Fair points, but the fact stands that the pharmaceutical industry is one of the major backers of pro-drug war propaganda groups like Partnership for a Drug Free America. That tells us that the pharmaceutical industry itself sees legalized drugs as a threat, thereby making most of this thread moot. Whether legalized drugs would be good or bad for the pharmaceutical industry isn't the point. The point is they see it as a threat and fight it as if it were one.
New York's court of appeals has already determined that GPS tracking by law enforcement is illegal without a warrant. Since the powers of cops are a superset of the powers of an individual, this case should be a slam dunk for the plaintiff.
You are correct. The definition of opinion is "A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge". Nowhere in that definition does it imply that opinions have any value or use.
The pharmaceutical industry would have a lot to fear from legalized drugs. None of them could be patented, so anyone could make and sell them. Marijuana in particular can be grown by anyone in their own home and replace popular analgesics, sedatives, and anti-emetics, things that are in every medicine cabinet in the country.
Without the war on drugs, there would be a need for fewer police. They'd also have to do real work catching real criminals, instead of just harassing people on the highway and stealing their property. Most police would see this as a bad thing.
Prisons are increasingly being run by private industry. Incarceration is a multi-billion dollar industry. A portion of that money goes into lobbying to make more people criminals.
You would. Judging from your sig, you consider investing in the future of society to be 'theft'. I doubt there's much to be gained discussing this with you further.
The most important things a person learns are never listed as requirements on a job application. There are people everywhere who are completely oblivious to the idea that creating a mental model of how things work is a useful thing to do. If you give these people even one experience modeling things and thinking logically it can transform the way they see the world. That's a lot more useful than any career specific field.
Besides, public education should be about creating better citizens, not better employees. Exposure to programming makes you a better thinker, which makes you both a better citizen AND employee.
Nothing about it makes sense when you try to look at it as a PC desktop. Everything about it makes sense when you assume that Priority One is to "kill Google" and "kill Android."
It's a pretty big mistake by Microsoft to market this as the successor to Windows 7 then.
True, but it does so very rarely. If someone dies during withdrawal, it's almost always due to complicating factors like frailty due to AIDS or concurrent alcohol withdrawal.
Everyone is capable of developing critical thinking skills if they're expected to. When it comes to critical thinking skills, 85% of the population is akin to a feral child. Raise children in an environment where they're not exposed to language, and they'll never learn it. Raise children in an environment where they're not exposed to critical thinking and they'll never learn that either. This has nothing to do with their actual potential.
I'd also argue that programming is a foundational skill. There was a time when keyboarding was a specialized skill, only for secretaries. These days, everyone in every line of work can benefit from some typing skill. The same is true for programming. Everyone has tasks that could be automated, and even just knowing that tasks can be automated can revolutionize the options you have available to you. Even if you never write a program outside of class, flexing your logic muscles and putting together a mental model of what actually goes on in that magic beige box is worth doing.
Hell, go back a couple hundred years and you'll see people making the exact same argument for the exact same reasons about literacy. They were just as wrong then as you are now.
Computer programming is a useful skill, even if you don't go into it as a profession. Everyone uses a computer, and everyone has tasks that they could improve with some automation.
Classic literature on the other hand provides no useful skills whatsoever. Interpreting the metaphors of some opium addled aristocrat is just a complete and utter waste of time. Same with PE. When was the last time you had to climb a rope or get picked last for dodgeball?
People drinking booze isn't that big a deal. People on the harder drugs leads to all sorts of problems - crime included.
There is no harder drug than alcohol. It is so addictive that withdrawal can kill you. You can't say the same about meth, PCP, crack cocaine, or heroin. Further, no drug is more strongly associated with violent behavior. If society has found a way to co-exist with the most dangerous drug in existance, why can't we do the same for every other drug?
My argument isn't bad at all, a person is violent because they want to be.
Starting off with two unsupported assertions linked by a non sequitur. Nice.
To blame the fact that games influence people to become violent doesn't make sense. It's a black or white issue, you either do or don't.
No, violent behavior is a complex multi-factorial phenomenon. Like cancer, like the weather, and so on. Oh what the fuck ever, contine babbling incoherently.
It's an obvious solution, and the only ones who stand to lose are the criminal gangs who are currently making huge profits from illegal drugs.
To be specific, by "criminal gangs" you must mean the Police forces of our country, our prison industry, our pharmaceutical industry, alcohol and tobacco industries, AND our politicians.
This is the worlds most ridiculous argument. If a violent game called game X causes Mr. Y to go out and Kill then to blame the game EVERY SINGLE PERSON who played X should be killing. Mr Y kill because he wanted to
That IS the world's most ridiculous argument. Would you also argue that because not every smoker is dying of cancer, that smoking does not cause cancer?
There's a lot of bad arguments and fallacies out there linking video games with violent behavior. Let's counter them with facts, not bad arguments of our own.
You're the one who doesn't understand how the system works. It's up to the state to decide who to prosecute You don't need anyone to press charges if you're caught smoking pot, driving drunk, passing bad checks, or even if you hit your wife.
When faced with admitted behavior on the part of Sony employees and management that clearly violates federal law, prosecutors across the country decided they'd rather get a big payoff. You or I could not afford such justice, and we'd end up in jail. As a result, the criminals at Sony are not held accountable and have no personal deterrent against future crimes. This is a failure of the rule of law.
Not to defend sony here, but if you cant see the difference between invasive, ill-planned, and destructive-- yet nevertheless not malicious-- DRM software; and an intentional intrusion and breach of millions of customer records; then I dont think theres much help for you.
So your argument is that if I were to plant a rootkit on a Sony corporate computer system without harvesting any data I would not be tried criminally? Are you really that naive?
And Im pretty sure (though my memory is fuzzy) there WAS a lawsuit on this issue
Oh boy, a lawsuit. Last I checked, computer hacking was a federal crime punishible by up to 20 years in prison. But of course, Sony is above the law. All they have to do is grease the right palms (aka settle lawsuits with the states) and the perps get off scott-free.
Do you really not think there is a double standard here?
Slashdot Mirror
Fair points, but the fact stands that the pharmaceutical industry is one of the major backers of pro-drug war propaganda groups like Partnership for a Drug Free America. That tells us that the pharmaceutical industry itself sees legalized drugs as a threat, thereby making most of this thread moot. Whether legalized drugs would be good or bad for the pharmaceutical industry isn't the point. The point is they see it as a threat and fight it as if it were one.
New York's court of appeals has already determined that GPS tracking by law enforcement is illegal without a warrant. Since the powers of cops are a superset of the powers of an individual, this case should be a slam dunk for the plaintiff.
You are correct. The definition of opinion is "A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge". Nowhere in that definition does it imply that opinions have any value or use.
Not based on fact or knowledge. Meaning that it's worthless. Right from the dictionary on that one.
Opinions are not valid just because you have them. Unless they're backed up with facts and logic, they're worse than useless.
The pharmaceutical industry would have a lot to fear from legalized drugs. None of them could be patented, so anyone could make and sell them. Marijuana in particular can be grown by anyone in their own home and replace popular analgesics, sedatives, and anti-emetics, things that are in every medicine cabinet in the country.
Without the war on drugs, there would be a need for fewer police. They'd also have to do real work catching real criminals, instead of just harassing people on the highway and stealing their property. Most police would see this as a bad thing.
Prisons are increasingly being run by private industry. Incarceration is a multi-billion dollar industry. A portion of that money goes into lobbying to make more people criminals.
You would. Judging from your sig, you consider investing in the future of society to be 'theft'. I doubt there's much to be gained discussing this with you further.
Yes, and it's orders of magnitude more complex than a BBC Micro's OS on ROM. One person can comprehend everything an 8-bit PC does.
The most important things a person learns are never listed as requirements on a job application. There are people everywhere who are completely oblivious to the idea that creating a mental model of how things work is a useful thing to do. If you give these people even one experience modeling things and thinking logically it can transform the way they see the world. That's a lot more useful than any career specific field.
Besides, public education should be about creating better citizens, not better employees. Exposure to programming makes you a better thinker, which makes you both a better citizen AND employee.
What world do you live in? My cynicism has never failed to be confirmed. I'd love to wake up to a pleasant suprise one of these days.
Deliberate fraud is not a mistake.
Nothing about it makes sense when you try to look at it as a PC desktop. Everything about it makes sense when you assume that Priority One is to "kill Google" and "kill Android."
It's a pretty big mistake by Microsoft to market this as the successor to Windows 7 then.
True, but it does so very rarely. If someone dies during withdrawal, it's almost always due to complicating factors like frailty due to AIDS or concurrent alcohol withdrawal.
Everyone is capable of developing critical thinking skills if they're expected to. When it comes to critical thinking skills, 85% of the population is akin to a feral child. Raise children in an environment where they're not exposed to language, and they'll never learn it. Raise children in an environment where they're not exposed to critical thinking and they'll never learn that either. This has nothing to do with their actual potential.
I'd also argue that programming is a foundational skill. There was a time when keyboarding was a specialized skill, only for secretaries. These days, everyone in every line of work can benefit from some typing skill. The same is true for programming. Everyone has tasks that could be automated, and even just knowing that tasks can be automated can revolutionize the options you have available to you. Even if you never write a program outside of class, flexing your logic muscles and putting together a mental model of what actually goes on in that magic beige box is worth doing.
Hell, go back a couple hundred years and you'll see people making the exact same argument for the exact same reasons about literacy. They were just as wrong then as you are now.
Computer programming is a useful skill, even if you don't go into it as a profession. Everyone uses a computer, and everyone has tasks that they could improve with some automation.
Classic literature on the other hand provides no useful skills whatsoever. Interpreting the metaphors of some opium addled aristocrat is just a complete and utter waste of time. Same with PE. When was the last time you had to climb a rope or get picked last for dodgeball?
Dude, your reasoning here is exactly the same as someone who says "it's cold today, so global warming must not be real". Try applying some nuance.
I'm not even someone who thinks video games cause violence. I'm just embarassed for the rest of us when I see people spout stupid garbage like that.
Who said anything about malicious conspiricies? OP mentioned lies. Do you think your government doesn't lie to you?
You joke, but that would be a better introduction to what computers actually do than almost anything you could teach them on a modern OS.
People drinking booze isn't that big a deal. People on the harder drugs leads to all sorts of problems - crime included.
There is no harder drug than alcohol. It is so addictive that withdrawal can kill you. You can't say the same about meth, PCP, crack cocaine, or heroin. Further, no drug is more strongly associated with violent behavior. If society has found a way to co-exist with the most dangerous drug in existance, why can't we do the same for every other drug?
The problem with good judges is that they're bound by the precedents set by bad judges. Especially those from the Supreme Court.
My argument isn't bad at all, a person is violent because they want to be.
Starting off with two unsupported assertions linked by a non sequitur. Nice.
To blame the fact that games influence people to become violent doesn't make sense. It's a black or white issue, you either do or don't.
No, violent behavior is a complex multi-factorial phenomenon. Like cancer, like the weather, and so on. Oh what the fuck ever, contine babbling incoherently.
It's an obvious solution, and the only ones who stand to lose are the criminal gangs who are currently making huge profits from illegal drugs.
To be specific, by "criminal gangs" you must mean the Police forces of our country, our prison industry, our pharmaceutical industry, alcohol and tobacco industries, AND our politicians.
This is the worlds most ridiculous argument. If a violent game called game X causes Mr. Y to go out and Kill then to blame the game EVERY SINGLE PERSON who played X should be killing. Mr Y kill because he wanted to
That IS the world's most ridiculous argument. Would you also argue that because not every smoker is dying of cancer, that smoking does not cause cancer?
There's a lot of bad arguments and fallacies out there linking video games with violent behavior. Let's counter them with facts, not bad arguments of our own.
You're the one who doesn't understand how the system works. It's up to the state to decide who to prosecute You don't need anyone to press charges if you're caught smoking pot, driving drunk, passing bad checks, or even if you hit your wife.
When faced with admitted behavior on the part of Sony employees and management that clearly violates federal law, prosecutors across the country decided they'd rather get a big payoff. You or I could not afford such justice, and we'd end up in jail. As a result, the criminals at Sony are not held accountable and have no personal deterrent against future crimes. This is a failure of the rule of law.
Not to defend sony here, but if you cant see the difference between invasive, ill-planned, and destructive-- yet nevertheless not malicious-- DRM software; and an intentional intrusion and breach of millions of customer records; then I dont think theres much help for you.
So your argument is that if I were to plant a rootkit on a Sony corporate computer system without harvesting any data I would not be tried criminally? Are you really that naive?
And Im pretty sure (though my memory is fuzzy) there WAS a lawsuit on this issue
Oh boy, a lawsuit. Last I checked, computer hacking was a federal crime punishible by up to 20 years in prison. But of course, Sony is above the law. All they have to do is grease the right palms (aka settle lawsuits with the states) and the perps get off scott-free.
Do you really not think there is a double standard here?