You are either forgetting (or don't care) that many stupid people equate legal with good. That's one problem with legalizing everything.
I just don't think that is true. Smoking is considered bad for you by most people and yet is legal. Eating badly is considered bad for you by most people and yet is legal. Drinking heavily is conidered bad for you by most people and yet is legal.
Another problem is that, you assume that the cartels would just give up and go home or not be able to cross the border to get at the US based companies. How do you think they get the drugs here? You don't think an established cartel (basically a small army) can't lean on a corporation? That's a bit naive don't you think?
No I don't think they can. Sending your small army across the border gets the attention of the US military whereas smuggling drugs does not. And no I don't think drug cartels could lean on say Monsanto or Pfizer or GE in any significant way. And doing so isn't going to be profitable anyway.
Your suggestion of nationalism in that it [would suck for mexico] is a bit selfish too, but I suspect you might be a big fan of NIMBY so that's unfortunate.:(
There was no suggestion of nationalism. Just a statement that if you remove the profit from something that large numbers of well armed thugs have been doing they are not just going to disappear. They are going to move to other crimes. And that would suck for the people around them - in this case that would be the people in Mexico. And "people in X" is often shortened to "X".
And no I don't see it as selfish. If the US creates stricter environmental regulations then some factories/etc that violate them will simply be moved to other countries with less strict regulations. That would be suck for those countries, but calling the US selfish for doing so is a bit of a stretch.
Once you invent time travel it's not going to be terribly difficult to be first to file... of course the time travel patent will have expired hundreds of years ago in a race to be first.
Anybody who wants to take drugs now can do so easily. Sure it's illegal but people who are certainly in the "complete drolling moron" category of intelligence manage to figure out how to get their hands on it.
So making them legal doesn't change that.
And no the cartels are not going to start killing the CEOs of multinational corporations that never go to Mexico.
It'd suck in the short term for Mexico. Taking the revenue stream away from heavily armed thugs will almost certainly see them turning more attention to stealing from, extorting, etc the locals.
Ah that makes sense, I misinterpreted "I 2" completely...
"My 2 year old" is the english wording - "my" is the possessive case of I. Your English is several trillion times better than my Dutch, so don't take that as criticism.
There's making a mistake or making a bad decision.
And there's doing something "over the course of several years".
They are vastly different things.
He consciously decided to do the same thing over and over again. If he was really regretful he would have stopped doing it long ago. If this was digging up a few photos from years ago and nothing since then then yes it might be something he could genuinly be regretful for - but it isn't.
He's had time to stop doing it and either be better at taking photos, submit crappier photos, or change careers.
The speaking out against the very thing he was doing is a good indication he was regretful in the sense that he felt guilty about it. But not regretful enough to simply stop doing it - which is what the those who say he's only regretful of being caught mean.
That there would be enough for my kid to not be playing it anymore. He lost little big planet 2 because of that, and lost Terraria for the exact opposite (getting far too worked up when he died - angry when he was playing it effectively).
Though of course you may use the word "angry":at a lower threshold than I do.
They would, but you wouldn't hear about since there'd be no need to make an announcement or have someone arrested. They'd just internally discipline - from sacking to lowering their limits to adding more oversight. Losing $2B is pretty obviously outside your limits whereas you could make $2B without exceeding your trading limits - so they may not notice if their oversight is shit (and apparently it is).
You are broadcasting something unencrypted into spectrum defined as shared. Of course you should have to opt-out.
So you also think everyone in the area should cover their ears when you talk so as not to collect your broadcasted message, unless you have opted-in to them being allowed to hear?
That most people are polite because "it makes the world a nicer place" is irrelevant.
Whether society it polite or not is not determined by the people who want to be polite - it is determined by the people who don't want to. If you can convince them to be polite or remove them entirely then you have a polite society.
There are lots of different societies in the world. Some don't have any video games at all even.
Your income is also paid in exchange for worthless shit from you (or is your stuff conveniently in the tiny "not almost everything" category?). So exchanging shit for shit doesn't seem unfair.
And playing a video game (that you don't like anyway apparently) isn't a "need". Or did that silver spoon really go that far up your arse?
It's a computer game sold as a download - clearly it is not "mass manufactured" unless I'm a manufacturing tycoon every time I run "cp -r".
Overpriced is impossible to judge since I have no idea what their costs were or how much time they spent on it or what you judge is a fair wage for that time. But it is less than the tip on my "It's Friday, stuff cooking let's go to the Chinese place" dinner. It's about what pay the government in income taxes each hour I work.
And "SHIT" is also hard to judge without playing the game or at least hearing from someone whose opinion I trust who has.
And since all mainstream games sucks per you, just what is a non-mainstream game?
The precautionary principle doesn't say to weigh up the risks and benefits. It says that if there is a suspected risk of harm then the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.
Essentially it's a call to do nothing, because there are always risks. And completely ignores the risks of inaction (which is the class of risks you were pointing out).
There are a bunch of people who think vaccines do harm. Yes they are mostly luncatics with a few gullible fools thrown in, but they exist. And they have their emperical coincidences.
The simplest example is the question "should we use the precautionary principle". Many people claim it would be harmful to do so (and have logical and empirical support*) - hence the precautionary principle says we shouldn't use the precautionary principle, at least until those proposing it can prove it safe.
* Pesticides have saved millions of lives, but have also harmed the environment (in ways other than killing the pests they were designed to kill). We didn't know they would do so much damage when we first used them (we had no experience with bio accumulation at that point), and there are almost certainly more things we don't know. Hence the precautionary principle says we shouldn't use them at all - but they have (and continue to) saved millions of lives...
Do you often launch into rants that have no relation at all to the post you are replying to.
Said post didn't mention "too much processing power" or "overkill" or the requirement of any other person than themselves.
In fact all they said is that they'd take the one with 50% of the performance for 10% of the price since it seems good enough. Obviously faster would be better, but that poster happens get more utility spending the money on something else.
Why would you get so worked up about someone elses simple economic choices?
If 6 milliseconds matters then long term trends in the stock market are completely irrelevant and hence that bias you mention does not apply.
And what makes you think that that "continually dumping more money" is a universal truth - what happens if it no longer applies (say people are overall spending their retirement savings and cashing in their insurance rather than investing into them)?
Slashdot Mirror
You are either forgetting (or don't care) that many stupid people equate legal with good. That's one problem with legalizing everything.
I just don't think that is true. Smoking is considered bad for you by most people and yet is legal. Eating badly is considered bad for you by most people and yet is legal. Drinking heavily is conidered bad for you by most people and yet is legal.
Another problem is that, you assume that the cartels would just give up and go home or not be able to cross the border to get at the US based companies. How do you think they get the drugs here? You don't think an established cartel (basically a small army) can't lean on a corporation? That's a bit naive don't you think?
No I don't think they can. Sending your small army across the border gets the attention of the US military whereas smuggling drugs does not. And no I don't think drug cartels could lean on say Monsanto or Pfizer or GE in any significant way. And doing so isn't going to be profitable anyway.
Your suggestion of nationalism in that it [would suck for mexico] is a bit selfish too, but I suspect you might be a big fan of NIMBY so that's unfortunate. :(
There was no suggestion of nationalism. Just a statement that if you remove the profit from something that large numbers of well armed thugs have been doing they are not just going to disappear. They are going to move to other crimes. And that would suck for the people around them - in this case that would be the people in Mexico. And "people in X" is often shortened to "X".
And no I don't see it as selfish. If the US creates stricter environmental regulations then some factories/etc that violate them will simply be moved to other countries with less strict regulations. That would be suck for those countries, but calling the US selfish for doing so is a bit of a stretch.
And you suspect wrong.
So as your income increases you are happy to live in riskier areas?
I'm pretty sure some people would rather not be dead even though their property was adequately insured.
That does sound more reasonable..
But when making changes that involve that law surely you should introduce the changes you think should be made?
Because this is the first time they've ever done this, right?
It's not like every other Soyuz Capsule has managed to not have this happen or anything.
And it's not like communication should reestablish after you are through the plasma.
But has not problem with them being a misdemeanor apparently and hence doesn't deserve any cheering.
Once you invent time travel it's not going to be terribly difficult to be first to file... of course the time travel patent will have expired hundreds of years ago in a race to be first.
Yes you legalize them all.
Anybody who wants to take drugs now can do so easily. Sure it's illegal but people who are certainly in the "complete drolling moron" category of intelligence manage to figure out how to get their hands on it.
So making them legal doesn't change that.
And no the cartels are not going to start killing the CEOs of multinational corporations that never go to Mexico.
It'd suck in the short term for Mexico. Taking the revenue stream away from heavily armed thugs will almost certainly see them turning more attention to stealing from, extorting, etc the locals.
Ah that makes sense, I misinterpreted "I 2" completely...
"My 2 year old" is the english wording - "my" is the possessive case of I. Your English is several trillion times better than my Dutch, so don't take that as criticism.
Freedom of speech applies to non-citizens as well. It applies to everyone living in the US.
Voting in federal election and running for federal office (and jury duty if you call that a right...) are limited to citizens.
Expression, speech, assembly, petitioning the government, worship, bearing arms - those freedoms apply to everyone living in the US (in theory...)
There's making a mistake or making a bad decision.
And there's doing something "over the course of several years".
They are vastly different things.
He consciously decided to do the same thing over and over again. If he was really regretful he would have stopped doing it long ago. If this was digging up a few photos from years ago and nothing since then then yes it might be something he could genuinly be regretful for - but it isn't.
He's had time to stop doing it and either be better at taking photos, submit crappier photos, or change careers.
The speaking out against the very thing he was doing is a good indication he was regretful in the sense that he felt guilty about it. But not regretful enough to simply stop doing it - which is what the those who say he's only regretful of being caught mean.
gets angry when he can't play it
That there would be enough for my kid to not be playing it anymore. He lost little big planet 2 because of that, and lost Terraria for the exact opposite (getting far too worked up when he died - angry when he was playing it effectively).
Though of course you may use the word "angry":at a lower threshold than I do.
They would, but you wouldn't hear about since there'd be no need to make an announcement or have someone arrested. They'd just internally discipline - from sacking to lowering their limits to adding more oversight. Losing $2B is pretty obviously outside your limits whereas you could make $2B without exceeding your trading limits - so they may not notice if their oversight is shit (and apparently it is).
Giving up a chance at a $5 PSN voucher in some random class action suit.
I take it you selected the "pointlessly" option then?
You are broadcasting something unencrypted into spectrum defined as shared. Of course you should have to opt-out.
So you also think everyone in the area should cover their ears when you talk so as not to collect your broadcasted message, unless you have opted-in to them being allowed to hear?
It's a windows port of gcc/gdb/etc for fuck sake. I'm pretty sure they run on free software operating systems just fine.
That most people are polite because "it makes the world a nicer place" is irrelevant.
Whether society it polite or not is not determined by the people who want to be polite - it is determined by the people who don't want to. If you can convince them to be polite or remove them entirely then you have a polite society.
WinAVR is free software, so obviously yes.
So move elsewhere, surely?
There are lots of different societies in the world. Some don't have any video games at all even.
Your income is also paid in exchange for worthless shit from you (or is your stuff conveniently in the tiny "not almost everything" category?). So exchanging shit for shit doesn't seem unfair.
And playing a video game (that you don't like anyway apparently) isn't a "need". Or did that silver spoon really go that far up your arse?
It's a computer game sold as a download - clearly it is not "mass manufactured" unless I'm a manufacturing tycoon every time I run "cp -r".
Overpriced is impossible to judge since I have no idea what their costs were or how much time they spent on it or what you judge is a fair wage for that time. But it is less than the tip on my "It's Friday, stuff cooking let's go to the Chinese place" dinner. It's about what pay the government in income taxes each hour I work.
And "SHIT" is also hard to judge without playing the game or at least hearing from someone whose opinion I trust who has.
And since all mainstream games sucks per you, just what is a non-mainstream game?
So you also don't understand the meaning of need. OK.
Clearly his computer lets him do what he does on it, that's so obivous it is a tautology. Thus it meets his need.
If you want to be technical of course he doesn't "need" it at all. I promise take that computer away completely and he continues to live.
The precautionary principle doesn't say to weigh up the risks and benefits. It says that if there is a suspected risk of harm then the burden of proof that it is not harmful falls on those taking the action.
Essentially it's a call to do nothing, because there are always risks. And completely ignores the risks of inaction (which is the class of risks you were pointing out).
There are a bunch of people who think vaccines do harm. Yes they are mostly luncatics with a few gullible fools thrown in, but they exist. And they have their emperical coincidences.
The simplest example is the question "should we use the precautionary principle". Many people claim it would be harmful to do so (and have logical and empirical support*) - hence the precautionary principle says we shouldn't use the precautionary principle, at least until those proposing it can prove it safe.
* Pesticides have saved millions of lives, but have also harmed the environment (in ways other than killing the pests they were designed to kill). We didn't know they would do so much damage when we first used them (we had no experience with bio accumulation at that point), and there are almost certainly more things we don't know. Hence the precautionary principle says we shouldn't use them at all - but they have (and continue to) saved millions of lives...
Do you often launch into rants that have no relation at all to the post you are replying to.
Said post didn't mention "too much processing power" or "overkill" or the requirement of any other person than themselves.
In fact all they said is that they'd take the one with 50% of the performance for 10% of the price since it seems good enough. Obviously faster would be better, but that poster happens get more utility spending the money on something else.
Why would you get so worked up about someone elses simple economic choices?
If 6 milliseconds matters then long term trends in the stock market are completely irrelevant and hence that bias you mention does not apply.
And what makes you think that that "continually dumping more money" is a universal truth - what happens if it no longer applies (say people are overall spending their retirement savings and cashing in their insurance rather than investing into them)?