Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment Re:the origins of the 4th amendment (Score 1) 610

yup

the lack of transparency is a catastrophe for the future of this country

in history books they will write that the post-9/11 mandate of the nsa was the end of the usa, for it truly betrays the country's principles in stunningly vile fashion

next comes the corruption and the manipulation on a controlling level, it's already started at an ad hoc level

Comment the origins of the 4th amendment (Score 3, Insightful) 610

the origins of the 4th amendment are these:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Writ_of_assistance

a writ of assistance is just as much of an abuse as what the NSA does

disgust with the writs of assistance was a genuine grievance and a genuine motivating factor in the founding of this country

so conceptually, the mandate of the NSA is a direct contradiction to a foundational concept of the usa

the difference?

a writ of assistance involves some rude assholes barging into your life and your business and messing up your stuff

meanwhile, what the NSA does is secret, quiet, and unseen

the difference between something invisible and in your face is all the difference in the world, even if it is the same abuse

but eventually, the negative effects will accumulate

extremely vile and unpleasant abuses will occur as the power of the NSA grows. selling information about a candidate or government official for blackmail purposes for example. that judge making that important decision on that coal power plant? blackmail him. that candidate that might spring the balance of power democratic or republican? blackmail him

with 100% certainty this abuse will happen, if it is not happening already. power and corruption and secret dealings: can't be helped, it's inevitable. only transparency prevents corruption, and the NSA is opaque by design, so corruption is a certainty

only then will the outcry reverse these growing NSA tentacles

the problem is, at that point, since they will know everything, will any resistance be effective enough?

Comment Re:A FiOS (Score 0) 202

#27,315 of the collusional and oligarchic things that happen in real life that libertarians won't admit to when they enthuse about their ideology

apparently the free market regulates itself, and consumer choice takes care of problems like this. seriously?

why do people believe this free market fundamentalism nonsense?

simple fact: a market needs to be heavily regulated by a strong central govt, or small competitors get crushed and consumers get abused

wake up fanboys

Comment Re:just a note of clarification (Score 1) 620

yes, consider alcohol, and consider that the costs of prohibition are greater than the costs of the drug itself

then consider meth, and consider that the costs of the drug itself are greater than the costs of prohibition

each drug is different. each drug deserves its own legal status quo

to think the same drug policy can apply to all drugs is ignorant of the subject matter

Comment just a note of clarification (Score 1) 620

because some people don't get the difference between decriminalization and illegality

portugal is very much invested in the war on hard drugs, but with far better tactics than the usa: treat it as a healthcare problem, not a jail problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal

In July 2001 a new law maintained the status of illegality for using or possessing any drug for personal use without authorization. The offense was changed from a criminal one, with prison a possible punishment, to an administrative one if the amount possessed was no more than ten days' supply of that substance.[1] This was in line with the de facto Portuguese drug policy before the reform. Drug addicts were then to be aggressively targeted with therapy or community service rather than fines or waivers.[7] Even if there are no criminal penalties, these changes did not legalize drug use in Portugal. Possession has remained prohibited by Portuguese law, and criminal penalties are still applied to drug growers, dealers and traffickers.[8][9]

hard drug addicts represent a cost on society and civilization will always be at war with hard drug abuse, forever, in an attempt to minimize this cost

it is merely a maintenance function of society, this war. you need to take the trash out ever thursday: this is your "war on trash." because "the war on trash" never ends, is that an argument to let trash accumulate in your apartment?

no, taking out the trash is merely a maintenance function of your apartment. just like minimizing drug addicts is a maintenance function of society

portugal is still at war with hard drugs, as is every functional society on earth. forever

portugal just has much better tactics in this maintenance function

Comment Re:Well... (Score 1) 620

i am for better tactics in the war/ maintenance function: healthcare, not prisons, for example

however, we can't even control oxycodone distribution and abuse, and that's a completely artificial substance for healthcare

and you really think the market for meth will be controlled if we regulate it and tax it?

nevermind that this is a substance that does grave medical harm to people. you want us to freely sell such a substance?

no

we treat people for addiction rather than throwing them in prison, yes

but we also still crack down on the supply and demand. we don't regulate and tax a highly addictive and medically harmful substance: more people will simply be addicted and damaged, and society is not going to subsidize and tolerate this tragedy

we're going to do our best to make sure you don't get meth. and if you still get it, we'll treat you

we're not going to make it easier to get meth. that simply means easier medical harm and addiction

you say it is already easy to get meth? so this means we should make it even more easy?

Slashdot Top Deals

Don't compare floating point numbers solely for equality.

Working...