Are you sure that is the truth? For all we know that IS how he was found, and information gained in that manner was then used to create a new evidence trail for public release and indictment. This is not a new technique and is one the DEA has been known to use. There have been several cases based on drugs "found" at "traffic stops" that were really the result of DEA special operations tips.
I think we have a winner. Even when you take it to the cause of murder.... what scenario can you even imagine where this guy contemplates taking out a hit on someone if not for.... the millions of dollars and decades in jail he was personally facing if discovered?
All of that...100% is caused by prohibition. drugs would barely be a profitable business to a few big companies and maybe a small number of mom and pop farmers if not for prohibition
You give people lots of resources and then put them in a position to be facing violence and years of incarceration and what the fuck do you expect people to do?
And all the while.... they haven't even touched the addiction rate, so what is is the fuking point of creating these situations and putting people in situations to want to kill eachother?
This is just more lives ruined by prohibitionists.
> Or sell it off for legit cash and move somewhere offshore.
Previous interviews with Roberts indicate that, just like his namesake, he indeed was not the founder but a guy who became involved and later purchased it from the founder. If the stories are to be believed, he was the first person to break their security and then, played ethical hacker and told them how he broke in and helped them fix the problem.
>Personally, I'm inclined to agree that free expression is one of those "blessings of liberty", > but I prefer having functional authority.
See and I come to this and see this is where we clearly most disagree.... because I firmly believe that without the blessings of liberty "functional authority" is an oxymoron. Without those there can be no legitimate authority.... just a large bunch of thugs.
> Again, the U.S. wasn't intended to be a democracy. It was set up as a republic
Republic implies representation, which, I am calling a farce. It was setup as a republic but, to maintain representation levels commensurate with the original voting populace, we would need around 100k people in congress. (somewhere around 90k last time I did out the numbers)
It was setup to be a republic for... a fraction of the people who exist, on a fraction of the land, at a time when it took weeks for information to move a few hundred miles.
> Try to remember this folks. Democracy is mob rule.
Pure, unrestricted democracy yes. Pure unrestricted republic is no better. That is why the founders, in their wisdom (yes, I will admit, they had some wisdom despite how I pan their creation) created a constitutional republic....limited by such promises as not restricting worship of religion of infringing upon a persons right to bear arms (notice it never grants any of those rights, only promises to respect them)
> less risk tolerant for gains (one in the hand is worth two in the bush)
"No guts no glory" and "You can't take it with you" both seem apt.
> It isn't about fiscal conservatism, but inconsistent application of probabilities. And it's that > inconsistency that was interesting.
Is it really inconsistent? I mean yes, changing, but, is the change necessarily inconsistent, perhaps they are entirely consistent with a different model of risk, one which takes into account things like the fact that they could be dead or disabled in a few years? Or like the fact that they don't have to worry about losses in other areas....a retired person doesn't have to worry about getting fired.
If I go out and get too drunk to work the next day, or pick up HIV, I have to worry about losing my job or dealing with lifelong medical consequences, they will not be effected income wise, and lifelong may only be 5 or 10 years, with no guarantee that they will be healthy enough to make this "bad decision" again, whether they do it or not.
Risk is not the same for all people at all times. Is a person who can't afford to gamble choosing to not gamble, inconsistent when he gets a better job, can afford it, and does? I would say thats actually consistent application of risk analysis.... output changing with input changes is not inconsistency.
Nothing they do actually protects us from attack because that is actually a ridiculously impossible goal. Its not even partially achievable in any meaningful way. Our only protection from attack is the lack of profit in actually attacking us that leaves all but an insignificant few even interested in trying, once in a great while.
No, the security apparatus and military is, AT BEST, security theater to make people feel safe, because the vast majority of terrorist attacks are the ones people imagine could happen.
Thats nothing new. Where was the representation before? There are 300 million people represented by about 600. Representation is a joke and has been for a long time. You don't institute a single non-transferable vote system because you want to represent people, you do it to manufacture consent for what you were going to do either way.
> When an activist intentionally breaks a law as an act of civil disobedience, > usually the goal is to be caught
So was every gay person who engaged in relationships with other gay people an activist? Or were they all criminal scum because they didn't intend to get caught?
> As a matter of course, anyone accused of a crime could be protected from inquiries > without a warrant, to prevent overzealous prosecutors from going after the activist's associates.
As a matter of course, we already can see the results of this. We already have drug cases where police have received secret tips and then manufactured a false chain of events to justify an arrest and hide the real source of information. This kind of protection after the fact is necessary, but its hardly sufficient: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805
> For a government that ostensibly follows the will of the people, protecting those participants from > injustice, regardless of their opinions, is its duty. Being inside those closed doors and aware of > everything going on, with strong operational security, helps fulfill that duty
follows the will of the people WITHIN LIMITS. It doesn't matter if the will of the people is to silence speech, it is not the governments job to enforce that.
Those limits specifically include protections against search. They specifically were aimed at preserving personal privacy behind closed doors. I cannot believe that the people who wrote the 4th and 5th amendments would have envisioned such a program as falling within their powers to implement.
Not for nothing but, welding supply gas doesn't have to be terribly clean, not like stuff rated for food service use. You likely don't actually want to inhale the nitrous used in welding supply unless you happen to know for sure that it really comes from the same big tank as the medical and food grade.
> Out here in the Wild and Woolly World of America, we sell all sorts of dangerous things that can kill > you if you breath them - we laugh at silly things like helium (and especially nitrous oxide). Hell son, > we'll even sell you a gun.
all sorts of dangerous things, including guns are available just about everywhere in the world. Do you mean to imply people in other places do not use paints or glues? If so, then I certainly did not know that. Also, as far as drugs go, nitrous is pretty innocuous as long as you don't do something monumentally stupid (like doing it while driving, standing, or in ways that leave no air supply for your soon to be lifeless body), or decide that being safe to use means you can use it every single day for a few weeks or months (few amusing case studies on that about the very special people who went down that road)
> We can do things that nobody else in the frikk'in world can do. > Like shut down the entire government over health care.
Entire what? I assure you the ENTIRE government is NOT shut down, just the "nonessential" stuff....you know, like everything that might benefit you or I. Anything that benefits politicians or their corperate masters are, most assuredly, still open for business as they are "Essential".
Health care is just the cover story, this is really just about making people hurt enough to remember who writes the checks and whose life and well-being is non-essential
This is a very good point, or at least, we don't think it does and have no reason to think it does. All we really know about chemtrails is that whatever is in them burns HOT! Because whatever it was burns much hotter than jet fuel if it was able to melt steel and bring those towers down.
> The NSA has built the ability to find evidence on an unprecedented scale. We should not fear such > an ability, but rather we should be demanding that such power directly and visibly serves the people.
I am not really sure I agree. A lot of progress socially and morally has come from law breakers. What goes on behind closed doors is a rather new area to be moving into and reveals many things that we may or may not have known was going on before...and I am not so sure thats unmitigated good.
If these abilities existed 30 years ago, where would the gay rights movement be today? Making it easier to gain "evidence" could have been absolutely terrible then. Had they existed 50 years ago, would the civil rights movement been able to organize?
What makes us think that today we have it all right and from this point forward knowing about everything will just be good? Frankly, I doubt a society that can enforce all of its laws all the time is capable of progress.
Looks like we have ourselves a plant! You think we don't know that tinfoil hats actually help to strengthen the orbital mind control signal? You aren't fooling slashdot that easily AC. Don't think we haven't been watching you, your comments have not gone unnoticed in this community Agent Coward
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the shake....er I mean shutdown?
If your computer stops responding to your input, stops updating your output stream, but instead continues to work on some other threads of execution, which have a much higher priority (as far as it is configured), do you normally call that state a "shut down"?
Yes I agree except in that you wouldn't see what I described as punishment. I find that odd, is it just that invasive surveillance is what we should come to expect normally so it can't be a punative?
That sounds very plausible. I bet a real player has a firing solution on a target far more often than he actually realizes it. Though knowing the technique does give some ideas on how to catch it.
> source: i wrote hacks for cs and cheated in the highest ranks of CAL without ever being suspected let alone caught.
Which I think brings up one of the reason casinos attract cheats beyond the money. Cheating and winning is a game too. In fact, its really no different from a bluff, you are not playing by the same rules, but you want to look like you are. However, in a casino, you have to do it while sitting in front of real people. I have to imagine that is a rush and a half....which like bluffing.... is also why so few can really do it well consistently.
If your motivation is being the best cheater.... then no amount of bitching about how it ruins the game for the rest of us is going to help.
Amusingly, I have a relative who is um I think almost 14 now. He started running cheats in games a couple of years ago after some cheater did something and convinced a bunch of other people he was the one running cheats. So they banned him and he started googling to figure out what they were talking about! Next thing you know, he is griefing himself.
That is because you haven't realized why a small increase in lo-jack in cars, without any increase in punishments, equates to a disproportionate decrease in car thefts. Those who are willing to commit just about any crime are more worried about getting caught at all than the punishment after getting caught. Making the punishment longer and harsher has shown to have little benefit.
Which makes perfect sense, its like the poker adage goes "If you never take a bad beat you are playing to tight", but likewise, the one thing a good player tries to avoid is going in on a likely loss....because more frequent small losses add up way bigger than bad beats. (btw, this is why playing good poker is a boring grind and most people can't hack it consistently enough and people who can rake in the money slowly over time)
Of course, I imagine it is also why most people make poor criminals too. Planning and waiting and finding the perfect opportunity are actual work and take skill....and are a lot less exciting than bluffing your jack shit offsuit because the king just dropped and he probably has the queen right?
Sure this guy is a different story but, it hardly matters, his activities could easily be curbed and better deterrents to recidivism could be given than tossing him in to socialize with other miscreants. If you don't think working every day, having his activities monitored, and seeing a good chunk of the money he has to work for, week after week, month after month wont drive the point home that he shouldn't keep tickling the dragon's balls, then why should sending him to club convict help?
> I disagree. Islam is such a problem because religious scripture is a large part of the legal system.
Oh just stop. The bible has plenty of condonement of all manner of wickedness, and even tries to codify laws. Ever heard of the much famed Leviticus, and lets not get all caught up on translations and what it means to lay with a man... the whole section is a bunch of laws, and prescribes putting people to death.
People will reinterpret what they want as they see fit. Thats all any religion is, a tapestry that you can project your own ideas on and reinterpret. Our culture took those people out of power, did away with their divine right of kings, and gave the pope a couple of square blocks and some swiss gaurds to play king in but mostly just because they have more money than god.
There is no reason the Muslims can't put their radicals in their place.
Prison? How draconian. Yes lets take him out of society, put him in with hardened criminals, and finish ruining any chances he has at legal employment in the future, and do it all on our dime. That has worked so great so far.
I would rather see him get treatment, supervision, and in house incarceration where he has to get a job and go to work every day. Hell, he can pay a portion of that salary to a fund for abused women (I would say his victims but, they likely don't want to be reminded of him every month).
Maybe its not punishmenty enough to get some law fetishist cocks hard, but I it would still be loss of liberty and hardship on him for a long time, and would likely lead to better outcomes than producing another petty criminal or eventual homeless person a few years down the road.
I hope not, that would be terrible. We already overpunish people for minor things like its going out of style. 90% give in without a trial and 90% of those who go to trial get convicted. What world are you living in? When there are trials and people get off...it makes national news. Stuff that happens every day doesn't make national news.
Slashdot Mirror
Are you sure that is the truth? For all we know that IS how he was found, and information gained in that manner was then used to create a new evidence trail for public release and indictment. This is not a new technique and is one the DEA has been known to use. There have been several cases based on drugs "found" at "traffic stops" that were really the result of DEA special operations tips.
I think we have a winner. Even when you take it to the cause of murder.... what scenario can you even imagine where this guy contemplates taking out a hit on someone if not for.... the millions of dollars and decades in jail he was personally facing if discovered?
All of that...100% is caused by prohibition. drugs would barely be a profitable business to a few big companies and maybe a small number of mom and pop farmers if not for prohibition
You give people lots of resources and then put them in a position to be facing violence and years of incarceration and what the fuck do you expect people to do?
And all the while.... they haven't even touched the addiction rate, so what is is the fuking point of creating these situations and putting people in situations to want to kill eachother?
This is just more lives ruined by prohibitionists.
> Or sell it off for legit cash and move somewhere offshore.
Previous interviews with Roberts indicate that, just like his namesake, he indeed was not the founder but a guy who became involved and later purchased it from the founder. If the stories are to be believed, he was the first person to break their security and then, played ethical hacker and told them how he broke in and helped them fix the problem.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/andygreenberg/2013/08/14/meet-the-dread-pirate-roberts-the-man-behind-booming-black-market-drug-website-silk-road/
>Personally, I'm inclined to agree that free expression is one of those "blessings of liberty",
> but I prefer having functional authority.
See and I come to this and see this is where we clearly most disagree.... because I firmly believe that without the blessings of liberty "functional authority" is an oxymoron. Without those there can be no legitimate authority.... just a large bunch of thugs.
> Again, the U.S. wasn't intended to be a democracy. It was set up as a republic
Republic implies representation, which, I am calling a farce. It was setup as a republic but, to maintain representation levels commensurate with the original voting populace, we would need around 100k people in congress. (somewhere around 90k last time I did out the numbers)
It was setup to be a republic for... a fraction of the people who exist, on a fraction of the land, at a time when it took weeks for information to move a few hundred miles.
> Try to remember this folks. Democracy is mob rule.
Pure, unrestricted democracy yes. Pure unrestricted republic is no better. That is why the founders, in their wisdom (yes, I will admit, they had some wisdom despite how I pan their creation) created a constitutional republic....limited by such promises as not restricting worship of religion of infringing upon a persons right to bear arms (notice it never grants any of those rights, only promises to respect them)
> less risk tolerant for gains (one in the hand is worth two in the bush)
"No guts no glory" and "You can't take it with you" both seem apt.
> It isn't about fiscal conservatism, but inconsistent application of probabilities. And it's that
> inconsistency that was interesting.
Is it really inconsistent? I mean yes, changing, but, is the change necessarily inconsistent, perhaps they are entirely consistent with a different model of risk, one which takes into account things like the fact that they could be dead or disabled in a few years? Or like the fact that they don't have to worry about losses in other areas....a retired person doesn't have to worry about getting fired.
If I go out and get too drunk to work the next day, or pick up HIV, I have to worry about losing my job or dealing with lifelong medical consequences, they will not be effected income wise, and lifelong may only be 5 or 10 years, with no guarantee that they will be healthy enough to make this "bad decision" again, whether they do it or not.
Risk is not the same for all people at all times. Is a person who can't afford to gamble choosing to not gamble, inconsistent when he gets a better job, can afford it, and does? I would say thats actually consistent application of risk analysis.... output changing with input changes is not inconsistency.
The United States of America.
Nothing they do actually protects us from attack because that is actually a ridiculously impossible goal. Its not even partially achievable in any meaningful way. Our only protection from attack is the lack of profit in actually attacking us that leaves all but an insignificant few even interested in trying, once in a great while.
No, the security apparatus and military is, AT BEST, security theater to make people feel safe, because the vast majority of terrorist attacks are the ones people imagine could happen.
Thats nothing new. Where was the representation before? There are 300 million people represented by about 600. Representation is a joke and has been for a long time. You don't institute a single non-transferable vote system because you want to represent people, you do it to manufacture consent for what you were going to do either way.
> When an activist intentionally breaks a law as an act of civil disobedience,
> usually the goal is to be caught
So was every gay person who engaged in relationships with other gay people an activist? Or were they all criminal scum because they didn't intend to get caught?
> As a matter of course, anyone accused of a crime could be protected from inquiries
> without a warrant, to prevent overzealous prosecutors from going after the activist's associates.
As a matter of course, we already can see the results of this. We already have drug cases where police have received secret tips and then manufactured a false chain of events to justify an arrest and hide the real source of information. This kind of protection after the fact is necessary, but its hardly sufficient: http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/08/05/us-dea-sod-idUSBRE97409R20130805
> For a government that ostensibly follows the will of the people, protecting those participants from
> injustice, regardless of their opinions, is its duty. Being inside those closed doors and aware of
> everything going on, with strong operational security, helps fulfill that duty
follows the will of the people WITHIN LIMITS. It doesn't matter if the will of the people is to silence speech, it is not the governments job to enforce that.
Those limits specifically include protections against search. They specifically were aimed at preserving personal privacy behind closed doors. I cannot believe that the people who wrote the 4th and 5th amendments would have envisioned such a program as falling within their powers to implement.
Not for nothing but, welding supply gas doesn't have to be terribly clean, not like stuff rated for food service use. You likely don't actually want to inhale the nitrous used in welding supply unless you happen to know for sure that it really comes from the same big tank as the medical and food grade.
> Out here in the Wild and Woolly World of America, we sell all sorts of dangerous things that can kill
> you if you breath them - we laugh at silly things like helium (and especially nitrous oxide). Hell son,
> we'll even sell you a gun.
all sorts of dangerous things, including guns are available just about everywhere in the world. Do you mean to imply people in other places do not use paints or glues? If so, then I certainly did not know that. Also, as far as drugs go, nitrous is pretty innocuous as long as you don't do something monumentally stupid (like doing it while driving, standing, or in ways that leave no air supply for your soon to be lifeless body), or decide that being safe to use means you can use it every single day for a few weeks or months (few amusing case studies on that about the very special people who went down that road)
> We can do things that nobody else in the frikk'in world can do.
> Like shut down the entire government over health care.
Entire what? I assure you the ENTIRE government is NOT shut down, just the "nonessential" stuff....you know, like everything that might benefit you or I. Anything that benefits politicians or their corperate masters are, most assuredly, still open for business as they are "Essential".
Health care is just the cover story, this is really just about making people hurt enough to remember who writes the checks and whose life and well-being is non-essential
This is a very good point, or at least, we don't think it does and have no reason to think it does. All we really know about chemtrails is that whatever is in them burns HOT! Because whatever it was burns much hotter than jet fuel if it was able to melt steel and bring those towers down.
I know that word, and I do not think it means what you think it means.
> The NSA has built the ability to find evidence on an unprecedented scale. We should not fear such
> an ability, but rather we should be demanding that such power directly and visibly serves the people.
I am not really sure I agree. A lot of progress socially and morally has come from law breakers. What goes on behind closed doors is a rather new area to be moving into and reveals many things that we may or may not have known was going on before...and I am not so sure thats unmitigated good.
If these abilities existed 30 years ago, where would the gay rights movement be today? Making it easier to gain "evidence" could have been absolutely terrible then. Had they existed 50 years ago, would the civil rights movement been able to organize?
What makes us think that today we have it all right and from this point forward knowing about everything will just be good? Frankly, I doubt a society that can enforce all of its laws all the time is capable of progress.
Even a broken conspiracy is right twice an epoch.
Looks like we have ourselves a plant! You think we don't know that tinfoil hats actually help to strengthen the orbital mind control signal? You aren't fooling slashdot that easily AC. Don't think we haven't been watching you, your comments have not gone unnoticed in this community Agent Coward
Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of the shake....er I mean shutdown?
If your computer stops responding to your input, stops updating your output stream, but instead continues to work on some other threads of execution, which have a much higher priority (as far as it is configured), do you normally call that state a "shut down"?
Yes I agree except in that you wouldn't see what I described as punishment. I find that odd, is it just that invasive surveillance is what we should come to expect normally so it can't be a punative?
That sounds very plausible. I bet a real player has a firing solution on a target far more often than he actually realizes it. Though knowing the technique does give some ideas on how to catch it.
> source: i wrote hacks for cs and cheated in the highest ranks of CAL without ever being suspected let alone caught.
Which I think brings up one of the reason casinos attract cheats beyond the money. Cheating and winning is a game too. In fact, its really no different from a bluff, you are not playing by the same rules, but you want to look like you are. However, in a casino, you have to do it while sitting in front of real people. I have to imagine that is a rush and a half....which like bluffing.... is also why so few can really do it well consistently.
If your motivation is being the best cheater.... then no amount of bitching about how it ruins the game for the rest of us is going to help.
Amusingly, I have a relative who is um I think almost 14 now. He started running cheats in games a couple of years ago after some cheater did something and convinced a bunch of other people he was the one running cheats. So they banned him and he started googling to figure out what they were talking about! Next thing you know, he is griefing himself.
Ahhhh kids.
That is because you haven't realized why a small increase in lo-jack in cars, without any increase in punishments, equates to a disproportionate decrease in car thefts. Those who are willing to commit just about any crime are more worried about getting caught at all than the punishment after getting caught. Making the punishment longer and harsher has shown to have little benefit.
Which makes perfect sense, its like the poker adage goes "If you never take a bad beat you are playing to tight", but likewise, the one thing a good player tries to avoid is going in on a likely loss....because more frequent small losses add up way bigger than bad beats. (btw, this is why playing good poker is a boring grind and most people can't hack it consistently enough and people who can rake in the money slowly over time)
Of course, I imagine it is also why most people make poor criminals too. Planning and waiting and finding the perfect opportunity are actual work and take skill....and are a lot less exciting than bluffing your jack shit offsuit because the king just dropped and he probably has the queen right?
Sure this guy is a different story but, it hardly matters, his activities could easily be curbed and better deterrents to recidivism could be given than tossing him in to socialize with other miscreants. If you don't think working every day, having his activities monitored, and seeing a good chunk of the money he has to work for, week after week, month after month wont drive the point home that he shouldn't keep tickling the dragon's balls, then why should sending him to club convict help?
> I disagree. Islam is such a problem because religious scripture is a large part of the legal system.
Oh just stop. The bible has plenty of condonement of all manner of wickedness, and even tries to codify laws. Ever heard of the much famed Leviticus, and lets not get all caught up on translations and what it means to lay with a man... the whole section is a bunch of laws, and prescribes putting people to death.
People will reinterpret what they want as they see fit. Thats all any religion is, a tapestry that you can project your own ideas on and reinterpret. Our culture took those people out of power, did away with their divine right of kings, and gave the pope a couple of square blocks and some swiss gaurds to play king in but mostly just because they have more money than god.
There is no reason the Muslims can't put their radicals in their place.
Your right, I would generally consider this better than imprisonment in the vast majority of cases.
Prison? How draconian. Yes lets take him out of society, put him in with hardened criminals, and finish ruining any chances he has at legal employment in the future, and do it all on our dime. That has worked so great so far.
I would rather see him get treatment, supervision, and in house incarceration where he has to get a job and go to work every day. Hell, he can pay a portion of that salary to a fund for abused women (I would say his victims but, they likely don't want to be reminded of him every month).
Maybe its not punishmenty enough to get some law fetishist cocks hard, but I it would still be loss of liberty and hardship on him for a long time, and would likely lead to better outcomes than producing another petty criminal or eventual homeless person a few years down the road.
I hope not, that would be terrible. We already overpunish people for minor things like its going out of style. 90% give in without a trial and 90% of those who go to trial get convicted. What world are you living in? When there are trials and people get off...it makes national news. Stuff that happens every day doesn't make national news.
> Or Asperger's and cursing - just because some find it uncontrollable, everyone else excuses their profane language that way.
I certainly don't. But then again, I never felt it should need a fucking excuse.