greenisland

Fair from what perspective? I'm a conservative who hates drugs, homosexuality, feminism, and a whole host of other ills that now plague this once-great nation. We are now awash as a nation in sea of immorality, relativism, and moral corruptness. We have no moral compass. I've said it before and I say it again, America was at her best in the 1950s. Since then, we've lost our conservative moorings to immoral behavior, lifestyles, cheapened sexuality, illicit drugs, what not.

You say "market" like selling dope could be a good thing. If it's a harmless plant, as you say, why have any regulations concerning it. Tea is a "harmless" plant, and as such, I can send my children into Walmart and purchase it without so much as a by-your-leave from the cashier. Harmless plants don't need sensible regulations because harmless things don't need regulating. Morality again, gone astray. I miss my old-school America where Americans were conservatives.

Get a grip. Moral people would not want to sell dope, regardless if there were no penalties. Dope changes lives, and never in a good way.

Morality is absolute. People deep down know right from wrong. America now plays relativism with morality and truth with garbage like, "well, if it's true for you...". It's crap.

A felony conviction means you cannot be trusted. This man sold dope to people. He was convicted. What's not to like? The law did it's job. Now, if only we had Singapore's drug laws, this country would be largely free of immoral dopeheads and their ilk. Selling dope is immoral whether legal or not. It attracts bad people and gets children involved in things that are not healthy and righteous.

You are so right. Hillary Clinton is wholly unfit for any office let alone the highest in the land.

Trump has been public so long, everyone knows everything about him and he could care less. The establishment fears him because they have nothing on him. The man has his own money, he cannot be bribed, he has allegiance to no one, they cannot take away his campaign finance dollars, they cannot bar him this or that committee. He is, in my opinion, the perfect candidate at this time. I don't agree with everything he says, but he's better than the alternative, which is Hillary. I'd rather see Josef Stalin elected were he alive than Hillary.

What you say is likely very true, but has no bearing on this one man's case. This one man was found guilty and is now paying the price. Some will call foul. Some won't. I don't argue the fact that race relations in the US haven't been pretty and that many people were unfairly treated or even falsely convicted, but this particular man was found guilty of a crime he did commit and is now paying for his crimes. It doesn't matter that his white counterparts did the same and are selling legal dope. They didn't get convicted. This is the crux, not what's fair. He's a convict, they are not. Fair or not, he needs to move on and make something of himself before he becomes afoul of the law again and really ruins his life beyond what damage is already done. Nothing stops this guy from learning how to code and selling his software to the legal dope industry if he wants to be involved that badly.

A felony conviction is a far cry from a mere moving violation. A felony conviction means you cannot be trusted. Full stop. Selling dope is a choice. The man made a choice and paid for his actions. Should he now be allowed to profit from the same (now legal) action that got him barred in the first place? No. The legal dope industry, as shady as it is, has established laws that says "felons not welcome", and that's OK. Nothing stops this guys from pursuing some other line of work and making something of himself. The problem here is that the legal dope industry is easy money. Too many people want "easy". They don't want to go and actually work.

I appreciate your remarks. But -- what I'm saying is that no one should feel sorry for this guy. It pains me to see the vast numbers of Americans who but a few years ago were for tough legislation and tough policies and who now desire to see criminals released from prison because the sentence may be too harsh. Really? If you do the crime, you do the time. We should not undo sentencing. It was all done legally at the time and it should stand.

I don't like the dope industry. It attracts children who think that smoking marijuana is harmless. It's not. The dopeheads can trot out all the industry-inspired crap they like, but it's not healthy. I'm all for ACTUAL medical patients who are in severe pain using it, but so many go to these quack doctors who will give a medical reason for a few dollars. Actual doctors with hospital admitting privileges should be the law.

Marijuana is not harmless and just a few years ago the majority of Americans agreed. The morality in America has slipped precipitously since our heyday as a nation in the 1950s.

I read the entire article. The man was duly convicted of a crime in Oklahoma. He broke the law, regardless of what anyone thinks. Fast forward to when selling dope in certain places is now legal and this guys want a piece of the action, but... he cannot legally do so because he's a convicted felon. Should we undo his conviction? No. He was tried fairly and found guilty based on the laws of the time and place. His fault. His color has nothing to do with it, and quite frankly, I'm sick to death of everything in this country now revolving around race, homosexuals, feminists.

The man made a choice, he now lives with the repercussions of that choice, whether anyone agrees or disagrees. I realize my outlook is likely unpopular, but like I tell my children -- there are consequences for your actions, and it may take years to see them. This story will be read by my kids tonight to reinforce my good advice.

Besides, the morality of the people involved in a business like legal dope would put me off. Just because they don't have convictions means nothing. The type of people attracted to the dope business are off putting.

A better bird from a better time.

Nobody cares what Bradley Manning thinks or says. He's a convicted, treasonous lowlife. Too bad he wasn't serving in the Russian military when he committed treason. They would have showed him what traitors get.

This guy lives a better life than some people in America, and that's a real shame. No matter what you think of Bradley Manning, Edward Snowden, or anyone like them, they are traitors. Full stop. The government may not always do the right thing, but to violate the law to prove a point or a set of points does not make you right, even if the government is doing the wrong thing in your opinion.

Nothing stops anyone from developing software that can be installed on mobile phones to encrypt this or that. This will be a type of Cold War between those with something to protect and those who want everything transparent.

I will choose to encrypt outside of what they OS does and to hell with every other idea.

Besides, all one has to do is encrypt, use one-time pads and keys are largely irrelevant.

But human nature does NOT change.

I agree. What with so many religions, so many still holding onto the caste systems, so much intolerance. Just yesterday, a Dalit man was killed and his wife of a different caste badly injured because some took offense to their marriage.

There will be no societal civil discourse unless and until Indians can get past ridiculous ideas that some people are less valuable than others. We're all created equal despite what some may tell you.

Actually, either far left or far right lean control freak.

Hitler and his Fascist ally, Mussolini, were both far-right contol freaks. Josef Stalin and his predecessors were far left control freaks.

People in power like control, contrary to what they might say. Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely. People want to be elected because of their egos. Full stop. There is no other reason. No one does it because "they love America". They want to latch onto the gravy train and collect a check all the while dictating terms and or furthering an agenda. It's patently obvious to all.

No one but scared liberals want "gun control". Freedom-loving Americans want elected officials to enforce the existing laws, not create new ones out of fear.

Registration is the first step to disarmament. Look back no further than Janet Reno, thankfully no longer in her position, who famously said that the actual goal is disarmament of the population. A certain venomous Democrat presidential hopeful has also echoed this sentiment publicly, recently stating on the record that only police and military should own handguns. Why on Earth would anyone vote for someone who wants to take away freedoms enshrined in the Constitution?

Well, thankfully, it takes 2/3 repeal, so that likelihood, at least in our lifetimes, is not realistic.

I'm already disappointed that most of the Republicans in the House and Senate are actually RINOs. Just goes to show you that there is a difference between a Republican and a Conservative. No true Conservative will ever vote against gun ownership. We need an entire House and Senate full of guys like Jeff Sessions in order to undo the damage by liberals in this country.

As I said, I do not carry my handgun on my person while in public. I do have one in my car because I travel some distance on a regular basis that is purely in the sticks for 60 or 70 miles. I'd hate to have a breakdown and have no way to defend myself, but it's never on my person out and about.

Well-regulated has yet to be defined, as it were, and it needs to remain somewhat amorphous. I'm opposed to firearms registration because it becomes a de facto list of gun owners to demonize down the road. A certain presidential candidate has already said they intend to pursue more heavy restrictions, especially registration. They have been heard to mention that handguns should be for the military and police only. These politicians all seem to be in love with Australian-style firearms registration. No, thank you.

What ads? I haven't seen an ad in many moons thanks to uBlock Origin and other creative software hacks. uBlock also just released its experimental filter which fools the Javascript on sites serving up ads. Works a charm. Recommended.

"Gun violence" is a misnomer. Violence using guns is a better description, but the left-leaning media will never correct this.

Mass shootings get loads of attention, but the murder rate using guns has actually decreased in the last 20 years, not gone up. But to listen to the mainstream media, you'd think that a few nutters with guns is ushering in the end of the world.

There will always be guns, there should always be guns for the law abiding enthusiast. Making it so difficult to obtain and use a gun is akin to a de facto blocking of the 2nd Amendment. A simple background check, which is already the law, works. Anything else is burdensome. Ditto have special permits to buy guns and ammo. If I need a permit to buy something legally, it's no longer a right, but a granted privilege. This is the reason, despite living in Texas, one of the most gun owner friendly states in the union, I have no gotten my concealed weapons permit. A right does not need a permit. I don't want a granted privilege. I carry one in my car because the law allows it sans permit, but I will not ask permission to do something the 2nd Amendment already grants. This is why states like Kentucky, Wyoming, Montana, Alaska, Vermont, Arizona, all allow what we call "Constitutional Carry". They can carry legally with no permit, because the 2nd Amendment is the permit.

What about the notion of something like some of us did with Flash content? I symlinked .adobe and .macromedia to /dev/null and was able to watch Flash content without the LSOs/SuperCookies being downloaded to my drive -- they were written to the bit bucket.

Does anyone think it's possible to write a Perl/Python/Bash program to basically achieve the same thing? To "convince" the site the ads are coming down but they never get seen? This could be browser independent/act as a sort of proxy. I realize Privoxy does something like this, but gets detected.

Thoughts?