Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: '...no substantial benefit.' (Score 1) 474

The War on Drugs does provide a substantial benefit -- for the police forces who can buy shiny new toys by auctioning off stuff seized via asset forfeiture; the owners of private prisons; drug kingpins who earn their filthy lucre from peddling illicit wares; the members of public-sector prison-guard unions; and the laboratories who get to charge outrageous amounts of money to administer and process drug tests.

The general public, of course, does not share in this bounty and furthermore suffers from higher rates of violent crime spawned by prohibition.

Comment: Re:Considering Bush did this... (Score 3, Insightful) 219

by sydbarrett74 (#47427019) Attached to: After NSA Spying Flap, Germany Asks CIA Station Chief to Depart
As to why the 'cheap shot', it's because Obama has been expanding upon many of Bush's most-hated policies. In his campaign speeches, he promised to scale back the War on Terror, close Gitmo and rein in the surveillance apparatus. He has done none of these things, and has indeed intensified those efforts.

Comment: Re:Which is why (Score 1) 288

by sydbarrett74 (#46465769) Attached to: How Ireland Got Apple's $9 Billion Australian Profit

It throws the burden of taxation more on the wealthy, because they buy more things, and they be the least harmed, because they are wealthy.

Erm, no . If Bill Gates is a million times wealthier than me, do you think he buys a million times more automobiles? He does consume more than I do, but nowhere near in proportion to his greater overall wealth. You're committing a fallacy of composition. The wealthy may consume 10 or 100 times more, but the bulk of the difference in income and wealth are locked up in bonds and offshore accounts. This stuff gets passed onto their progeny, creating a de facto dynastic ruling class.

Comment: Follow the money (Score 1) 289

The people who profit from making all these inane rules are ultimately the manufacturers of the screening equipment, the people training security staff, et cetera. In other words, the military-industrial-security complex. It is with them (and the politicians who sell us out to them) that we must start redressing our grievances. We must also stop sensationalising every one-in-a-million occurrence (terrorism, being struck twice by lightning) and start mitigating the effects of problems that will likely impact us all (e.g., climate change).

Comment: Re:It's Like The Last Piece Of Technology That Wor (Score 1) 218

by sydbarrett74 (#46133889) Attached to: FCC Wants To Trial Shift From Analog Phone Networks To Digital

Your telephone line is a private circuit. Chances are, if someone's phone line got a short circuit -- the other circuits are intact -- it's not everybody elses.

That may be true if you're a rural customer and/or have DSL. However, if you live in a (sub)urban location and don't have DSL, chance are you're provisioned from a SLC-96. If so, your line is only private between your residence and the SLC-96 cabinet. From that point on to the central office, you're sharing a circuit with 23 other customers (a SLC-96 cabinet has 4 active DS1 circuits, with 1 spare; 4 x 24 = 96, hence the name).

You can't have everything... where would you put it? -- Steven Wright

Working...