Right now we have an airport security apparatus that costs well over $1B more than the pre-9/11 costs.
It is not statistically/demonstrably safer than the pre 9/11 security. Actually it is.
9/11 total cost was under $1MM to orchestrate... likely under $100k!
So what? destruction is cheap, always has been. Most burglars spend exact zero dollar in tolls to orchestrate a break in. Does this mean you should spend money trying to prevent break ins?
"There is no such thing as perfect safety, perfect security, or perfect intelligence. Understand what acceptable risk is and we avoid wasting all this obscene money."
Once again, you make the assumption it's an obscene money, but you clearly haven't done any kind of risk analysis based on the current data. Heaven forbid you look at facts, you might change your mind! haha I kid, I doubt you are capable of changing your mind.
except they don't work that way. Big and public. Shut down the means of transportation.
I doubt anyone who read make can make a missile that could find and hit a plane in flight.
I would love to see someone get a brookstone quadcopter manege to hit a plane traveling at 100's of miles an hour. Or even one with enough lift to get enough explosives off the ground.
The quote is: "Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
That said: Why do you assume it's true? Why do you state it as if it is a finished proof.
IT is not.
Do you doors have locks? well then, you can' even enter you own house without a key! You have given up essential liberty, for safety, there for you deserve nothing.
What's that, you have to wait while they do a safety check of the airline? OMG!!
Why don't you actually think about the subject instead of just post trite out of context statements?
You do know that it's a fact that people hijack planes, write? You do know that screening began because someone blew up a plane mid-flight with a bag of dynamite, right?
He also didn't believe light was created from the sun. You know, just to keep perspective that he was a man, and not some sort of fool proof machine. "I am not satisfy'd with the doctrine that supposes particles of matter call'd light continually driven off from the Sun's Surface, with a Swiftness so prodigious!"
also this little gem:
"If Men are so wicked as we now see them with Religion what would they be if without it?" Turns out, less wicked.
"Marijuana has not been shown to cause cancer" false.
"and has a much lower correlation with lung disease than cigarettes." true.
"No one brings up the fact that car exhaust can cause lung damage when discussing transportation." but they should.
" In both cases, the harm is there in theory, " no. Both have good evidences around them.
"but isn't significant enough to be of concern in normal circumstances." of course it is. The fact that no one talks about it in no way means it should be talked about.
BTW, I have been ion several transportation meeting* and that can be topic is a concern.
*regarding new corridors, population density, traffic flow v. growth.
" but marijuana is only as addictive as masturbation." wrong. But keep lying to yourself. IT's not as addictive as tobacco, but it can be addictive.
These criteria are met with users. Espcially stron in groups who started using marijuana 10-15 years of age:
(i) an overpowering desire or need (compulsion) to continue taking the drug and to obtain it by any means; Stealing, lying, etc.. (ii) a tendency to increase the dose; Very common among all users.
(iii) a psychic (psychological) and generally a physical dependence on the effects of the drug; Often a feelign that they can not 'function' or 'relax' with out it. (iv) detrimental effects on the individual and on society. People take risks to obtain it. Risk that can put themselves or others at risk.
Also, people will forgo basic ncessities in order to obtain it.
So, yes there are addictive properties to marijuana. Don't be naive. That said, is it should be legalized, measured, dosed and taxed. Sold to people over 21.
"In my experience, pot heads who have never smoked tobacco do not go on to harder drugs," y experience is the opposite, but as you should know, anecdotal evidence is always crap.
" while those who have smoked tobacco have a higher rate of addiction to harder drugs later on down the line." Actual evidences doesn't bear that out.
Some drugs are gateway drug. Marijuana got this accusation because it's illegal, and as such often found with other illegal drugs.
and you are stretching the term gateway drug out of it's contexts.
That said, the DARE program mad eit a gateway drug.
Dare pushed the All Recreational drugs a Equally harmful and will ruin you lesson. As such, when these kids grew up and saw that most people who used marijuana lead perfectly normal lives, they made that assumption about all drugs.
I couldn't gt [ast this sentences: " When Professor Bonnie and I set out to try to track the legal history of marijuana in this country, we were shocked that nobody had ever done that work before."
That's complete bullshit. As such, I can't trust the rest.
"The fact is, that the vast majority of business people would do honest business and not try to screw anyone, even in the complete absence of government" That's contrary to the entire history of business since the industrial age.
"The barriers to entry in a market are created by the government in the first place." no they aren't.
It's a stupid statement.
"Big business uses government regulation to create cartels and monopolies." ah, it's a stupid argument because you are completely ignorant of government and business.
"And what if businesses believe this "meme" and don't hire?" they don't. No one in business does, becasue they would go out of business if they assumes all the properties of business where static.
"Your failing to understand business concerns doesn't make them magically go away." it's not an actual business concern.
"Why should people risk their money, their current position, their efforts and their time to hire people to make a profit when the government is trying to increase the risks and take most the profits?" the government doesn't do that, and in some case the regualtions decrease the risk.
" (And don't argue that the government is not doing that. Even if you were right, it doesn't make any difference unless you are the one hiring.)" so you make a provable incorrect statement, and then make a statement saying the shit you made up doesn't matter in the argument? are you stupid?
No he isn't. The pubs are always saying that shit. trying to freeze regulation in a place so when companies find loop holes and abuse them they can do so without consequences.
I am unaware of any democrat that says: "Businesses are not able to act confidently when they are worried that the rules are going to keep changing" If there are, then they are wrong as well.
If you actually bother to get off your fat ass an look into economic histry, you would realize that h\increasing government programs for infrastructure has always gotten a country out of similar economic situations.
The pubs cut that actual amount of money needed for those programs, but even still, the economy is a lot better now then it was in 08. Cut it after they agreed to it, btw.
Romney's "Plan" has never, ever not once gotten any country out of a similar economic situation in all of history. It took the Japanese 10 years to get to the level of recovery we have in 4. Because they took the same flawed approach as Romney.
After words we begin deleveraging.
It's trivial to look up the recovery numbers. Every time the pubs say the economy is Obama's fault, they are lying. Plain and simple. Look at the numbers.
Get a really like war effort moving on building 4th gen reactor and solar combined country system. One people stop using their oil, it will take about a decade for them to be throwing rocks at each other, or work together.
" then leave the people there to their own devices." AH, so blow up all their shit then just leave. I see. You're pretty rude, aren't you?
Assuming you are actual Native american, you might want to look at your own history.
Native Americans where killing each other and taking each others land and towns. You're people helps a great deal against other tribes. So don't get holier then thou, fuck twad.
Stop making up shit. This is solly the result of Jobs not being there., It's a corporate move focus on money and not on the product. Jobs success was focusing on the product knowing money would follow. There is no green Mafia.
"what does it matter if some of the screens are glued on?" They want to remove all screws, making servicing impossible. The means into the trash instead of a new battery. It' also kills the chance of a secondary market. I.E people willing to pick up a devices where the battery is dead for less money and then replace it themselves.
Bullshit. They wouldn't work with him then pushed him out. You're pretty god damn stupid to think Jobs wasn't talented and smart.
Jobs was brilant at marketing, but he was brilliant at focusing on the product know money would follow. He was brilliant at finding smart people and listening.
Slashdot Mirror
Right now we have an airport security apparatus that costs well over $1B more than the pre-9/11 costs.
It is not statistically/demonstrably safer than the pre 9/11 security.
Actually it is.
9/11 total cost was under $1MM to orchestrate... likely under $100k!
So what? destruction is cheap, always has been.
Most burglars spend exact zero dollar in tolls to orchestrate a break in. Does this mean you should spend money trying to prevent break ins?
"There is no such thing as perfect safety, perfect security, or perfect intelligence. Understand what acceptable risk is and we avoid wasting all this obscene money."
Once again, you make the assumption it's an obscene money, but you clearly haven't done any kind of risk analysis based on the current data.
Heaven forbid you look at facts, you might change your mind! haha I kid, I doubt you are capable of changing your mind.
except they don't work that way. Big and public. Shut down the means of transportation.
I doubt anyone who read make can make a missile that could find and hit a plane in flight.
I would love to see someone get a brookstone quadcopter manege to hit a plane traveling at 100's of miles an hour. Or even one with enough lift to get enough explosives off the ground.
The quote is:
"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
That said:
Why do you assume it's true? Why do you state it as if it is a finished proof.
IT is not.
Do you doors have locks? well then, you can' even enter you own house without a key! You have given up essential liberty, for safety, there for you deserve nothing.
What's that, you have to wait while they do a safety check of the airline? OMG!!
Why don't you actually think about the subject instead of just post trite out of context statements?
You do know that it's a fact that people hijack planes, write? You do know that screening began because someone blew up a plane mid-flight with a bag of dynamite, right?
He also didn't believe light was created from the sun. You know, just to keep perspective that he was a man, and not some sort of fool proof machine.
"I am not satisfy'd with the doctrine that supposes particles of matter call'd light continually driven off from the Sun's Surface, with a Swiftness so prodigious!"
also this little gem:
"If Men are so wicked as we now see them with Religion what would they be if without it?" Turns out, less wicked.
FACT: there will be false positive.
The question you seem to be getting overly concerned about it "What happens when that occurs?"
No, the private companies would just charge the government more. And more. You know,. cause CEOs need their bonuses.
I look forward to the searches~
"Marijuana has not been shown to cause cancer"
false.
"and has a much lower correlation with lung disease than cigarettes."
true.
"No one brings up the fact that car exhaust can cause lung damage when discussing transportation."
but they should.
" In both cases, the harm is there in theory, "
no. Both have good evidences around them.
"but isn't significant enough to be of concern in normal circumstances."
of course it is. The fact that no one talks about it in no way means it should be talked about.
BTW, I have been ion several transportation meeting* and that can be topic is a concern.
*regarding new corridors, population density, traffic flow v. growth.
" but marijuana is only as addictive as masturbation."
wrong. But keep lying to yourself.
IT's not as addictive as tobacco, but it can be addictive.
These criteria are met with users. Espcially stron in groups who started using marijuana 10-15 years of age:
(i) an overpowering desire or need (compulsion) to continue taking the drug and to obtain it by any means;
Stealing, lying, etc..
(ii) a tendency to increase the dose;
Very common among all users.
(iii) a psychic (psychological) and generally a physical dependence on the effects of the drug;
Often a feelign that they can not 'function' or 'relax' with out it.
(iv) detrimental effects on the individual and on society.
People take risks to obtain it. Risk that can put themselves or others at risk.
Also, people will forgo basic ncessities in order to obtain it.
So, yes there are addictive properties to marijuana.
Don't be naive.
That said, is it should be legalized, measured, dosed and taxed. Sold to people over 21.
"In my experience, pot heads who have never smoked tobacco do not go on to harder drugs,"
y experience is the opposite, but as you should know, anecdotal evidence is always crap.
" while those who have smoked tobacco have a higher rate of addiction to harder drugs later on down the line."
Actual evidences doesn't bear that out.
(* statistic made up for illustrative purposes.)
I am assuming to illustrate your ignorance on what the studies mean and the science involved.
No. That's a completely uneducated view on how science works.
Yeah,try crack and then let me know how your outdated hypothesis works out for you.
Some drugs change the brain chemistry. Some can go from quit functional in society to homeless crazy in short order.
This doesn't apply to pot, and some personality are more susceptible to abuse(based on dopamine and serotonin) but it isn't a catch all.
It's brain chemistry.
Not really.
Some drugs are gateway drug. Marijuana got this accusation because it's illegal, and as such often found with other illegal drugs.
and you are stretching the term gateway drug out of it's contexts.
That said, the DARE program mad eit a gateway drug.
Dare pushed the All Recreational drugs a Equally harmful and will ruin you lesson.
As such, when these kids grew up and saw that most people who used marijuana lead perfectly normal lives, they made that assumption about all drugs.
That is why DARE is a failure.
I couldn't gt [ast this sentences:
" When Professor Bonnie and I set out to try to track the legal history of marijuana in this country, we were shocked that nobody had ever done that work before."
That's complete bullshit. As such, I can't trust the rest.
HAHAHA.. I like how you assumed your choice was 'informed'.
tell me, what studies did you read to become informed on your risks.
The word you are looking for is "excuses"
"The fact is, that the vast majority of business people would do honest business and not try to screw anyone, even in the complete absence of government"
That's contrary to the entire history of business since the industrial age.
"The barriers to entry in a market are created by the government in the first place."
no they aren't.
It's a stupid statement.
"Big business uses government regulation to create cartels and monopolies."
ah, it's a stupid argument because you are completely ignorant of government and business.
"And what if businesses believe this "meme" and don't hire?"
they don't. No one in business does, becasue they would go out of business if they assumes all the properties of business where static.
"Your failing to understand business concerns doesn't make them magically go away."
it's not an actual business concern.
"Why should people risk their money, their current position, their efforts and their time to hire people to make a profit when the government is trying to increase the risks and take most the profits?"
the government doesn't do that, and in some case the regualtions decrease the risk.
" (And don't argue that the government is not doing that. Even if you were right, it doesn't make any difference unless you are the one hiring.)"
so you make a provable incorrect statement, and then make a statement saying the shit you made up doesn't matter in the argument? are you stupid?
No he isn't. The pubs are always saying that shit. trying to freeze regulation in a place so when companies find loop holes and abuse them they can do so without consequences.
I am unaware of any democrat that says:
"Businesses are not able to act confidently when they are worried that the rules are going to keep changing"
If there are, then they are wrong as well.
Wrong.
If you actually bother to get off your fat ass an look into economic histry, you would realize that h\increasing government programs for infrastructure has always gotten a country out of similar economic situations.
The pubs cut that actual amount of money needed for those programs, but even still, the economy is a lot better now then it was in 08. Cut it after they agreed to it, btw.
Romney's "Plan" has never, ever not once gotten any country out of a similar economic situation in all of history. It took the Japanese 10 years to get to the level of recovery we have in 4. Because they took the same flawed approach as Romney.
After words we begin deleveraging.
It's trivial to look up the recovery numbers. Every time the pubs say the economy is Obama's fault, they are lying. Plain and simple. Look at the numbers.
Get serious about internal power.
Get a really like war effort moving on building 4th gen reactor and solar combined country system.
One people stop using their oil, it will take about a decade for them to be throwing rocks at each other, or work together.
" then leave the people there to their own devices."
AH, so blow up all their shit then just leave.
I see. You're pretty rude, aren't you?
Assuming you are actual Native american, you might want to look at your own history.
Native Americans where killing each other and taking each others land and towns. You're people helps a great deal against other tribes.
So don't get holier then thou, fuck twad.
Stop making up shit.
This is solly the result of Jobs not being there., It's a corporate move focus on money and not on the product.
Jobs success was focusing on the product knowing money would follow.
There is no green Mafia.
"what does it matter if some of the screens are glued on?"
They want to remove all screws, making servicing impossible. The means into the trash instead of a new battery. It' also kills the chance of a secondary market. I.E people willing to pick up a devices where the battery is dead for less money and then replace it themselves.
Recycling isn't perfect. It's better to reuse.
Where an I get lead paint?
Bullshit.
They wouldn't work with him then pushed him out.
You're pretty god damn stupid to think Jobs wasn't talented and smart.
Jobs was brilant at marketing, but he was brilliant at focusing on the product know money would follow. He was brilliant at finding smart people and listening.
Post jobs direction change at the company.
Say what you will about him, but Jobs always worked to keep things as environment friendly as possible.