|
I agree with everything you said on the subject.
As for marijuana, it should not have been listed as a schedule one drug, like heroin, in the first place. Back in the day, the US federal government had to go all out with the propaganda machine in order to convince enough states to sign on to that ridiculous idea. People stoned on marijuana do not change into drug crazed maniacs, as per the propaganda at the time. They are more likely to zone out and forget what ever is was they were planning to do. Studies back then and since then has shown that alcohol is ultimately worse, and some of those people actually do become maniacal.
Question:
What's the difference between a drunk person and a stoned one?
Answer:
The drunk may blow past the stop sign at the intersection like it is not there. The stoned person will stop and wait for it to turn green.
One of those will get people killed. The other is just annoying to the rest of us.
INTP
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." - Edsger Dijkstra
"I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks. " - Daniel Boone
|
|
|
|
|
John R. Shaw wrote: What's the difference between a drunk person and a stoned one?
I remember the argument actual police forces were trying to make when the law had passed, but was not yet into effect - claiming that it was being rushed, they weren't ready, and they did not have the equipment or training needed to catch someone driving stoned.
WTF? Some people have been driving stoned long before the law came into effect...were police forces admitting they couldn't catch those people then? To that end, the law didn't change anything - it was illegal to drive stoned before, and it still is after. What was there to get "ready" for?
|
|
|
|
|
I agree, that makes no sense. A officer with any experience at all can tell when somebody is stoned. As for stopping someone, the first sign is the strong odor eliminating from the vehicle.
When the state of Colorado made it legal, they obviously were not prepared either. Because all they did was modify their existing laws to include being stoned. More accurately they just decided that being stoned was the same as being drunk and applied the same laws. Which goes to show, that they had no idea what the difference was.
INTP
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." - Edsger Dijkstra
"I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks. " - Daniel Boone
|
|
|
|
|
Agreed. Only those who are dangerously violent belong in prison. The courts should focus on restitution to whatever extent possible. And if there's no one to make whole, there wasn't a crime, so good riddance to all victimless crime laws.
|
|
|
|
|
When a person is convicted of a crime, the common options available for society are shaming, restitution, correction, prevention, and vengeance.
Shaming is no longer practiced in most modern countries (you don't see people in the stocks very often these days).
Restitution is appropriate for crimes involving money (theft, burglary, damage to property, embezzlement, etc.). In other cases (assault, bodily harm, etc.) restitution may be part of the punishment but should not be all of it.
Correction is appropriate when the "root cause" of the crime is known. It is the "Holy Grail" of criminology, but despite many theories being propounded and much money being spent, we are no closer to understanding the "root causes" of crime than we were in the distant past, to say nothing of finding a cure.
If all else fails, we can, at least, keep the criminal away from the rest of us, which is the purpose of prisons.
Finally, let's not ignore the role of vengeance in human affairs. It is probably better to let the Law mete out a measured amount of vengeance to a criminal than have people start blood feuds that can go on for generations.
Our legal systems are far from perfect, but most Western countries are at least trying to make the punishment fit the crime.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with you.
I once read about a law somewhere that required a burglar, or monetary thief, to pay the victim 2 or more times the amount they stole from them. That sounds like a reasonable punishment punishment to me.
INTP
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." - Edsger Dijkstra
"I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks. " - Daniel Boone
|
|
|
|
|
That is the Biblical law (Exodus 21 verse 37 - Exodus 22 verse 3).
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Shaming is no longer practiced in most modern countries (you don't see people in the stocks very often these days).
National Geographic had (maybe still has) a TV series called "Taboo". In one of the early seasons, one episode addressed "Justice", and one of the case studies was from Huston, Texas, where you could be sentenced to walk up and down along the highway, carrying a big sign: "I did so-and-so". You can't deny that this is explicit shaming, humiliation. (I guess that denying that Huston, Texas, lies in a "modern country" would be unacceptable politics in the Lounge...  )
It looks like this Taboo episode was produced in 2003, so it is almost 18 years old. Maybe the practice has ended today. But 18 years ago, it was practiced, and in the episode, there are some strong defenders of it. So it probably didn't disappear immediately after the publication of the NGT TV program.
|
|
|
|
|
I'm aware of similar cases, which is why I wrote most modern countries.
Shaming can be very effective - if done in the correct forum. There was a case of a man who had the nasty habit of exposing himself in public. His sentence was reported in the local paper (read by about 100,000 people), but as he had a common name, he could ignore it. When it was reported in the newsletter of his professional association, read by only a few hundred people personally known to him, he became suicidal.
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Pfeffer wrote: Our legal systems are far from perfect, but most Western countries are at least trying to make the punishment fit the crime.
There's still a long way to go in that respect. Compare time served by mere hackers against rapists and murderers.
Heck, does Ed Snowden deserve to live a life of exile? Julian Assange?
|
|
|
|
|
A rapist or murderer does extreme damage retail. A "mere hacker" does (mostly) small damage wholesale.
A hacker can also cause major damage wholesale. For example, how many people would die if a hacker brought down the electrical grid in your area, or if a hacker published sensitive data regarding ongoing intelligence operations?
I won't comment on specific cases, as that would be verging too closely to "politics in the lounge".
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows.
-- 6079 Smith W.
|
|
|
|
|
I understand your line of reasoning, but how many actual, real-life instances have there been of hackers affecting people (on a large scale, as you're suggesting would be possible) in the same way a murder affects one person (and that person's social circle)?
But then, I remember an article from the BBC a few months ago in which the NHS mentioned people have died on an operating table because some ransomware prevented staff from accessing hospital records. Now that, I have no problem sending those responsible with the rapists and murderers.
|
|
|
|
|
I agree with some of what you say. Depending on the offense, sending someone to jail or prison should be the last option.
Putting a bunch of career criminals together in one place is probably not a good idea. For some of them, but not all, it is like sending them to school on how to be a better criminal.
On the other hand, I have also met people who had been to prison and now live a normal law abiding life. Some people just seem to have to have the experience before they understand why should avoid it.
I read an article a couple of yeas ago that impressed me quite a bit. I forget which country it was. What they did was change their law and started treating drug addiction as a sickness. Which makes sense to me. They had to go through mandatory rehabilitation. But the drug dealers were punished severely, as if they had committed murder. Which they may have done indirectly, if not literally. Of course this line of action worked, because it actually made sense.
Hopefully, other countries will pick up on this logical solution to this big societal problem. The number of people in the USA that are in prison minor drug offenses is ridiculous.
INTP
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." - Edsger Dijkstra
"I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks. " - Daniel Boone
|
|
|
|
|
John R. Shaw wrote: The number of people in the USA that are in prison minor drug offenses is ridiculous.
Reasons aside, I do believe the US has been named as the one country with the most inmates per capita. And yes, minor drug offenses probably accounts for a significant part of those numbers.
|
|
|
|
|
 And here I thought we were number one.
INTP
"Program testing can be used to show the presence of bugs, but never to show their absence." - Edsger Dijkstra
"I have never been lost, but I will admit to being confused for several weeks. " - Daniel Boone
|
|
|
|
|
brilliant bake enticed 100 grandmothers (12)
I didn't think this one would survive. Now I have to come up with another one. 
brilliant (definition)
bake (anagram)
enticed ENTICED
100 C
grandmothers NANS
INCANDESCENT
modified 4-Feb-21 11:02am.
|
|
|
|
|
I actually got that but couldn't work out why - good clue
"I didn't mention the bats - he'd see them soon enough" - Hunter S Thompson - RIP
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks. But you need to know why you got it right?!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Just a bit of irony, though: once I stopped (pretending to be to be a trader) buying and selling, and kept stocks patiently, some giving dividends (much better than bank interest) the value of the portfolio want from a slow drain to quadrupling.
Some (Lucky) examples: my average price for AMD: $2.50/sh ; for Starbucks, $7.83/sh. The Q's (QQQ) cost me $50/sh (only 100 of these - that was a big investment at the time).
I become somewhat successful when I realized the game was rigged and small investors' (read that traders) portfolios were simply there to be harvested.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
I do kind of both.
The big part is in calmed mode for the long term. Dividends or ocasional sell and buy gain later or another thing.
But I have a small part too, that I allow me to get in speculation. It is money I don't need to live and won't hurt me more than in my own pride if I lose it.
And if I lose it, I will only allow me again to do such with money after a certain time (I set my own limit on 50€ a month, so if I lose 1000€ I wait 20 months until I can "dispose" of that amount for speculation again)
An yes... I already know too that every stock is a risk and that companies can go down every moment (see Wirecard or similars)
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Nelek wrote: so if WHEN I lose 1000€ I wait 20 months until I can "dispose" of that amount for speculation again)
FIFY
But at least you are aware of what you're involved in. My start wasn't stock but commodity options. Basically, I went to swim with the sharks. Like many, at first it seemed I couldn't lose. They giveth and they taketh away - and they taketh away a lot faster. Lots of lessons learned, and one of them (which you are implicitly acknowledging with your €50/month donation) is that it's basically a world-wide crap shoot for most of us and a cash cow for the wealthy.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote:
But at least you are aware of what you're involved in.
I hope it too But only one thing is sure... I still have A LOT to learn about it. But I have no hurry, I am not going professional on it.
W∴ Balboos, GHB wrote: Like many, at first it seemed I couldn't lose.
I earned it soon too. I got caught with Wirecard... I could have lost almost 4k, but I managed to reduce it to 2,1k by being patient and rejoining when the sharks got in.
So far I still managed to end 2020 with small green numbers.
M.D.V.
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
That explains it, all right. The commodities markets are infested with sharks and are rife with corruption. Not to mention that you're sometimes fighting the "official" sector and that the long-term trend for commodity prices is down, the result of technological improvements that lower their cost of production.
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, no. It's a loony bin with a big edge for those with the most money. Typical, in fact, of all gambling. Why do I say this?
After having my ass kicked by shorting sliver options I knew I"d have to "get back on bicycle" as soon as possible. I quickly turned around an oil contract and "won" back a few hundred dollars (and also knew to never short an option because that's like buy the future). This was during the Iran/Iraq war. I did other oil contracts and then Iran attacked and damaged an Iraqi oil tanker in the Persian Gulf. WOW, I thought. Golden days for my oil contract! No. It went down. Why? Because the anal-ists said (always ex post facto) that traders now feel the big governments will get involved and stabilize the oil market.
The reality is there is no real predictability in the market by any algorithm. The day that algorithm is developed is the day the markets end. Everyone will predict the same thing (because the algorithm works) and will want to do the same thing at the same time. None the less, there are always believers who never learn that the bigger money can hold out longer and, even when they don't control prices they can weather the down-turn storms whilst you cash out a loser.
| Ravings en masse^ |
|---|
| "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." - Albert Einstein | | "If you are searching for perfection in others, then you seek disappointment. If you seek perfection in yourself, then you will find failure." - Balboos HaGadol Mar 2010 |
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
