Well, I'm not sure what Shkreli would do with it, but with Yann... whatever I'm rather sure. He's just some self-absorbed, narcissist loudmouth that wants a way to stay in talk. Otherwise, he's mostly harmless, just don't pay too much attention to him and he'll go away.
The problem with this "medical" angle is proper dosage. Marijuana is still a natural product and as such subject to considerable variation in "quality" so to speak. Now, overdosing isn't that big an issue (as far as I know, at least, don't quote me on that), but as with every drug, the perfect use is still using it with a steady, controlled dose per unit.
This said, I'm all for legislating it, if only to make research in this area possible. There are so many other drugs that should at the very least be de-demonized to allow research again.
Capable of passing the blood-brain barrier and altering the behaviour of the brain, as well as having a nontrivial effect on your nervous system, while at the same time not being essential to the body's functioning.
So one is "vote me, I'm not Trump", the other one is "vote me, I'm not the old establishment".
So essentially you say that the statement is "vote me, I'm not him/her". And that alone isn't enough for me to want either of them. They're both despicable. Rarely has there been a moment when a third candidate had a bigger chance, because the number of people who think NEITHER of those two is fit to be president is rising with every "debate" (I'll use the term loosely now, "preschool bickering" is a more apt name of the travesty we get presented every single time).
As if being a fuckwit has ever been a reason to not become president.
Ah, the comedians will like Trump. Finally someone again who doesn't have a stupidity filter between speech center and mouth. 8 years of Obama and "spontaneous" teleprompting is really a long time.
Sorry, but that's a shitty reason. You really want to tell me a GOOD reason to vote someone into an office that is supposed to be the most important one in the most powerful country on the planet is to give a bunch of people I can't stand and frankly couldn't care less about an "up yours"?
I see it more as a struggle between old money and new money. Or, rather, political power vs. financial power. "Constituents" doesn't really enter the equation, Trump is more the capitalist ideal of cutting out the middle man, i.e. no longer ruling the country by proxy and buying laws but simply creating the laws yourself if you have the money for it.
If I was to give an interview in German, French or Italian, I'd do my best to add a few grammatical errors here and there, too, since I would want you to believe that I'm lying to you about my whereabouts. That way I can stay where I am, give an interview in a language I speak reasonably well (and hence can concentrate on what words I use instead of concentrating on getting the message across) and still keep you guessing about my origin.
The biggest problem I have with this election is that the ONLY argument to vote for Trump is Clinton, and the only reason to vote for Clinton is Trump.
My guess is that this is simply what the "older generation" of geeks grew up with. Every home computer pretty much had a BASIC dialect, so it was of course the first thing most of us got used to. C64 and the XL/XE line of Atari even had them built into the ROM, booting the computer meant getting a prompt that accepted BASIC commands. And I dimly remember a few other computers that had a built-in BASIC interpreter.
So of course it is what we learned as our first language. Simply because it was the first thing we got to see. And we turned out all right, so BASIC has to be the first language to learn.
Personally, I'd say that it probably was not the best language to start with. At best, it didn't cause too much damage.
It were very special circumstances. The election I'm talking about is the presidential election of 1912. What you had here was a sitting president being renominated by his party while a former president wanting in on the deal and running in competition to him. That would be like, say, Obama running again and having the support of his party with Bill Clinton forming a new party and running against him (let's pretend the 2 term limit doesn't apply, because it didn't back then). What happened in 1912 was basically that a very popular ex-president decided to run against his party who fielded a less popular sitting president. So, technically, it were still kinda-sorta, three candidates from the same two parties. I don't want to compare it to Bernie running against Clinton because Bernie never was a president. Even though I'd guess that he's have a good chance to actually get votes from people who're fed up to the level of throwing up by BOTH these goofballs.
The outcome in 1912 was a victory for the Democrat Wilson, of course, since the Republican votes were split between the two competing Reps.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes. Why do you think he needs a new toy to yell "Look! I'm relevant!"
Well, I'm not sure what Shkreli would do with it, but with Yann... whatever I'm rather sure. He's just some self-absorbed, narcissist loudmouth that wants a way to stay in talk. Otherwise, he's mostly harmless, just don't pay too much attention to him and he'll go away.
At least it sends the message "I registered to vote. I came here to vote. But NEITHER of you two idiots is worth it".
The problem with this "medical" angle is proper dosage. Marijuana is still a natural product and as such subject to considerable variation in "quality" so to speak. Now, overdosing isn't that big an issue (as far as I know, at least, don't quote me on that), but as with every drug, the perfect use is still using it with a steady, controlled dose per unit.
This said, I'm all for legislating it, if only to make research in this area possible. There are so many other drugs that should at the very least be de-demonized to allow research again.
Capable of passing the blood-brain barrier and altering the behaviour of the brain, as well as having a nontrivial effect on your nervous system, while at the same time not being essential to the body's functioning.
They fit the description.
So one is "vote me, I'm not Trump", the other one is "vote me, I'm not the old establishment".
So essentially you say that the statement is "vote me, I'm not him/her". And that alone isn't enough for me to want either of them. They're both despicable. Rarely has there been a moment when a third candidate had a bigger chance, because the number of people who think NEITHER of those two is fit to be president is rising with every "debate" (I'll use the term loosely now, "preschool bickering" is a more apt name of the travesty we get presented every single time).
You might want to read up what Liberal means, I think you ... what? Oh, "liberal" as defined by the US. Ok. Carry on.
As if being a fuckwit has ever been a reason to not become president.
Ah, the comedians will like Trump. Finally someone again who doesn't have a stupidity filter between speech center and mouth. 8 years of Obama and "spontaneous" teleprompting is really a long time.
If nothing else, at least you can say that you didn't vote for him/her when (not if, when) the shit hits the fan.
Write in Eisenhower. Even as a decomposed corpse he's ten times the president than those two goons combined.
Sorry, but that's a shitty reason. You really want to tell me a GOOD reason to vote someone into an office that is supposed to be the most important one in the most powerful country on the planet is to give a bunch of people I can't stand and frankly couldn't care less about an "up yours"?
Are you high?
I see it more as a struggle between old money and new money. Or, rather, political power vs. financial power. "Constituents" doesn't really enter the equation, Trump is more the capitalist ideal of cutting out the middle man, i.e. no longer ruling the country by proxy and buying laws but simply creating the laws yourself if you have the money for it.
Well, technically, the EU could have resisted, but why ruffle US feathers over something you don't give a shit about?
They should readjust and oil the hinges in her mouth.
When the alternative is these two goofballs...
If I was to give an interview in German, French or Italian, I'd do my best to add a few grammatical errors here and there, too, since I would want you to believe that I'm lying to you about my whereabouts. That way I can stay where I am, give an interview in a language I speak reasonably well (and hence can concentrate on what words I use instead of concentrating on getting the message across) and still keep you guessing about my origin.
The biggest problem I have with this election is that the ONLY argument to vote for Trump is Clinton, and the only reason to vote for Clinton is Trump.
EITHER of them would lose against anyone but the other one. Seriously, the other party could field a water cooler next term and it would win.
That system works great for a club but not for a country.
Considering you have even worse old-boys-club structures in medicine, pharmatech and law, I kinda doubt that this is a reason either.
Hey! Merkel isn't Germany.
My guess is that this is simply what the "older generation" of geeks grew up with. Every home computer pretty much had a BASIC dialect, so it was of course the first thing most of us got used to. C64 and the XL/XE line of Atari even had them built into the ROM, booting the computer meant getting a prompt that accepted BASIC commands. And I dimly remember a few other computers that had a built-in BASIC interpreter.
So of course it is what we learned as our first language. Simply because it was the first thing we got to see. And we turned out all right, so BASIC has to be the first language to learn.
Personally, I'd say that it probably was not the best language to start with. At best, it didn't cause too much damage.
So, in a nutshell, it's not the evil neckbeards that turn them away, it's being associated with said neckbeards that is.
Seriously, this regime is worse than a lot of the shit that's going down in the middle east.
Anyone still wants that country and its tinpot dictator in the EU?
It were very special circumstances. The election I'm talking about is the presidential election of 1912. What you had here was a sitting president being renominated by his party while a former president wanting in on the deal and running in competition to him. That would be like, say, Obama running again and having the support of his party with Bill Clinton forming a new party and running against him (let's pretend the 2 term limit doesn't apply, because it didn't back then). What happened in 1912 was basically that a very popular ex-president decided to run against his party who fielded a less popular sitting president. So, technically, it were still kinda-sorta, three candidates from the same two parties. I don't want to compare it to Bernie running against Clinton because Bernie never was a president. Even though I'd guess that he's have a good chance to actually get votes from people who're fed up to the level of throwing up by BOTH these goofballs.
The outcome in 1912 was a victory for the Democrat Wilson, of course, since the Republican votes were split between the two competing Reps.