Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
. I have been able to cash out 5 figures of Bitcoins just by having a trusted contact who needed that much. I would honestly be *very* hesitant to have some random person on SR mail me cash though (actually I probably just wouldn't do it, honestly), but thankfully I have enough trusted contacts that I have known for many years that I never have problems buying or selling Bitcoins anonymously. Most of the people I would do such business with I have known for 7-10 years and have a high degree of faith that they are not the police at this point, tho I guess Celtic operated undercover for almost 6 years on carder.su so knowing someone a long time without getting busted doesn't actually prove much in itself :/
I would argue that it is even somewhat safer to use a neighbors WiFi than your own internet, although this is only for two specific reasons. The feds can trace live WiFi but if they don't trace a connection while it is live there is a good chance that they will never be able to determine that you were using the open WiFi for the session they are interested in, if you spoof your MAC address then it is even less likely.
...
It is worth noting that if you are rooted even if you are using WiFi there is a good chance you will be fucked, I am not sure the accuracy of WiFi Positioning Systems these days but I imagine if the feds can gain remote control of your WiFi card that they can remotely geoposition you accurately enough to determine who you are, though in apartments that share walls they might not be able to differentiate between you and your neighbors.
I'm not sure what you mean by this; are you coming from the perspective of an active hunt for a person when they're actually in the area? If so then I can see what you're saying, but if you just mean when they aren't even within range of the WiFi signal to begin with, I have no clue how it could be harder for them to identify you after the fact -- none whatsoever. Have a reference handy or something?
I'm not saying you're full of it, mind you, I just have no clue how it could make a difference and would like to.
Over at Grits for Breakfast, Scott Henson notes that the DEA defends alcohol prohibition on its new Web site aimed at teenagers:
A word about prohibition: lots of you hear the argument that alcohol prohibition failed--so why are drugs still illegal? Prohibition did work. Alcohol consumption was reduced by almost 60% and incidents of liver cirrhosis and deaths from this disease dropped dramatically...Today, alcohol consumption is over three times greater than during the Prohibition years. Alcohol use is legal, except for kids under 21, and it causes major problems, especially in drunk driving accidents.
It's true that alcohol consumption fell during Prohibition, at least initially. In a 1991 paper, economists Jeffrey Miron and Jeffrey Zwiebel estimated, based on four measures (cirrhosis, alcoholism deaths, arrests for drunkenness, and alcoholic psychoses), that consumption dropped 60 to 80 percent immediately after Prohibition was enacted, then rebounded sharply beginning in 1921. By the end of the decade, consumption was 50 to 70 percent of the pre-Prohibition level according to three measures and slightly higher according to one. Drinking did not rise precipitously after repeal. Alcohol consumption in the late 1930s was about the same as in the final years of Prohibition; it returned to the pre-Prohibition level during the next decade.
There remains the question of how important a role Prohibition itself played in these trends. In a subsequent analysis that took additional factors into account, including World War I, changes in the age structure of the population, and the lag between drinking and the development of cirrhosis, Miron concluded that "Prohibition exerted a modest and possibly even a positive effect on the consumption of alcohol."
But to decide whether banning booze was a good policy, which is what the DEA seems to be arguing, it's not enough to know whether it reduced drinking. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that paternalism can be justified on a utilitarian basis, you need to know whether the benefit from fewer alcohol-related problems outweighed the costs associated with prohibition, including the loss of privacy and freedom, black-market violence, official corruption, disrespect for the law, injuries and deaths from illicit alcohol, and the strengthening of organized crime. A consensus developed during Prohibition that, whatever its benefits might be, they were not worth these costs. By that measure, alcohol prohibition in the 1920s and early '30s, like drug prohibition today, was a failure, even if it "worked" in the sense that it discouraged drinking.
It's hard to take prohibitionists seriously when they act as if the policy they favor carries no costs. But by pining for the days of Al Capone and methanol-tainted rotgut, at least the DEA is being consistent.
But what I really think about the most in this regard, is why does drug prohibition still exist at all anyway? Especially after they tried alcohol prohibition, it failed miserably and was overturned in a relatively short period of time [compared to the current ongoing prohibition of all other drugs]. They must notice that there are no cartels killing each other and anyone else in their way over alcohol since it can be purchased legally in the store as well as they must enjoy the excess taxes they collect on it.
is the effects of marijuana less harmful then alcohol Close
That's a great question. The answer is yes for now, and maybe in the future. Right now alcohol is responsible for a much greater proportion of health problems and car accidents than marijuana. Some of that is due to the differing effects of the drugs, but some of it is because many more people use alcohol and do so for their entire lives, so we know about a lot more about its long term effects than we do for marijuana. If marijuana were to become legal, we risk seeing more of its adverse health effects in more of the population--e.g., addiction, lung infections.
I heard from a buddy of mine that on a hot summer day a hot-dog/smoothie cart can profit $2,000+, especially in the right location.... invest in a business and operate it occasionally, but claim to be operational about 10x more than you are.... a good way to launder in multiple 5 digits per month easy.... and who's to tell you you don't make money off a Hot-dog cart... they make bank!
I knew this guy in NYC who owned 5 hot-dog carts, and he employed people to run them for $13/hr each day... each cart could pull in several thousand on a good day. Jsyk. The owner sits back on his couch relaxing all day while the hot-dog carts rake in money that he gets to keep a vast majority of.
