what we need right now, a disintegration of the abusive old system.
Thats not a very reasonable analasys of the situation. Why would meth use come in so high? Do you want to use meth? Are you going to run out and start shooting heroin?
Seriously, do you actually think the numbers will increase that much? How about this scenario.... price of drugs comes down, people don't need to buy pure meth anymore, addicts can afford to not inject it.... other, less potent drugs (which have been pushed off the market) re-enter, and many of the people attracted to stims.... switch to those.
Heroin? Why? When opium is available, and there is no pressure on dealers to make the highest profit off the lowest volume, do you really think heroin addicts wouldn't turn to opium in droves? Wouldn't pick safer, less potent drugs and forms of drugs?
> The reason drugs can get banned is because they are so incredibly devastating to individuals to
> families and to communities when their use becomes common. Pretending they are harmless
> undermines other points.
All of which is made WORST, not better by prohibition. It doesn't even lower addiction rates. Rates have not changed over time, and problems just get worst. We see the same problems with alcohol and even non-drug related issues. Yet, drugs are somehow "special". Its BS is what it is....drugs can get banned because they make a convinenet scapegoat and present an easy (if impossible to achieve and highly ineffective) solution.... which makes for good talking points and easy campaign promises.
> there's no way to dodge the subject ... Teach the controversy? :)
Right so, maybe the real answer is we have long since reached the point of diminishing returns on enforcement and its time to.... stop hiring so many cops, and give them the opportunity to retrain for useful jobs?
> The day someone makes the natural Excel of programming will be glorious. But every way I can
> think of such a style, it just feels obtuse in so many ways.
So you want Befunge? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Befunge
I wasn't aware that patient medical data privacy and the international reputation of doctors and aid workers was a racist issue. So its racism not to say that we Americans should treat others the way that we insist that we be treated? Its racism to suggest that people in Pakistan deserve every bit as much honest medical care which respects their privacy and dignity in the same way that we here are supposed to get it?
Bottom line, what he did would have been a serious crime here in the US. Suggesting that we should hold ourselves up to our own standards in what we encourage be done to others is hardly racism.
Seriously. In south korea it is illegal to "insult the president", clearly not on our side with individual liberties. So why should I care what happens to their country? We have a defense department, our boarders are not in Korea. Fuck sending bombers, we should pull the fuck out of that country, and let them defend themselves.
Spot the fuck on.
I was agast when Secretarty of state Clinton said that doctor should be freed. What that man did would have been highly illegal here in the US, where we have specific patient medical records laws that specifically defend our right to privacy. It is disgusting that she would encourage and defend the violation of that right anywhere, for any reason. If anything, she should commend pakistan for punishing grievous violations of patient medical privacy rights.
Its sad when people in developing countries look at aid workers with a jaundiced eye and spread rumors about sham vaccination programs. Its an absolute travesty when their fears are justified.
....tourists? does the DPRK really have that many tourists? Like....can I get a visa to go there?
I mean yes, I am an American, and its probably illegal and my own government will probably threaten me and insist on detaining me for interviews after I try to return but, it could totally be worth it for the experience of seeing some of the things I have read about first hand.
Course if the DPRK did any searching on my online posts they would never give me a visa but.... tourists? That just boggles me. I mean, I hear they have some paper thin displays of modern city scapes and things setup just to fool foriegn visitors but, I never imagined anybody but officials and occasional journalists would be allowed in.
I wonder how many minutes I would be there before I said something that got my Visa revoked and me shoved back on a plane?
That is tangential to the real point though. Its not about whether they care, its about the future that is coming, and that future is being shaped, not by their higher birth rate, but by their inability to keep the flock together.
Their increased birth rate is not increasing their community; how they personally feel about it is a different issue entirely. The fact that they are a shrinking demographic despite their best efforts however, well....is hopeful.
While true, he can still get a passport, many countries will not allow him to enter based on the fact that he is on the list of convicted felons here. So while you are technically right, in practice, this is problematic.
Secondly, yes, I get it, it was wrong and stupid and he was irresponsible. Never said otherwise, I just question what it really takes to prevent him from doing it again and frankly, I look at all this commotion and hassle, court dates, lawyers etc, and, I am skeptical that either 1 day or 30 years would make a difference.... likely, the message has already been recieved loud and clear.,...and putting him all over the news for a few days will do more to set an example for others than putting him away in a cell to be out of the public eye for 3ish years.
So no, its not a good thing because its not necessary. Punishment should strive to be minimal whenever reasonable to be so.
Actually, I would consider that more appropriate. No harm no foul, lesson learned. The punishment isn't really what sets the example for others, its the getting caught and publically shamed. The perception of "you will get caught" has a much larger effect on behaviour than "if you get caught X will happen".
actually, I question the utility of jail time of any amount for all but the worst of violent/habitual offenders. So I wont be glad hes going to jail, id rather him spend his time in a soup kitchen helping people.... ie being seen, out in the community, showing people that people get caught for this sort of thing and it is bad....rather than tossed in a little room to be forgotten about for a couple of years... on the publics dime no less.
As far as I can tell from what I have seen, when it comes to being arrested or not, what you got caught doing matters, but your attitude matters too. So ability to think fast and inihibit impulses? Would that maybe include the impulse to blurt out confessions? The impulse to tell the cop what you really think about him "helping you" by confiscating that joint?
I know a few people that got more trouble than they deserved because they couldn't keep their mouths shut, and conversely those who, in almost identical situations, walked away because they cast their eyes down all submissive and sorry like and said "yes officer, your right officer, im sorry officer" even though they didn't mean a word of it.
Maybe these researchers are really on to something.
> It's just like legalizing weed. We have a huge chunk of the population that are drug addicts,
Not even close. We don't Have anything, those people are human beings who have every right to be addicts if they want to. Their body, their choice. Nobody is enslaved, and most of the serious issues around that.... the fact that they are exposed to a violent criminal underground.... is actually a result of prohibition not weed.
If weed were perfectly legal, people would buy it at the store, and if anyone came to their house with a gun and robbed them for their money and weed, they would have police to call who would investigate the crime and arrest the actual violent criminal. This is not the case now, so all you have done is take addicts, and hand them over to violent criminals to use and abuse.
Good job.
Except.
1. Kevlar takes time to put on and takes up a lot of space, glasses are small and can be put on quickly.
2. A person with a gun at short/medium range is much more likely to hit you in a meaningful way than a moron on the ground with a laser. I would bet that the pilot would have plenty of time to see the dot and grab the protection after he sees it, are there even any documented cases of a pilot being blinded by a laser? How many compared to reports of beams on aircraft? (also of note, passengers being blinded, while not life threatening to the whole plane, is still bad and unconscionable)
3. Embrace the power of AND. Is it perfect? No. However, when you have several hundred $ to transfer across town, you put it in a pocket or wallet, right? You don't, walk down the road with it clenched in your fist, do you? Do you lock the doors on your house? You know, people aren't supposed to break in (its illegal).
Quite simply, there are lots of things we "shouldn't have to do" that we accept we need to do because we know that there are and always will be people out there who are either not too bright, or not terribly morally oriented. Taking precautions against them, especially small, cheap precautions (like door locks and protective glasses) which are effective against some of the more common problems, makes sense.... more sense than doing nothing and dealing with the fallout.
Ok this guy did something monumentally stupid which, most certainly should serve as example for others. Done. Now whats with the 30 months in prison? Why must this guy be a felon? Now unable to leave the country, unable to vote in most places, unable to own a firearm.... all for something stupid that, he is unlikely to ever do again.
The punishment fetish in this country really needs to be checked, punishments are totally out of whack with crimes when we have people losing their rights indefinitely over something which, while it could have been disasterous wasn't, and more would have been served (and just as useful an example set) by using it as a teaching moment than by ruining this guys life and making crime one of his best options going forward.
But hey, the harsh punishment crowd can go stroke themselves over it, so someone benefits.
I think you are right on ESXi, actually. I Found it a while back when I was reviewing VMWare workstation. I never considered that ESXi would be under a less restrictive license than the workstation version. I guess that makes sense though, it gives small users who might otherwise use free hypervisors a step in their door.... but people using workstation are, like I was, trying to meet a specific need, less need to coax us in.
Check out that license again.... last I looked it was non-commercial use. Not only that, but its limited, no VSphere or any of that.
So this wouldn't really fly for...any of the use cases we are discussing. They may be best in breed for many features, but there is vanishingly little that they are the only game in town for.
Not only that, but as a "free" offering, they could stop offering it and stop updating it at any time, leaving anyone using it on the same buggy insecure version forever.
While its true an open source project may die, at least it dies, leaving you with options....and lets face it...nothing as high profile and highly used as the free hypervisors is just going to die off anytime soon.
And then they were suspended from school for bringing a pill dispenser, which could contain drugs, onto school property.
No drugs were found in the dispenser, but school officials are defending their decision, along with the decision to suspend their classmate when, upon hearing the news, made a gun with his fingers and said "they got em good".
Guns and drugs are banned on school property.
Seriously, do I have to think of everything?
Look you can produce a product, put it on the market, blah blah blah. Fuck that. Do what lockheed does.
1. Open a number of plants within the US, get the politicians to give speeches about how wonderful each plant will be locally. Make sure to choose towns that would be as deastated as possible by any future plant closure.
2. Lobby congress directly to buy the solar panels as a national security issue, and ignoring any irresponsible departments who claim they are not cost effective or they don't need them.
3. If #2 doesn't work right away, threaten to close individual plants, rinse and repeat until congress orders enough to ensure your profits. Be sure to tell your employees that the plant might be closing because of the uncertainty around government orders. Try to get the whole town involved.
4. Once they are buying them, get them to throw a few orders into the foriegn aid bucket. (Isreal needs solar power to keep it safe from Iran!)
5. Profit.
Nice try dude, might wanna check the number of digits in the userid you reply to before you complain about /. becoming anything.
You are right though, I wasn't quite alive yet then. I was in time for the B actor to steal the election, but, I was a bit young to be paying attention.
Happy trolling.
and.... wasn't this essentially the exact same tactic in '79 where it is alleged that the Reagan campaign made moves to sink hostage negotiations before the election against Carter?
But of course, that was never proven....but now seeing evidence of the same tactic alleged, by the same cabal, 10 years earlier than it was alleged.... does certainly stink.
You are absolutely correct, its not different. Except, that it IS treated as if its different by the administration.
Nobody is really complaining about the use of drones in the battlefield. Thats not the issue at all. The CIA drone strikes are happening in places like Yemen and Pakistan. Since when do US missles launched from ships, or fighter jets get aimed at yemen or pakistan? Why should drones suddenly be treated differently?
Differently in that they are in the CIA hands, differently in that they have been used in a far broader way that other, similar capabilities.
It doesn't matter as much how you prosecute a war in theater as it does how you decide when and where a theater of war exists, because it is nothing less than the ability to decide when the rule of law applies and when its suspended.
I never made any statement as to what is right or wrong, only what I have seen people do, and what, as far as I can tell the trend is. The question of whats right or wrong in this case is kind of besides the point.