But hey, you can always try and get your Diploma later on when you realize that you actually really do need it to survive in modern society.
Either that, or you can eventually find yourself in jail for committing property crime that you've had to resort to just to survive once your parents kick you out the day you turn 18.
Holy fuck, you left out summary and immediate execution.
Such measures should not be necessary.
The idea is to bring real world consequences for a person's choices, and the fact that they are a minor should not factor into it.
And the severity of the measures I've described would probably prevent repeat offenders as well... those that did repeat could find themselves on pretty darn hard times in the years to come... but again, that's a path that they *CHOSE* to go down.
We like to sometimes protect children from the consequences of foolish choices, but sometimes as adults we have to let them feel the ramifications of being thoughtless or not caring about the consequences of an action. What I've described is harsh, but if they behave themselves afterwards, it shouldn't be life altering.... even the criminal record I suggested wouldn't be around forever, and may even be gone by the time they graduate post secondary. Maybe 7 years is too long, but I'm sure something could be worked out.
We need to find a way to keep vaping devices away from pre-18ers.
Unilateral permanent confiscation of the vaping device when they are caught, a criminal record that stays on file for the next 7 years even though they are a minor, and the threat of losing access to public education if they are caught again might do the trick, at the very least, it will put the parent(s) or guardians in the loop who might be better equipped to deal with whatever further disciplinary actions are required.
On the subject of peak sand, it's my understanding that there are companies that are actively working towards solutions for using desert sand for construction. Unfortunately, the companies that are making the most progress in this front are also evidently less interested in actually making a scalable solution for this issue than in keeping their technologies secret and making money through the scarcity of their implementation, resulting in not very widespread use
They tried that with Google Glass, but many users found that they were getting assaulted by people that were paranoid about being recorded.
It's obvious that eyewear, where as some kind of augmented reality headgear that you wear which covers your eyes, or embedded directly into glasses or even contact lenses is going to be the most useful hardware implementation of this tech, but what can you do when society doesn't want to adopt it because of preconceptions they have about how the technology might be getting used by early adopters?
It doesn't matter what "every surly grouch" expects, IMO... if the server is inattentive, is not evidently at least trying to do their best, or has otherwise left me with any kind of negative impression, I will not tip. It they are actually rude, I will talk to the manager. If society wants to judge me harshly for not tipping a server when I'm not satisfied, that's on them.
As I said, the premise behind it is simply when a person has felt sufficiently enriched by their professional interactions with an individual that they are wanting to directly reward the individual above and beyond any mere legal obligation to pay for a debt that may be owed. This reward comes in the form of a tip.
So yes, there most certainly is a reason to do so.
That you may not have ever felt willing to so reward someone above and beyond whatever you felt you were legally required to do is entirely irrelevant.
Because a tip tells them that the server actually made a net positive impression, and that you are sufficiently enriched by the experience with the server you had that you are willing to reward it.
If that's never happened to you, well that's fine for you too. If you still can't understand it, then that's a limitation of your own ability to imagine things outside of your own experience, not a reflection of whether or not it shouldn't happen.
Since we were discussing a religious exemption to dying, and the above poster suggested that heaven might qualify, I assumed he was referring to the afterlife one, since that is the only one that appeared remotely relevant to me (since you supposedly don't die there). The caveat, as I pointed out, is that one ordinarily has to already have died to get there to get there in the first place.
I'm not sure how the London nightclub you referred to, or places like Swede Heaven or Little Heaven, for example, would be relevant to something like not dying..
Nobody is saying you can't go off and have your own society where everybody has to be vaccinated
That's fine... because that's exactly what we are trying to do. The fact that this "own society" happens to be the majority is irrelevant, and
the problem is raised when antivaxxers want to also be part of that society.
Because, as I said, with no upper bound on the number of people that could voluntarily choose to not vaccinate, it poses a *proven* increased risk of death to people around them who didn't make such a voluntary choice... a risk that wouldn't exist in the first place if the only people who didn't vaccinate were those that did so for medical reasons.
I support your right to choose not to vaccinate, but you better damn well believe that I'm going to expect that you not be welcome in a society where the only grounds for refusal is objectively proven medical data.
The number of doctors that do this is also quite small and unlikely to impact the herd immunity to any great degree, since strong penalties can exist for doctors that would knowingly falsify such information, and can therefore be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Well yeah... but the point was about trying to get a religious exemption to things that are certain in *LIFE*... when one is in heaven, they have, typically speaking, almost certainly already died.
It stands to reason that a parent, rightfully, has a right to determine the environment in which their child is raised, but in a civilized society, that right should exist only to the extent that the there is some empirical evidence that how they are raising the child is not objectively harmful to the child nor objectively potentially harmful to that society.
There are two general classifications for objecting to vaccinations: one is for medical reasons, and the other is on philosophical grounds. Vaccinating children who for established medical reasons should not be vaccinated would clearly cause objectively measurable harm to those children, so it fails on that metric. Fortunately, the percentage of people who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons has a clear upper bound, and as a result the increased risk it poses to society is negligible on account of herd immunity, which actually helps to protect the unvaccinated children. Thus, not vaccinating children that cannot be safely vaccinated on account of medical reasons appears to be okay.
However, on the subject of philosophical grounds, there is no upper limit on the number of people who could potentially adopt such a view, and so the principle of herd immunity can start to break down. Those who willfully choose to be unvaccinated start to pose a significant measurable threat to the welfare and safety of the previously mentioned class of people who have no real choice in the matter, and because vaccinations are not foolproof, they even pose an modestly increased threat to those who are vaccinated as well (where the latter group would have otherwise been protected by the principle of herd immunity, just as those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons would be, because they are such a small percentage of the population).
And it is to that extent that I would disagree with your assessment that vaccinations should not be forced on children in society who cannot show that there are clear and objectively verifiable medical reasons that the child should not be. The threat to the child and to others around them is simply too great. The only option for parents who wish to do this, in my view, is to retreat from society entirely, and raise their children in an isolated community where they cannot pose a risk to the remainder of society.
Death by illness is always regrettable, but death by illness for which vaccinations exist is doubly so simply because it is entirely preventable with the technology that we have achieved today. It is the height of selfishness and inconsideration for anyone's welfare but one's own to refuse to vaccinate one's child simply because of some philosophy about them they have adopted when that belief has not been sufficiently peer reviewed to become accepted as scientific and objective fact.
It occurs to me that people who think that Lego is "childish" simply because they can't imagine anyone other than children or people who haven't learned how to grow up doing it have probably do not know as much about Lego as they might think.
It is no more childish than, for example, sculpting models out of clay or some other medium. The parallels between the two pastimes should be obvious.
That's what I took from it as well... and, at the very least, it may have very well achieved a result where unemployed people who might *otherwise* not take whatever odd jobs they could find that wouldn't actually pay them enough to live on by themselves, but because such gigs aren't necessarily reliable or stable, someone who is doing that might still technically be considered unemployed.
Slashdot Mirror
The idea is to make some real-world consequences that are severe enough to strongly discourage anyone from doing it in the first place.
If they want to ruin their lives completely by pulling it off again, well.... that's on them. Their choice, their consequences.
Do you think that the laws which prohibit the sale or distribution of any smoking paraphernalia, including e-cigarettes, to minors to be unreasonable
Yup... good luck with that.
But hey, you can always try and get your Diploma later on when you realize that you actually really do need it to survive in modern society.
Either that, or you can eventually find yourself in jail for committing property crime that you've had to resort to just to survive once your parents kick you out the day you turn 18.
Such measures should not be necessary.
The idea is to bring real world consequences for a person's choices, and the fact that they are a minor should not factor into it.
And the severity of the measures I've described would probably prevent repeat offenders as well... those that did repeat could find themselves on pretty darn hard times in the years to come... but again, that's a path that they *CHOSE* to go down.
We like to sometimes protect children from the consequences of foolish choices, but sometimes as adults we have to let them feel the ramifications of being thoughtless or not caring about the consequences of an action. What I've described is harsh, but if they behave themselves afterwards, it shouldn't be life altering.... even the criminal record I suggested wouldn't be around forever, and may even be gone by the time they graduate post secondary. Maybe 7 years is too long, but I'm sure something could be worked out.
Unilateral permanent confiscation of the vaping device when they are caught, a criminal record that stays on file for the next 7 years even though they are a minor, and the threat of losing access to public education if they are caught again might do the trick, at the very least, it will put the parent(s) or guardians in the loop who might be better equipped to deal with whatever further disciplinary actions are required.
On the subject of peak sand, it's my understanding that there are companies that are actively working towards solutions for using desert sand for construction. Unfortunately, the companies that are making the most progress in this front are also evidently less interested in actually making a scalable solution for this issue than in keeping their technologies secret and making money through the scarcity of their implementation, resulting in not very widespread use
They tried that with Google Glass, but many users found that they were getting assaulted by people that were paranoid about being recorded.
It's obvious that eyewear, where as some kind of augmented reality headgear that you wear which covers your eyes, or embedded directly into glasses or even contact lenses is going to be the most useful hardware implementation of this tech, but what can you do when society doesn't want to adopt it because of preconceptions they have about how the technology might be getting used by early adopters?
Ever been to Glass Beach?
Or even simpler, write A.I. the way it is supposed to be written, with periods after the "A" and "I". A.I. is not supposed to be an acronym.
It doesn't matter what "every surly grouch" expects, IMO... if the server is inattentive, is not evidently at least trying to do their best, or has otherwise left me with any kind of negative impression, I will not tip. It they are actually rude, I will talk to the manager. If society wants to judge me harshly for not tipping a server when I'm not satisfied, that's on them.
As I said, the premise behind it is simply when a person has felt sufficiently enriched by their professional interactions with an individual that they are wanting to directly reward the individual above and beyond any mere legal obligation to pay for a debt that may be owed. This reward comes in the form of a tip.
So yes, there most certainly is a reason to do so.
That you may not have ever felt willing to so reward someone above and beyond whatever you felt you were legally required to do is entirely irrelevant.
Socialism != Communism.
Because a tip tells them that the server actually made a net positive impression, and that you are sufficiently enriched by the experience with the server you had that you are willing to reward it.
If that's never happened to you, well that's fine for you too. If you still can't understand it, then that's a limitation of your own ability to imagine things outside of your own experience, not a reflection of whether or not it shouldn't happen.
Since we were discussing a religious exemption to dying, and the above poster suggested that heaven might qualify, I assumed he was referring to the afterlife one, since that is the only one that appeared remotely relevant to me (since you supposedly don't die there). The caveat, as I pointed out, is that one ordinarily has to already have died to get there to get there in the first place.
I'm not sure how the London nightclub you referred to, or places like Swede Heaven or Little Heaven, for example, would be relevant to something like not dying..
... if know that I have to see ads, I'd still rather see ads that actually are relevant to my own interests or needs than ones that aren't.
That's fine... because that's exactly what we are trying to do. The fact that this "own society" happens to be the majority is irrelevant, and the problem is raised when antivaxxers want to also be part of that society.
Because, as I said, with no upper bound on the number of people that could voluntarily choose to not vaccinate, it poses a *proven* increased risk of death to people around them who didn't make such a voluntary choice... a risk that wouldn't exist in the first place if the only people who didn't vaccinate were those that did so for medical reasons.
I support your right to choose not to vaccinate, but you better damn well believe that I'm going to expect that you not be welcome in a society where the only grounds for refusal is objectively proven medical data.
The number of doctors that do this is also quite small and unlikely to impact the herd immunity to any great degree, since strong penalties can exist for doctors that would knowingly falsify such information, and can therefore be handled on a case-by-case basis.
Well yeah... but the point was about trying to get a religious exemption to things that are certain in *LIFE*... when one is in heaven, they have, typically speaking, almost certainly already died.
It stands to reason that a parent, rightfully, has a right to determine the environment in which their child is raised, but in a civilized society, that right should exist only to the extent that the there is some empirical evidence that how they are raising the child is not objectively harmful to the child nor objectively potentially harmful to that society.
There are two general classifications for objecting to vaccinations: one is for medical reasons, and the other is on philosophical grounds. Vaccinating children who for established medical reasons should not be vaccinated would clearly cause objectively measurable harm to those children, so it fails on that metric. Fortunately, the percentage of people who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons has a clear upper bound, and as a result the increased risk it poses to society is negligible on account of herd immunity, which actually helps to protect the unvaccinated children. Thus, not vaccinating children that cannot be safely vaccinated on account of medical reasons appears to be okay.
However, on the subject of philosophical grounds, there is no upper limit on the number of people who could potentially adopt such a view, and so the principle of herd immunity can start to break down. Those who willfully choose to be unvaccinated start to pose a significant measurable threat to the welfare and safety of the previously mentioned class of people who have no real choice in the matter, and because vaccinations are not foolproof, they even pose an modestly increased threat to those who are vaccinated as well (where the latter group would have otherwise been protected by the principle of herd immunity, just as those who cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons would be, because they are such a small percentage of the population).
And it is to that extent that I would disagree with your assessment that vaccinations should not be forced on children in society who cannot show that there are clear and objectively verifiable medical reasons that the child should not be. The threat to the child and to others around them is simply too great. The only option for parents who wish to do this, in my view, is to retreat from society entirely, and raise their children in an isolated community where they cannot pose a risk to the remainder of society.
Death by illness is always regrettable, but death by illness for which vaccinations exist is doubly so simply because it is entirely preventable with the technology that we have achieved today. It is the height of selfishness and inconsideration for anyone's welfare but one's own to refuse to vaccinate one's child simply because of some philosophy about them they have adopted when that belief has not been sufficiently peer reviewed to become accepted as scientific and objective fact.
What about a religious exemption against dying?
I mean, if you're going to try for a religious exemption against a certain thing in life, then why not go for broke?
I'm unsure what respecting a person's hobbies has to do with whether one has ever been with a woman....
Are you projecting, perhaps?
Or are perhaps you are just trying to be an asshole by insinuating something that can't possibly know anything about?
In my experience, I never heard more than one outburst in any given movie. Hardly an MST situation.
It occurs to me that people who think that Lego is "childish" simply because they can't imagine anyone other than children or people who haven't learned how to grow up doing it have probably do not know as much about Lego as they might think.
It is no more childish than, for example, sculpting models out of clay or some other medium. The parallels between the two pastimes should be obvious.
Oh, if I had mod points... that was OT, but seriously funny.
That's what I took from it as well... and, at the very least, it may have very well achieved a result where unemployed people who might *otherwise* not take whatever odd jobs they could find that wouldn't actually pay them enough to live on by themselves, but because such gigs aren't necessarily reliable or stable, someone who is doing that might still technically be considered unemployed.