Another one of the same who is afraid to go against your wishes on the particular issue you got the predecessor voted out of office for
Uniting masses only works if there's just one issue to unite on.
What we need now is to scrap this entire branch of the source code and go back to the original spec, the constitution.
Few want that, though. It would force either amending the constitution, or killing all the federal programs and even entire executive departments that have zero constitutional basis. Good luck convincing boomers that social security isn't in the constitution.
FTA I think it's more than just gimmick - the banks see amazon/ebay/paypal encroaching on banking turf, so the bank is trying to expand into web portal turf to compete.
And whether its banking turf or web turf, we customers are the turf they battle on, and whatever remaining wealth we may have is what they battle for.
oil/coal will not become too expensive to extract for quite some time. We might end up paying double or triple at the pump over the next several decades, but it will still be cheaper than alternatives.
May I see your math?
how would I? Everybody lies.
If you do not know what the truth is, how do you know who is not telling it? If you believe "everybody lies", maybe you are also making things up. You've offered no way of verifying your claims.
you have this weird opinion that assumes people destroying their lives over drugs only effects them
I don't think you are much of an authority on my opinions, and you certainly misrepresent my post. Read it again.
you [think] that any normal human being can deny someone healthcare just because they can't pay
Again, you misrepresent my opinion. I'm quite sure that charitable human beings will continue to voluntarily assist with healthcare expenses of their friends, families, and neighbors. I'm also quite sure the constitution doesn't give the federal government the authority to provide civilian medical care or pay civilians' medical bills.
Or how about a representative democracy, where the decisions are made by people who can judge whether their constituents' recommendations are being made from reason or reaction, and can choose to follow or reject those recommendations appropriately?
That sounds pretty good. Has anybody ever tried that one? Besides on paper?
It doesn't mention anything but criminal cases, but your assertion that it "clearly states" anything about limiting it "only to criminal cases" is absolutely false.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Since you apparently missed this, that "attempt at wit" was exactly as meaningful as the post it responded to. That was the point of the response, but apparently it was too subtle, so I'll try to be clear.
Injecting emotion without information does not further dialog.
And when your own contribution to a dialog is devoid of information, calling somebody else out for non-meaningful statements is hypocriitcal, don't you think?
Some thinking persons still are running operating systems installed by their parents which have strict and deterministic rules about truthfulness and deference to authority.
The "for what people" phrase is what shouldn't be there. Better analogies would be "This is akin to not holding the Post office liable for what the Postmaster mails, or the phone companies liable for what their spokesman says."
legalizing that stuff would destroy more lives than the cartels do
1) If somebody drugs themselves to death, so be it. People ruin their own lives and their family's all the time. It's not good, but it didn't start with drugs or stop with prohibition. 2) No matter how much you love prohibition, the US government has zero constitutional authority to criminalize drugs
> then i have to pay for such people, The government has zero constitutional authority to force you to pay others' healthcare, too.
The root problem is non-enforcement of the constitution, allowing the government to assume unconstitutional powers over The People. Fix the root problem, rather than constantly layering new problematic workarounds on top of old ones.
> Dealing with those drug lords would require a military.
Or a pen.
"We hereby decriminalize all formerly controlled substances, and return to the Citizens their God-given right to plant, harvest, process, manufacture, buy, sell, snort, inject, swallow and/or smoke whatever narcotic, toxic, psychoactive, carcinogenic, radioactive, caustic, fungal or fecal matter they wish, as long as they limit exposure to willing, opt-in participants only."
And just like that, the Zeta's will be out of business.
That sounds like way cool technology. Joule claims to have something working "at pilot scale." Maybe this could become a game changer.
This lends some hope to your argument, but not really meat. This isn't a reality now, and whether Joule goes the way of Solyndra, or Exxon, we don't yet know.
every country lies about their oil reserves
Do you have access to more accurate numbers? Please do share.
enough capacity to last for years at current rate of consumption
Yeah, well, the rate of consumption is growing. Sustained growth is an exponential function. In maybe 10 years our "current rate of consumption" might be double today's rate, and in 20 years quadrupled. So "current rate of consumption" is at best misleading.
My brother was lead plaintiff in a class-action law suit against a large defense contractor, and won. A simple google search of his name brings the case up, right on top.
And he's had no trouble at all getting new work. I thought he'd be screwed, but it turns out lots of employers appreciate talent and honesty, and aren't necessarily bothered by somebody standing their ground.
> Standard of living doesn't have to correlate directly > with energy consumption.
Actually, it does. Any improvements in efficiency are immediately squandered elsewhere.
Energy is everything. Whether it's about trading, or having servants work for you, or having electricity work for you, "standard of living" has always been about having work done for you without expending your own energy to do it. The more work that gets done for you, the more energy it takes to maintain.
> none of which would benefit the planet in the long run The planet is a big iron ball that doesn't give a damn what we do. The ones who care about epidemics and war are us humans, who are by and large causing the problems ourselves.
Although this is not politically correct to say, the fewer humans there are the better off the rest of the biosphere will be.
One hundred people might elect somebody who represents the group well. One hundred thousand can not- most will have never met the person, and can only go on information that's been through three or four layers of filters.
Slashdot Mirror
Another one of the same who is afraid to go against your wishes on the particular issue you got the predecessor voted out of office for
Uniting masses only works if there's just one issue to unite on.
What we need now is to scrap this entire branch of the source code and go back to the original spec, the constitution.
Few want that, though. It would force either amending the constitution, or killing all the federal programs and even entire executive departments that have zero constitutional basis. Good luck convincing boomers that social security isn't in the constitution.
FTA I think it's more than just gimmick - the banks see amazon/ebay/paypal encroaching on banking turf, so the bank is trying to expand into web portal turf to compete.
And whether its banking turf or web turf, we customers are the turf they battle on, and whatever remaining wealth we may have is what they battle for.
There's something about a knife that saps all the joy.
oil/coal will not become too expensive to extract for quite some time. We might end up paying double or triple at the pump over the next several decades, but it will still be cheaper than alternatives.
May I see your math?
how would I? Everybody lies.
If you do not know what the truth is, how do you know who is not telling it? If you believe "everybody lies", maybe you are also making things up. You've offered no way of verifying your claims.
you have this weird opinion that assumes people destroying their lives over drugs only effects them
I don't think you are much of an authority on my opinions, and you certainly misrepresent my post. Read it again.
you [think] that any normal human being can deny someone healthcare just because they can't pay
Again, you misrepresent my opinion. I'm quite sure that charitable human beings will continue to voluntarily assist with healthcare expenses of their friends, families, and neighbors. I'm also quite sure the constitution doesn't give the federal government the authority to provide civilian medical care or pay civilians' medical bills.
+1 insightful.
Or how about a representative democracy, where the decisions are made by people who can judge whether their constituents' recommendations are being made from reason or reaction, and can choose to follow or reject those recommendations appropriately?
That sounds pretty good. Has anybody ever tried that one? Besides on paper?
what you're saying is that government educated people perpetuate the government class we have today
Maybe you're perpetuation idea is right, but that's not what he said.
The government needs to change the economic model
You've got it backwards, friend. The People need to change their government.
It doesn't mention anything but criminal cases, but your assertion that it "clearly states" anything about limiting it "only to criminal cases" is absolutely false.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Since you apparently missed this, that "attempt at wit" was exactly as meaningful as the post it responded to. That was the point of the response, but apparently it was too subtle, so I'll try to be clear.
Injecting emotion without information does not further dialog.
And when your own contribution to a dialog is devoid of information, calling somebody else out for non-meaningful statements is hypocriitcal, don't you think?
You've got ten minutes and then I want you back at your desk.
Some thinking persons still are running operating systems installed by their parents which have strict and deterministic rules about truthfulness and deference to authority.
"We have to have the same civil rights online as we have offline."
I think she'll get no argument there from the Dept of Homeland Security.
Unfortunately, the DHS (literally translated to Russian, the acronym would be "KGB") seems to think there are none in either place.
And our "addresses, mailing addresses and even bank information" are not the same thing as our tweets.
The "for what people" phrase is what shouldn't be there. Better analogies would be "This is akin to not holding the Post office liable for what the Postmaster mails, or the phone companies liable for what their spokesman says."
legalizing that stuff would destroy more lives than the cartels do
1) If somebody drugs themselves to death, so be it. People ruin their own lives and their family's all the time. It's not good, but it didn't start with drugs or stop with prohibition.
2) No matter how much you love prohibition, the US government has zero constitutional authority to criminalize drugs
> then i have to pay for such people,
The government has zero constitutional authority to force you to pay others' healthcare, too.
The root problem is non-enforcement of the constitution, allowing the government to assume unconstitutional powers over The People. Fix the root problem, rather than constantly layering new problematic workarounds on top of old ones.
> Dealing with those drug lords would require a military.
Or a pen.
"We hereby decriminalize all formerly controlled substances, and return to the Citizens their God-given right to plant, harvest, process, manufacture, buy, sell, snort, inject, swallow and/or smoke whatever narcotic, toxic, psychoactive, carcinogenic, radioactive, caustic, fungal or fecal matter they wish, as long as they limit exposure to willing, opt-in participants only."
And just like that, the Zeta's will be out of business.
Yes, really.
That sounds like way cool technology. Joule claims to have something working "at pilot scale." Maybe this could become a game changer.
This lends some hope to your argument, but not really meat. This isn't a reality now, and whether Joule goes the way of Solyndra, or Exxon, we don't yet know.
every country lies about their oil reserves
Do you have access to more accurate numbers? Please do share.
enough capacity to last for years at current rate of consumption
Yeah, well, the rate of consumption is growing. Sustained growth is an exponential function. In maybe 10 years our "current rate of consumption" might be double today's rate, and in 20 years quadrupled. So "current rate of consumption" is at best misleading.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
My brother was lead plaintiff in a class-action law suit against a large defense contractor, and won. A simple google search of his name brings the case up, right on top.
And he's had no trouble at all getting new work. I thought he'd be screwed, but it turns out lots of employers appreciate talent and honesty, and aren't necessarily bothered by somebody standing their ground.
> Standard of living doesn't have to correlate directly
> with energy consumption.
Actually, it does. Any improvements in efficiency are immediately squandered elsewhere.
Energy is everything. Whether it's about trading, or having servants work for you, or having electricity work for you, "standard of living" has always been about having work done for you without expending your own energy to do it. The more work that gets done for you, the more energy it takes to maintain.
I have no proposal, wish I did. I'm afraid people will keep doing what people do, and nature will take it's course.
> none of which would benefit the planet in the long run
The planet is a big iron ball that doesn't give a damn what we do. The ones who care about epidemics and war are us humans, who are by and large causing the problems ourselves.
Although this is not politically correct to say, the fewer humans there are the better off the rest of the biosphere will be.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY
I wholeheartedly agree. In theory.
In practice, getting things done is probably incompatible with continuously being on the air.
> A horrible waste of time and money
Actually, it's absolutely the best possible use of time and money. What is life for, if not to do what we love?
One hundred people might elect somebody who represents the group well. One hundred thousand can not- most will have never met the person, and can only go on information that's been through three or four layers of filters.