Please do not set up the EFF for regulatory capture.
Please do not set up the EFF for regulatory capture.
Sometimes there's sufficient evidence that to deny a conspiracy is to be irrational.
It's important because this could have legal consequences. And that's the only reason.
If I call a mule's tail a leg, it remains a tail. Schedule I is only significant in the context of legal repercussions. It's not a valid logical category in any other context. It doesn't tell you, e.g., anything about possible medical uses, even though it explicitly purports to.
They are by no means the most harmful drugs. Belladona would be a good choice if that was what you were considering.
Tobacco and nicotine are two of the most attractive of the moderately harmful drugs. Most people aren't really attracted to strychnine.
What happened is there is a puritanical groups that seized control, and they decided that they had the right to tell everyone what they should be like, and that what they should be like is the way god made them. There are advantages to this as well as disadvantages, so they were able to suppress all except the very most popular drugs. Their success can be measured by the fact that the DEA will prosecute doctors who prescribe too much pain relieving medication. The underlying belief is that if god causes you to feel pain, you should be in pain.
In most cases I believe that drugs should be legal to purchase, and to sell, and to manufacture, and to transport, but not to advertise either directly or through sponsorship of media that use "placement ads" for them. And in this I include pharmaceuticals used to treat illnesses as well as other drugs, and I feel no distinction should be made. (I.e., I don't feel any of them except antibiotics and, perhaps, a very few others should have their sale regulated.)
I don't believe you, though I suspect *you* believe you. Perhaps you should wonder what you were actually taking.
That's not a good comparison. LSD is reportedly not addictive. Sugar is. (Mildly if taken in isolation.) Chocolate probably isn't, but it's usually packaged in a form that contains fats and sugar, which *is* an addictive combination.
P.S.: There are addictive personalities, and people who have them can easily become addicted to normally non-addictive substances. And there are also variations among people's chemistries, such that some of them readily become addicted to things that most people don't become addicted to. Reportedly there's a sizable fraction of the population that wouldn't become addicted to opiates. Supposedly when heroin was invented as a non-addictive cough syrup it was tested on 25 people who all happened to be of a groups that didn't become addicted to it easily.
Do you also campaign to reclaim the word "hacker'? Those battles are lost.
It's a source that nobody knowledgeable appears to have contradicted. Challenging the source is reasonable if the information is untested. If it isn't challenged (and I notice you didn't challenge it) then it gains plausibility.
P.S.: Your attack is an actual ad hominem attack, admittedly against a dubious character. But just because the source is unreliable doesn't mean the information is wrong. And it was presented to a vocal audience with many knowledgeable individuals in it. So I tend to think that systemd does provide root services to users without rights to use those services. And this does sound like a dangerous weakness.
My sudoers file is empty. (I suppose I *could* remove it, but it's already unusable.) su is necessary. This is an unnecessary hole.
FWIW, I have not seen any advantages to systemd, and I have not heard of any advantages that I would personally find advantageous. And there do seem to be potential problems.
E,g, faster boot times don't impress me at all. I'd be more impressed by longer up times. I find binary logs dubious, and many people have reported problems with them. Etc.
I have not personally had any actual problems with systemd, but it's not clear how I'd resolve them were they to occur.
So I'm both dubious about the advantages and worried about possible disadvantages. Sufficiently so that if a BSD supported the ext4 file system I would have a test installation running. But not yet sufficiently to reformat my file systems.
With documentation like that I tend to wonder whether idiot is the correct term, or whether malice should be assumed.
Yii! That sounds extremely dangerous, as in local malware == root control.
I had been apathetic (disliking, but apathetic) about systemd, but now I'm thinking I should switch to something that doesn't have it.
It's a contract of adhesion, and those are limited in what they can require. As to what the limits are, I don't know, and it would probably depend on your jurisdiction anyway.
FWIW, even standard contracts are limited in what the state is allowed to enforce.... but as far as I know, each contract requires a separate lawsuit. And the first item of business would probably be as to whether they can force you to use arbitration with their selected arbitrator.
I'm not convinced that there's a reasonable chance that you would EVER get your stuff back, no matter how much time and effort you spent on it. And I've heard things that cause me to believe that it's not only tourists that suffer.
It's not so much power that corrupts, as lack of consequences. Admittedly, the two are often closely intertwined.
Maybe. That's an official story, and it might be true.
It's not only US politicians that are liars.
On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. -- Cartoon caption