I actually have some data from my sociology class that could support his claim. I don't have a reference to give you, except that the story is found in "The Human Experience" reader. I don't have it handy, or I'd give you a more exact reference, but the gist of the article was that all victimless crimes - not just marijuana, but also things like prostitution - serve to keep peoples' eyes off of the rich. It's typically the poor who are driven by desperation to do many of the victimless crimes (though, I suppose that could be argued in the case of marijuana, but there's still a significant portion of marijuana smokers who are poor or middle class).
In essence, when someone is arrested for marijuana or another victimless crime, it goes on their permanent record. It keeps the poor poor, because these people find it difficult if not impossible to find a steady job with a criminal record, and so, in order to survive, and with the mentality in place that "I'm already a criminal, so I can't really fall any further," these people often begin resorting to thievery and other crimes that are not victimless, and are sent to jail. Because the poor have been driven to these crimes, the eyes of the general population are drawn to them, and they say, "The poor are the criminals of our society. The poor cause all of our problems." Their eyes are diverted nicely from the problems of the rich as the enforced problems of the poor seem to carry more weight.
So, in that regard, it does help keep rich people rich. Or at least, it keeps them in power, which, in a roundabout way, keeps them rich.
The person who wrote the article was a professor teaching a class on the American justice system. Ironically, as an exercise, he asked the students to develop a prison system with the express intention of keeping the rich in power (before explaining all of the above to them), and what they developed was almost an exact copy of the American justice system.
Unfortunately, it's not really possible to single out and remove vocals from a single-track or even dual-track (stereo, left and right tracks) recording. All of the frequencies get smashed into one, and the only way to eliminate anything from it is to just leave out frequencies within the human vocal range. Unfortunately, a lot of background music also falls within the human vocal range. Until music is released in the same multi-track format it was recorded in, we probably won't ever see a perfect vocal removal. And considering the potential liability for copyright infringement if that's done, I don't have a high degree of expectation that that day will ever arrive.
As my psychology professor told me, "Nothing in science is ever proven, only disproven." When something reaches the level of being called a "Theory," that means it's generally accepted by the scientific world until it's disproven. A "law" is still a theory, just one that's withstood the test of time long enough that people have, for the most part, stopped trying to disprove it.
I think the word that most people are looking for here is "hypothesis." Denying something because it's "only a theory" would essentially mean denying everything we've ever achieved or learned in the scientific world throughout the entire history of mankind.
It's been said by several people already, but remember: Gravity is also just a theory.
And this, my friends, is why I vote Libertarian. It doesn't matter which of the two big parties is in office. Either way, the government is just going to get bigger and bigger, and our list of freedoms is going to get smaller and smaller.
I only hope I'll live long enough to see the day when a president is finally elected who believes in small government and freedom for all, like our founding fathers did. As it stands now, we seem to be moving ever closer to a totalitarian regime with each new president who's elected. I just hope I can get out of here before soldiers start getting posted on every street corner.
I wonder, when America does finally get to that point, do you think the new Democratic Iraq and Afghanistan will show up to unseat our leaders? It'd be kind of ironic to hear them going on about "The Middle-Eastern Man's Burden." Maybe they'll find some weapons of mass destruction here, while they're at it.
The first two "external website" references on the Britannica article don't exist, and they have absolutely NO references to any published books on the subject. This entry would be absolutely useless in trying to write a research paper. On the other hand, I can go out and buy or borrow from the library one or all of the books on Wikipedia's article, and likely write an entire paper without having to ever type a word into Google.
I think the point is... if the laws are bad for homosexuals, homosexuals aren't going to live there in the first place. And you can't hire someone who's not there. Google is asking for a more inviting environment so that homosexual people will be more in the mind to move there if they're hired. It's about improving the pool of potential hirees.
It has nothing to do with how the business treats homosexuals, but rather, whether or not they even have the opportunity to treat them in any way at all.
Slashdot Mirror
I actually have some data from my sociology class that could support his claim. I don't have a reference to give you, except that the story is found in "The Human Experience" reader. I don't have it handy, or I'd give you a more exact reference, but the gist of the article was that all victimless crimes - not just marijuana, but also things like prostitution - serve to keep peoples' eyes off of the rich. It's typically the poor who are driven by desperation to do many of the victimless crimes (though, I suppose that could be argued in the case of marijuana, but there's still a significant portion of marijuana smokers who are poor or middle class).
In essence, when someone is arrested for marijuana or another victimless crime, it goes on their permanent record. It keeps the poor poor, because these people find it difficult if not impossible to find a steady job with a criminal record, and so, in order to survive, and with the mentality in place that "I'm already a criminal, so I can't really fall any further," these people often begin resorting to thievery and other crimes that are not victimless, and are sent to jail. Because the poor have been driven to these crimes, the eyes of the general population are drawn to them, and they say, "The poor are the criminals of our society. The poor cause all of our problems." Their eyes are diverted nicely from the problems of the rich as the enforced problems of the poor seem to carry more weight.
So, in that regard, it does help keep rich people rich. Or at least, it keeps them in power, which, in a roundabout way, keeps them rich.
The person who wrote the article was a professor teaching a class on the American justice system. Ironically, as an exercise, he asked the students to develop a prison system with the express intention of keeping the rich in power (before explaining all of the above to them), and what they developed was almost an exact copy of the American justice system.
The Internet is no place for one who can't take sarcasm when it's a response to the same. I'm obviously not leaving.
I wasn't aware girls weren't allowed on /.; guess I'd better leave. Glad to know our society's starting to move away from sexism for a change.
Can anyone tell me why things decide to randomly post anonymously when I haven't checked the "Post Anonymously" box? Above comment was mine.
Unfortunately, it's not really possible to single out and remove vocals from a single-track or even dual-track (stereo, left and right tracks) recording. All of the frequencies get smashed into one, and the only way to eliminate anything from it is to just leave out frequencies within the human vocal range. Unfortunately, a lot of background music also falls within the human vocal range. Until music is released in the same multi-track format it was recorded in, we probably won't ever see a perfect vocal removal. And considering the potential liability for copyright infringement if that's done, I don't have a high degree of expectation that that day will ever arrive.
As my psychology professor told me, "Nothing in science is ever proven, only disproven." When something reaches the level of being called a "Theory," that means it's generally accepted by the scientific world until it's disproven. A "law" is still a theory, just one that's withstood the test of time long enough that people have, for the most part, stopped trying to disprove it.
I think the word that most people are looking for here is "hypothesis." Denying something because it's "only a theory" would essentially mean denying everything we've ever achieved or learned in the scientific world throughout the entire history of mankind.
It's been said by several people already, but remember: Gravity is also just a theory.
And this, my friends, is why I vote Libertarian. It doesn't matter which of the two big parties is in office. Either way, the government is just going to get bigger and bigger, and our list of freedoms is going to get smaller and smaller.
I only hope I'll live long enough to see the day when a president is finally elected who believes in small government and freedom for all, like our founding fathers did. As it stands now, we seem to be moving ever closer to a totalitarian regime with each new president who's elected. I just hope I can get out of here before soldiers start getting posted on every street corner.
I wonder, when America does finally get to that point, do you think the new Democratic Iraq and Afghanistan will show up to unseat our leaders? It'd be kind of ironic to hear them going on about "The Middle-Eastern Man's Burden." Maybe they'll find some weapons of mass destruction here, while they're at it.
The first two "external website" references on the Britannica article don't exist, and they have absolutely NO references to any published books on the subject. This entry would be absolutely useless in trying to write a research paper. On the other hand, I can go out and buy or borrow from the library one or all of the books on Wikipedia's article, and likely write an entire paper without having to ever type a word into Google.
I think the point is... if the laws are bad for homosexuals, homosexuals aren't going to live there in the first place. And you can't hire someone who's not there. Google is asking for a more inviting environment so that homosexual people will be more in the mind to move there if they're hired. It's about improving the pool of potential hirees.
It has nothing to do with how the business treats homosexuals, but rather, whether or not they even have the opportunity to treat them in any way at all.