Now factor in all the people in early life going without quality healthcare/dental and the chronic conditions it might lead to later in life that will eventually bite the taxpayer in the ass...

That's the part that never breaks the surface of this debate, keeping your populace healthy (and happy) pays itself back in a more healthy mid-late age person, capable of staying in the workforce (and ergo generating tax revenue) longer, self funding retirement as opposed to "leeching" off the system, less sick day absenteeism (or alternately, sick workers showing up, working below par and infecting co-workers) etc.

That's not socialism, that's smart.

I'd be amazed if no one ever actually quantified this as a cost/benefit analysis, but it wouldn't play well so I guess the point is moot.

And yeah, the state should regulate the medical and pharmaceutical industries against ludicrous profit taking from the most vulnerable. The current state of play in the US seems more akin to a mafia extortion racket than a service dedicated to maintaining and enriching the health of it's clientele...

really need more details about this... When they had brand new devices, does that mean they were un-patched for known security holes? Or are all these exploits the Russians use unknown, and there are currently no patches, such that a completely patched/updated device is still vulnerable?

Any WiFi captive-portal "login" page could inject known browser exploits into the html - If you use your own MyFi (personal hotspot), and are willing to pay huge for roaming international data, then this form of attack isn't possible.

And the coffee shop owner probably doesn't know that their wireless access point is serving up malicious code. It was either hacked by who they bought it from, or whoever installed it, or by some hacker who went to the shop. But shame on the airport's IT security - if they have official WiFi that was also hacked. (but the criminals might have set up their own wireless and called it "Free Airport WiFi")

Every OS on every device (not just Windows) has security holes, Mac OS X included. The hole gets exploited to allow running some piece of software that the user didn't intend, and that software (malware/virus) collects user data and uploads it back to the criminals servers on the network (these 'data collection' servers are also usually attacked/compromised computers, so they can't be traced directly back to the criminals).

My advice to tourists would be to bring a "dumb" phone for voice calls. (keep bluetooth turned off though) Then you'll remember how great it was to only charge it once a week

It's a hacking convention, basically. I've been attending since the 26C3, the very year that Assange and Domscheit-Berg introduced WikiLeaks 1.0.

Up until this year, very few people outside the community cared about the topics that were discussed. Snowden really lifted attendence and media attention to new heights, even though the public still doesn't care about some crucial topics such as the vulnerability of mobile networks or an entire host of topics about the pitiful state of affairs in Germany.

Speaking of, you're really missing out on the most entertaining events of the entire congress. They always provide a real time translation, but I'm not sure if any stream dumps include the additional audio track.

Just two examples:
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XB71MzDrdE
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=to48QrlodDI

The first talk details how Germany was the most densely monitored country in history, at least from '49 to '90. Every phone call logged, every piece of mail scanned by the US, the UK or France. This includes everything coming from or going to East Germany. Ironically, the most important station for the monitoring of intra-German mail now hosts Amazon's largest distribution center in Europe.

The second talk is quite simply the greatest review of 2013 from a nerd's perspective.

Edit: yikes, this was supposed to be much shorter.

Yeah, and it's not even much of a defense to say that he only stole money from stupid people. It's just taking advantage of a vulnerable population.

But it is really amazing that so many basically normal adults can grow up without developing any skepticism or vague sense of what's allowed by physics.

People so emotionally attached to the regime (as @st0nedeye seems to be) are often either regime propagandists being handsomely compensated or serfs who feel so vulnerable and afraid (and maybe even inept themselves) that they can't think of how they would survive without the "rulers" to protect them. (Of course, the jokes on them since that protection, safety, and security, is mostly an illusion.)

If they are regime propagandists, then unless you pay them more to take on whatever views you want them to stick to in the hopes of cashing in on the cronyism.

If they are true believers or fanatics (due to fear, insecurity, envy, etc.), then they will try to tear up anyone who tries to give them information, even if that information will ultimately help them out, improve their lot (help, to be sure, that was not solicited by them, and they have a right not to be given).

These are the attitudes that made Edward Bernays and others rather loathe "the people," allowing them to rationalize the various forms of manipulation imposed in the 20th century. This propaganda was ostensibly for "the people's" "safety," but was more accurately for personal profit. It's a fate though that I can't totally disagree is not deserved.

Still, despite the crazy analysis, I commend @st0nedeye for bringing up the interesting topic of the situation in Europe after the "fall" of Rome (which happened gradually and parallels that of most empires, including this current one). It's worth considering that the collapse of the Soviet Union also, a collapse that even to this day many in Russia bemoan -- just like st0nedeye bemoans the collapse of Rome. Life under the Roman bureaucracy and plutocracy was not as glamorous as many people would have you believe (maybe if you were a one of the beneficiary plutocrats).

This is why when riding a motorcycle it's safer to filter between lanes of slow moving or stationery traffic, rather than to sit stationery on the end of the queue.

That's entirely legal within the UK so long as it's done safely. I think in the US it varies from state to state, or is it just California where that's allowed?

I was riding through Germany early this year where filtering isn't allowed, and although for the most part the standard of driving was very good, the speeds are also very high (unlimited - often anywhere between 100 and 150mph). When hitting congestion I didn't half feel vulnerable without being allowed to filter. Wouldn't like to be hit on my bike like shown in this video.

Andy

This beyond shameful practice needs to be loudly and publicly shoved in the federal governments face, demanding a stop to funding a quota based drug war targeting defenseless special needs children. As if it isn't evil enough to manipulate impressionable, peer pressure driven kids without going after easy targets already ostracized by whatever condition, making them even more vulnerable.

Isn't there a special level of hell reserved for those who hurt children for profit?

"divide and conquer" is the basic strategy of the ruling class, and has been since the days of colonialism, when dividing a populace made it much more vulnerable to outside rule. A populace fighting itself is less likely to perceive outside control, and less likely to notice that their wealth is being drained before their eyes.

If u keep people emotional and fighting, they won't think.
Emotion is the antagonist to reason.

The best point in this whole video was that the armor(s) - which previously withstood all sorts of mayhem - break apart all over the place. They could have made the character feel vulnerable without ruining the integrity of the suit itself.

well thank god i visited your page!
oooo../claps hands
what a delight to read your response!

i agree with almost everything you expressed.
oh thank you my friend!

economics has never been my strong suit.i know..shocker.
but i AM quite literate in history and government and of course politics.
while you are correct that a socialist state can become a fascist one,so too can a democracy.
it is really the forces of ideology which can push a state to either a fascist or swing despotic.
but i get your point.

i do apologize for my oftentimes rambling.maybe because i am a little out of my comfort zone when it comes to economics,so i rely on my history and governmental knowledge to fill in the gaps.
your last post really cleared so many misconceptions i was having during this conversation.

i knew we were more in agreement than disagreement.
and we are.

1.the banks need to held accountable.
check.
2,which by inference means the governments role should be as fraud detector and protector of the consumer.
check.
3,you didnt mention it but i hope you agree the corporate charter needs to be rewritten in a way where they are NOT a person and therefore shall be removed from the political landscape.
check.
4.this will (or should) re-balance our political system (which is diseased at the moment).
5.which will return this country to a more level playing field and equate to=more liberty.
6.this will open innovation,progress and advancements in ALL fields AND due to competitive forces ,will lower prices.

how am i doing so far?

now.
since we have to talk about politics when we talk about markets.
my old professor dr paul (great man,miss him very much).
he reduced politics down to one simple question:
"what should we do"?
or in terms that we have been discussing:
"what is governments role"?

thats it.
now people like to make it more complicated,especially people getting paid good money to postulate on sunday morning tv shows,but thats it.

being an anarchist is not one dimensional.
the anarchism YOU are speaking of is the extreme.
i am more the libertarian socialism flavor.(yes..you didnt convert me)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism
the anarchist may see a form of government that no longer works.that is weighed down by its own hubris,greed and corruption.
the anarchist finds it perfectly acceptable to tear down that government to build a new one.

and why not?
if something aint working the way it was meant to,get rid of it and try another.

now you wanted to know why i feared and unrestricted free market.
(which is how i was talking your previous post and confused me greatly).i see now i may have misinterpreted your commentary so my next point may be a moot one.
if so..i apologize.

if we put everything on the table as an unrestricted free market.we would be going back to feudalism.
the flaw in capitalism is not just the boom and bust but the exploitation of the common man,or worker if you like.

not only would the most vulnerable of us be exploited but it would make the class structure even WORSE than it is now (which by comparison is not too bad when compared to,say..somolia).

we see pockets of this happening now here in the US:
http://youtu.be/GVz_yJAxVd4

imagine having to pay for any road you drove on.ALL of them.all owned by different companies and subsidiaries.every one of them a toll road.
the market would dictate what burden could be held sufficiently in order to turn a profit.
what percentage would be prevented from driving those roads due to lack of funds?

see what im saying?

lets take this template and put it with firefighters.
would having a firehouse every couple of miles be profitable?
i mean,how many fires are there actually occurring on any given day?
so the firehouse would have 2 choices that i see.
shut down the more rural and spread the firehouses more thinly OR charge a monthly fee.
since a nominal fee would be the most likely avenue,what about those people who cant afford that fee?
does the firehouse BILL them?
"sorry for the loss of your house ..pay us".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwJrPa8Ps7A

and what about police?
they already have become revenue generators and protectors of the privileged.
what happens to poor folks in an unrestricted market?
police wont have a station in any inner city areas.no profit there.
no no no..wait a minute!
there would be HUUUGE profit there!
/smacks head
what was i thinking!
of course!
just like our prison system the police would be paid by the state PER arrest.
to be reimbursed on a quarterly basis!
BRILLIANT.
then poor people could be commodities!

nope nope nope.not gonna work.
that would mean the state would have to impose a tax or something to generate the revenue to pay for the arrested subjects.

hahaha im being an asshole now.forgive me.

ok.lets talk schooling.
lets privatize em!
free market baby!
based on the local population and average income we can fill those seats.
aaaand maybe get rid of NCLB and standardized testing,which i loving refer to as the giant ball of bullshit.
now this would be GREAT.

wait a minute.
what about the poor families that cant afford the tuition?
what do they do?

well in an unrestricted market and pesky government out of the way what do YOU think is going to happen to a system driven by self interest and profit?

welcome back child labor!!
and the 80 hour work week!
and beatings for not making quota!
and how awesome is it that that poor family of 5 gets to live with grandma,grandpa,uncle lou and aunt sara and there 3 kids all in one 3 bedroom house.
its 1913 all over again.
happy days are here again.......

ok ok.dont get mad at me.that was mostly tongue in cheek.
i realize after your post tonight that you are not suggesting an "unrestricted" free market but a free market.

and i am ok with that.
if we can limit government intrusion.
allow companies to tank when they fail.
rewrite the corporate charter (or dissolve them completely,or as i suggested previously make them accountable and put back the phrase "for the public good").
reign in bank fraud and make the rules to keep em honest.

in my opinion the only thing we really seem to disagree on is when it is in regards to labor.

i tried a few years ago to buy my friends bar/eatery with most of the employees.
did you know what i found out?
we were not allowed.
could not get the permits.
the owner even offered to finance us all..
nope.
how about them apples.illegal to have an employee owned business.

that is changing though.
employee owned businesses and co-opts are popping up like recurring herpes.

i dont know why it was illegal in this area and i dont see how employee owned companies would threaten a free market.

but as you figured out.
economics is not my strong suit.

and my man,cant tell ya how grateful i am to have had this conversation with you.i learned tons,about you and your views and even some about free markets.

thank you my friend.thank you.
namaste.

...Was that supposed to be poignant, or just an extremely obscure inside joke?

Anyway, this "debate" was a bit ridiculous. Howard Samuels was, as others have already pointed out, very clearly straw manning - at no point was it suggested that opposing party thought marijuana should be legalized for recreational use by big companies.

It should also be noted that while Samuels runs a rehab center and in fact has a personal history of fighting addiction, this also has a negative effect on his ability to form an opinion on this situation. For him, extreme vulnerability to addiction is the norm. He himself is probably very prone to addiction, and he exclusively works with other individuals who are also extremely prone to addiction. I would say that the only people for whom marijuana can be seen as a gateway drug is the sort of people for whom alchohol, caffeine, nicotine, adrenaline or really anything that could possibly be abused could be seen as a "gateway drug."

These are the sort of people who always go too far. They drink too much coffee, they take too many risks, they smoke too much and they are always that one guy who gets embarrassingly drunk at parties because he just doesn't know how to limit himself.

But these people shouldn't be seen as the norm because honestly, they simply aren't.

And because Samuels apparently does think that these people define the norm, his view cannot be seen as being comprehensive. He's only looking at the extreme ends of the spectrum, and even then, he's really only looking at the potential negative extremes, because that is where he used to be, and it's where the people he now tries to heal are stuck.

With that in mind here's a list of people that make me variously: scared, uncomfortable, upset and sometimes outright angry. I find it deeply unpleasant and sometimes disturbing to have to deal with them and I think life would be a lot better if we just locked them away.

Police
Politicians
Pro-lifers
Anyone who watches X-factor
Anyone who doesn't think the British royal family are murderous tyrants.
People who play music on their phone speakers on the bus/walking down the street.
People that use the term "free country" without irony.
The unregulated hyper rich over class.
Rugby players on a night out drinking.
People that advocate the death penalty.
Hyper nationalists.
Xenophobes, Racists and Homophobes.
The priesthood of amen/the brotherhood of shadow.
Young people in tracksuits/hoodies.
Anyone that uses the word "party" as a verb.
Practising Christians, Muslims and Jews (doubly so if they are raising their children religiously).
Hyper-Atheists.
Chimpanzees! (seriously, fuck the chimps they scare the shit out of me)
People that use the phrase "I just don't give a fuck" and actually mean it.
The Chinese scientists developing the "death robots" (you might laugh now....)

Whilst some are clearly more serious than others, all of the above represent things/traits which deeply concern me. Many of the people on that list I'd label as outright insane and/or seriously dangerous to my health and well being.

Some, were I to be confronted by them unexpectedly, would outright terrify me, much more so than that lady. There's a good chance that by simply responding with concern and a lack of antagonism she could have been talked down, but certainly pulling an incredulous expression and calling her a crazy lady is not likely to diffuse the situation one iota.

As I said before maybe she is a genuine danger to herself and others, such people do exist and there are systems in place to try and deal with it.

The issue here is that your not even remotely in a position to make that diagnosis, nor are any of us here. We don't know how serious her condition is or how likely she is to respond to various forms of treatment. Speculating based only on video's made during episodes (i.e. at her worst) with no context of her medical history just fuels the kind of knee jerk "lock them away" mindset that contributes heavily to these poor bastards getting the way they are in the 1st place.

For all you know a bit of in the community C.B.T. and mentoring might be all she needs/needed. Not everyone displaying psychotic symptoms benefits from or warrants full on institutional incarceration, it often makes things much worse.
She clearly needs/needed further investigation and perhaps having the benefit of her medical history and first hand interaction it might be reasonable to conclude that some form of isolation is needed. But I'd rather leave that down to those who are professionally qualified to make that judgement than bystanders who merely witnessed a few isolated psychotic episodes and know sweet F.A. about her as a person.

It's you that's failing to see the bigger picture here. You want to put her in a neat little box marked "crazy" so you don't have to face the implication that in some fundamental sense you are the same thing. The crazy person sits next to you on the bus and you think "I don't deserve to have to put up with this inconvenience. How dare they make me feel uncomfortable".......

....Do you have the remotest idea of the kind of deep lasting damage that does to a person when virtually everyone they ever meet thinks and behaves that way? How it feels for someone to just condemn you to be locked away without even attempting to understand what your all about?

It's only about 50 years ago that it was standard practice to basically label everything as just various forms of "madness" and lock them all away in the same building. While we've come along way there's still very much a ways to go and the public perception of acute psychotic illnesses is by far the most backwards.

If you'd said maybe she might need institutional treatment, or that you had concerns that the behaviour she displays could escalate to a violent incident (both legitimate concerns) then I wouldn't have reacted with such hostility.
But you didn't do that, you outright declared she that must be forcibly segregated and treated and moreover that she is definitely a danger to herself and others. No grey area, isolation is the only alternative!

I don't want this to descend into a personal attack, you might after all be a really nice person and this is a deeply rooted prejudice common to most people I come across. Much like many peoples homophobia isn't especially malicious it's just an unchallenged social convention (one fortunately that is changing).
But malicious or not the damage done is the same, for crazies, ethnic minorities and homosexuals alike. And I don't think its unfair to say that the "crazies" are the more vulnerable group by quite some margin.

You don't begrudge offering a little time and understanding for say a disabled person holding you up in a door way, why is taking a little step back when confronted with a "crazy" person so different? That postie clearly recognised she wasn't occupying the same reality as himself very quickly, but his response is to pull a face that says "what the fuck is your problem?" and just dismisses her as crazy. She might have calmed down and gone away peacefully in the space of a few mins if he'd tried to diffuse it, but he didn't, he escalated immediately. (because he's mentally ill too, just in a different way)
That's basically like someone getting in your way, you realizing its because they are in a wheel chair and then treating them like an arsehole because they had the indecency to be out in public and get in the way of the able bodied people! Those bloody cripples, they should be taken away for their own protection! (the fact the rest of us don't have to worry about dealing with them any more is just a bonus naturally )

Now obviously this is a somewhat flawed analogy as people with mobility impairments don't have heightened rates/likelihood of violent outbursts (though I'm sure there are plenty twats who just happen to be in wheelchairs). But the fundamental point I'm trying to make about how people treat the extravertly mentally ill stands. If your being directly threatened with no provocation is one thing, but this guy isn't he's just antagonising someone in a clear state of paranoia and delusion/misunderstanding (which he recognises within seconds). He doesn't even attempt to address that he just closes off and becomes passively hostile.
As I said before its understandable, but only in the same way as being frightened of homosexuality, alien cultures, physical disfigurement etc.. It's just cultural isolation, get to know a few people from any of those groups and it quickly starts to sublime into respect and understanding.

She didn't walk up to him screaming she walked up and firmly presented an accusation that the postman knew could not possibly have been true. She became aggressive/shouty only after he became dismissive, before that she was only restless and paranoid. And even then she didn't make any aggressive physical moves we can see. Postie doesn't look at all in fear for his safety to me, he turns his back on her several times and barely maintains eye contact, not the behaviour of someone that feels physically threatened!

How might she have reacted if postie had looked genuinely scared? Maybe she'd have backed off? Changed her attitude? And yeh maybe she'd have got even more threatening or attacked him with a stick too.

We don't know what she'd have done because we don't know her or anything about her other than a few paranoid videos on the internet. Leave the judgements to the people that have done the research, interviews etc. and know know what the fuck they are talking about with regards to this lady's condition and best treatment.

Speculation is one thing, outright declarations of fact is quite another. People are not guilty before you can prove their innocence...

I feel I can say with some authority that having worked with (primarily) schizophrenic patients for the last 3 years that you don't have the slightest clue what your talking about.

"She's a tiny step away from attacking these random strangers......she needs to be committed"

Yup, there's absolutely no hint here that she's the vulnerable one most likely to actually end up hurt or taken advantage of. (it's not like only around 10% (UK) of sufferers act violently) Better watch out for that crazy lady people! She's probably got an axe at home and everything....

"If you, or anybody were to try and talk to her and "understand" her, she would repay you with accusations of stalking and wanting to do her harm"

So you know her personally then? Maybe you read her case file instead? I'm sure you'd never make such an outrageously deep personal judgement about someone based on only a few video's clearly shot only during psychotic episodes!
Naturally you must have taken the time to find out what she's like when she's calm and comfortable and how her condition has developed over her lifetime, I mean what kind of colossally judgemental anus would make a sweeping character judgement without doing that? Not you I'm sure

So tell me. Has she had any cognitive behavioural therapy? Did she respond well? How frequently has she suffered episodes in the past? Is this a recent condition? What medication is she on? What kind of family support does she have? Has she ever committed a serious violent act in the past? Does she have friends? Is there any history of self harm, eating disorders, learning difficulties? Has she ever displayed suicidal ideation? Has she been institutionalised in the past? How did she respond to that? Has she ever refused treatment? ETC. ETC. ETC!!!!

"And what is there to understand?"

Yeh what's there to try and understand about the personal complexities of another human beings anguish? Clearly she just needs to be locked up in Bedlam and drugged with all the other crazies!.........
...........Disgusted beyond words

Excruciating as that was it was also rather sweet.
The world is jammed full of old men exploiting the daddy issues of vulnerable girls, this is adding a little balance.

Sickle-Cell Anemia is similar with a slight twist. The disease is caused by a mutation of a gene for haemoglobin, which deforms and causes the red blood cells to take on a sickle shape. In the case of SCA the gene has more than one dominant allele, known as codominance (I think thats also why hair colours "mix", but dont quote me on that). As a result carriers of the disease have one copy of the mutated gene and one healthy copy. They produce healthy AND deformed sickle shaped red blood cells. Carriers with this heterozygous form are practically free from symptons of the full disease and while not immune to malaria they are more resistant. Strangely, and for reasons I dont fully understand, those with the full disease are still vulnerable to Malaria, or at least malaria makes the symptoms of SCA worse.

Unsurprisingly SCA is fairly common in parts of Africa where Malaria claims a lot of lives. It would be a pretty amazing adaption if it were not for the 25% chance that any child between two carriers suffered from the full disease.

Now for my somewhat related story:
I tried the "natural" Malaria remedy in Kenya. The Masai guide had this huge grin on his face when he offered it to me that in hindsight should have definitely tipped me off. I'm guessing it was quinene based because it was so bitter that I wretched it and a fair portion of my breakfast up and out on the spot. He made it up later when he found some wild honey (you know, as you do - Masai ftw) to take the taste away.