I would recommend all slashdot articles that are related to conspiracies and happened in the US to add the statement "One has to wonder if this XYZ was sponsored by the US government or not".
Hmm, my dad rode a motorcycle to work and had to bring a laptop back and forth. Never seemed a problem for him.
I couldn't care less. Your dad doesn't carry my bag, I do. Listing the people who agree with you is useless.
Oh ya, and I would ride my bike with a backpack full of books to and from my bus stop.
And? Other people don't want to, and you're not them.
It seems you think your opinion is relevant to others purchases when the truth is I buy what I want for my needs, and what you think doesn't matter at all.
The point of university is to totally immerse yourself in your chosen subject.
That might have been the point for YOU but how do you get from your preference to a definitive assertion that your preference is a "Far better use of time."
I went to college to enjoy myself while earning a degree in a subject I enjoyed, not become a robot. If I wanted a trade school I would have gone to one, which is what you are describing.
Has America gotten so fat and lazy that 6 to 8 lbs is considered a huge burden?
It is when your primary mode of transportation is a motorcycle like mine is. Or if it's a bicycle like many students I know. Or walking/public transportation.
But actually understanding the subject would have prevented your jingoist rant, so you didn't bother I guess.
Doesn't the ridiculous labelling of open source software as "terrorism" call into question all the other things that get labelled terrorism?
Put your persecution complex away for a second, it was an analogy. Nowhere in this interview is open source software labeled terrorism, it is simply used as a metaphor.
Seriously though, if this article is somehow "proof" to you that your opinion was correct, then all those who were questioning your intellect were correct to do so.
"From what I can tell, welfare as most people argue it doesn't exist in the way they imagine it and hasn't for over 10 years."
What you can tell is still wrong.
ANd no, guy, I'm not going to help you out with how and why. The programs you seem to think have disappeared have simply been renamed and reallocated, welfare is still there in force.
If you did even a fraction of the research you imply you've done, you'd know that.
You seem to think your opinion on the subject matters. It doesn't.
"That would be abusing yourself with heroin."
A distinction without a difference, playing semantics is a ploy used by desperate people when their arguments fail like yours has.
The rest of your post is more useless opining unsupported by fact or logic, and buoyed only by your overly inflated assessment of the worth of your observations.
You don't know what you're talking about. Repeating your ignorant observations doesn't make them any less ignorant.
"My axe to grind is..."
No one cares. If you're not going to bother actually learning about a subject before shooting your mouth off in a way that displays your ignorance, you won't get many people who give you or your opinions any credibility.
If you had bothered to read my post, you'd see I mentioned that head shots are a result of incorrect performance.
In boxing, if you get hit in the head, it's because you didn't get out of the way. No part of boxing correctly requires you to take head shots EVER. You're supposed to dodge or block, not allow yourself to be hit. Incorrect performance, as I said.
Of course there's the rope-a-dope, but you couldn't have been talking about that because a) you didn't say it, you said boxing b) it entails getting hit on the FOREARMS AND BODY not the head.
I would however argue that the sensory impairment that drugs cause could be a mitigating factor that sports don't have. They really aren't comparable outside of an academic discussion, even then the comparison fails as I just demonstrated.
where are the negative health/social consequences?
Resources that are lost to maintenance of the addiction. Stress that is induced as a result of the maintenance of the addiction. If you think junkies just live normal lives until their designated appointment time, when they get a magic bean and all is well again, you're stunningly ignorant. Even on methadone, junkies fiend. Frequently, they say they seek the act of shooting up because the methadone treatment doesn't give them that feeling.
But you didn't know that did you? And yet you seem to feel you're qualified to comment.
There are some consequences. If you weren't so committed to your point, wrong as it is, you wouldn't have had to act like they don't exist.
By using it until you've destroyed your body? You know, by not getting sufficient nutrition because you're spending all your money on junk, or by using it so frequently you fail to notice your health deteriorating because you're nodding all the time.
Honestly, your question is just stupid.
The term "drug abuse"...
Has a specific medical definition. Yours is nowhere close, and doesn't have anything to do with this discussion.
Calling it "abuse" is a way of stifling debate
DO you ever see one of those posts that are so wrong they make your head hurt? Thanks, yours just did that for me.
No it is NOT a way of stifling debate, it is a way of identifying when a pattern of healthy use has changed into a pattern of unhealthy use otherwise known as abuse.
It's pretty obvious you're a user with an axe to grind. You're totally wrong though, and it makes me angry to see you disseminating faulty information.
According to the federal courts, addiction is not a disease.
What does this have to do with anything? The courts don't make the diagnostic criteria for diseases. What they think about it, outside very narrow legal channels, is totally irrelevant.
Substance abuse is the overindulgence in and dependence of a drug or other chemical leading to effects that are detrimental to the individual's physical and mental health, or the welfare of others.
That bolded part is the meat of the definition. If you meet that criteria, you're abusing.
By your explanation of your own behavior patterns, you too were a substance abuser.
So in short, when you said "He's not. ", if he meets the criteria, he most certainly is, and your opinion on the subject doesn't change it, even with the anecdote about your own abuse.
That argument only works if you view gun ownership as a personal right.
No, what I or you believe is irrelevant, my belief changes nothing.
Not everyone believes that, including many US courts
That is wrong, the restriction of a right is not equivalent to "not believing gun ownership is a right". That is a silly argument that has no basis in logic or law.
He didn't say he doesn't kill people because he "can't get away with it" he said "because there are repercussions" which could just as easily be referring to his personal guilt over killing someone. He could "get away with it" and there would STILL be consequences.
There's nothing insightful about straw men like the one you used.
Slashdot Mirror
Good thing you can step in front of a mirror so you don't have to imagine.
I don't know you, have never seen your posts, and yet you attack me for no reason. You are clearly a sockpuppet for the tool who I just STFU.
Because you asked a question and I gave you an answer.
No part of that requires me to give any credibility to your vacuous ideas about the subject.
So, you're a fan of the status quo.
I couldn't care less. Your dad doesn't carry my bag, I do. Listing the people who agree with you is useless.
And? Other people don't want to, and you're not them.
It seems you think your opinion is relevant to others purchases when the truth is I buy what I want for my needs, and what you think doesn't matter at all.
Martha Stewart is a criminal. How does her prosecution in any way effect this case?
Or are you saying a criminal should go unprosecuted because somewhere some other crime is going unprosecuted?
In their defense, if you still say "the bomb" you could probably use a few nights in the can.
Because all the necessary learning you're going to do outside your chosen subject will be successfully completed by high school graduation...
You didn't think before posting this, obviously.
That might have been the point for YOU but how do you get from your preference to a definitive assertion that your preference is a "Far better use of time."
I went to college to enjoy myself while earning a degree in a subject I enjoyed, not become a robot. If I wanted a trade school I would have gone to one, which is what you are describing.
It is when your primary mode of transportation is a motorcycle like mine is. Or if it's a bicycle like many students I know. Or walking/public transportation.
But actually understanding the subject would have prevented your jingoist rant, so you didn't bother I guess.
Put your persecution complex away for a second, it was an analogy. Nowhere in this interview is open source software labeled terrorism, it is simply used as a metaphor.
Nice rant though.
None. Math on the wrong numbers is useless, no matter how impressed you are with its accuracy.
Seriously though, if this article is somehow "proof" to you that your opinion was correct, then all those who were questioning your intellect were correct to do so.
"From what I can tell, welfare as most people argue it doesn't exist in the way they imagine it and hasn't for over 10 years."
What you can tell is still wrong.
ANd no, guy, I'm not going to help you out with how and why. The programs you seem to think have disappeared have simply been renamed and reallocated, welfare is still there in force.
If you did even a fraction of the research you imply you've done, you'd know that.
You're stupid and you can't read.
In the future, when you post, try to follow the argument you're replying to. You'll look less idiotic that way, and you won't repeat this experience.
You seem to think your opinion on the subject matters. It doesn't.
"That would be abusing yourself with heroin."
A distinction without a difference, playing semantics is a ploy used by desperate people when their arguments fail like yours has.
The rest of your post is more useless opining unsupported by fact or logic, and buoyed only by your overly inflated assessment of the worth of your observations.
You don't know what you're talking about. Repeating your ignorant observations doesn't make them any less ignorant.
"My axe to grind is..."
No one cares. If you're not going to bother actually learning about a subject before shooting your mouth off in a way that displays your ignorance, you won't get many people who give you or your opinions any credibility.
If you had bothered to read my post, you'd see I mentioned that head shots are a result of incorrect performance.
In boxing, if you get hit in the head, it's because you didn't get out of the way. No part of boxing correctly requires you to take head shots EVER. You're supposed to dodge or block, not allow yourself to be hit. Incorrect performance, as I said.
Of course there's the rope-a-dope, but you couldn't have been talking about that because a) you didn't say it, you said boxing b) it entails getting hit on the FOREARMS AND BODY not the head.
Frankly, your post was stupid.
You are wrong. I am right. Go away now.
That would be an injury, not a sport.
And as far as I'm aware, there's no sport for which the description of your desired activity is, "receive multiple blows to the head".
In fact, in every sport where such a thing occurs, it is a consequence of incorrect performance of a task.
So, again, the answer to your question is "no". And it really wasn't even a very good try.
Fixed that for you.
I would however argue that the sensory impairment that drugs cause could be a mitigating factor that sports don't have. They really aren't comparable outside of an academic discussion, even then the comparison fails as I just demonstrated.
By using it until you've destroyed your body? You know, by not getting sufficient nutrition because you're spending all your money on junk, or by using it so frequently you fail to notice your health deteriorating because you're nodding all the time.
Honestly, your question is just stupid.
Has a specific medical definition. Yours is nowhere close, and doesn't have anything to do with this discussion.
DO you ever see one of those posts that are so wrong they make your head hurt? Thanks, yours just did that for me.
No it is NOT a way of stifling debate, it is a way of identifying when a pattern of healthy use has changed into a pattern of unhealthy use otherwise known as abuse.
It's pretty obvious you're a user with an axe to grind. You're totally wrong though, and it makes me angry to see you disseminating faulty information.
What does this have to do with anything? The courts don't make the diagnostic criteria for diseases. What they think about it, outside very narrow legal channels, is totally irrelevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substance_abuse
That bolded part is the meat of the definition. If you meet that criteria, you're abusing.
By your explanation of your own behavior patterns, you too were a substance abuser.
So in short, when you said "He's not. ", if he meets the criteria, he most certainly is, and your opinion on the subject doesn't change it, even with the anecdote about your own abuse.
No, what I or you believe is irrelevant, my belief changes nothing.
That is wrong, the restriction of a right is not equivalent to "not believing gun ownership is a right". That is a silly argument that has no basis in logic or law.
He didn't say he doesn't kill people because he "can't get away with it" he said "because there are repercussions" which could just as easily be referring to his personal guilt over killing someone. He could "get away with it" and there would STILL be consequences.
There's nothing insightful about straw men like the one you used.
Your wife would want you to kill a rabbit just so you could get some ass?
Holy crap, there's like 5 things wrong with that, I don't even know where to begin.
From YOUR link
Why must you lie?