I'm in favor of partial legalization and regulation. Smoking kills 300k a year.
Allegedly, if you take the government at their word. Get rid of the weasel words and mischaracterizations, however, and the real number is a lot harder to pin down.
Something like widespread meth use could come in 10x, 20x that.
Speculation != fact.
Besides, ever met any tweekers? A culling of that particular herd would, IMO, be a net gain for society in general.
The reason drugs can get banned is because they are so incredibly devastating to individuals to families and to communities when their use becomes common.
No, the reasons drugs were banned in the first place is because some smart, greedy people realized that not only could they become rich by creating entire industries around persecuting certain groups of people, but that they could also use drugs as a scapegoat for many of society's perceived ills.
Pretending they are harmless undermines other points.
False equivalence - saying "I don't think the government has a right to regulate what I put in my body" is not even similar to "drugs are harmless," by any stretch of the imagination.
The question is whether the benefits of criminalization, the avoidance of widespread use, can be achieved without criminalization.
Oh, malarkey. Prohibition, especially criminalized prohibition, does not lead to "the avoidance of widespread use." Portugal, Holland, and oh yea, most countries prior to 1927 are/were living proof that you're wrong.
Wow, you are really paranoid. Do you really think that gun owners are sitting in the dark with their guns pointed at their doors?
Of course he does - that's how these morons maintain their illusion of moral superiority. They just fantasize that everyone who doesn't agree with them is some mouth-breathing troglodyte just aching for the opportunity to commit some heinous offense, slap some marginalizing label on them, then strut around like their own shit smells like fresh cinnamon rolls.
Guns are designed for many purposes - grease guns, paint guns, pellet guns, air guns, et. al.
Firearms are designed for one purpose: to accelerate a small hunk of metal and/or plastic in a linear direction of the operator's choosing, at a very high rate of speed. PERIOD - that's what they are designed to do.
What the operator chooses to point said firearm at is NOT an aspect of the tool itself, but rather a consequence of the operator's decision.
Not only do winners get their very own, individually serialized Higgs Boson, it comes complete with an elegant display case, molded to resemble a stale baguette
he has the upper body strength of a pre-pubescent girl
Bias! I have a 9 y.o. daughter of average build and I'm forever amazed at how much she can lift.
Yea, but how far can she huck a standard-issue office chair? If it's better than what Linus can do, you'd better get a call in to Microsoft HR quick, before they find some H1-B 9-year-old girl to take her place!
I can't wait to see Linus' potty mouth vs. Balmer's chair throwing.
Bill Gates, as he watches the impending showdown from atop his throne made of human skulls: "Good, good... Let the open-source hatred flow through you..."
Stallman was being considered, but they decided to go another direction when it came to light that he has the upper body strength of a pre-pubescent girl.
Why Linus? Little known fact: Linus Torvalds is actually the illegitimate son of world-renown muscle man Magnus Magnusson, and thus possesses the raw power necessary to launch office chairs at terminal velocity.
The next time we need to hunt down someone in a cave complex we can use a drone swarm to autonomously explore all the holes. We'll only need the giant thermobaric bombs once the right caves are identified.
Yay drone swarms.
Who is "we?" I have never in my life needed to hunt anyone down, let alone in a cave complex.
Typical American conservative moron, afraid of the new.
Typical moron in general, making assumptions based on what must be a lack of reading comprehension skills.
Since when does it need a direct use?
Since I'm paying for it.
With advancements, you often only find the usages long after it has been invented/discovered.
Yea, just look at how long it took for someone to find a practical application for direct current generation, atom-splitting, aircraft, internal combustion, etc./sarc
We can do something we couldn't do before. (Have a jellyfish robot.) That is always of use.
Proven wrong by a sitcom:
Barney: "New is always better."
Ted: "Really? Waitress, what's your oldest bottle of scotch?"
Waitress: "80 year old Glenlivet, excellent vintage."
Ted: "And your newest?"
Waitress: "... Gary's Grape Scotch.... Don't let it touch your skin."
The system composing technologies, like developed actuators, control algorithms, communication systems, materials, waterproofing, underwater sensors, etc, are what really matters.
Personally, I'm a bit surprised they aren't using this as an opportunity to try and find a way to use ocean currents for a power source, as we do with tidal generators; i.e., as the machine sinks, turbines spin and generate power that it can use to push itself back up towards the surface.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the continual advancement of science, but... why? What useful purpose could a giant, robot jellyfish possibly serve?
From TFA:
Potential uses include ocean monitoring
.. which we already have, and better methods at that.
perhaps clearing oil spills,
Again, not a novel concept, and the methods we have in place now (partially thanks to the Deepwater Horizon disaster) seem to work pretty well (since oil tends to sit on the surface of the water, what good would an underwater robot do, anyway?)
...the US Navy, which is funding the work, sees an opportunity to recruit jellies for underwater surveillance -- a job the researchers say is suited to their natural-looking disguise.
Riiiiiight... like a 10-foot diameter silicon disk with a flashy-flashy LED on the top is going to fool anybody...
Seriously, I think "Because we thought it would be cool, and wanted to prove that we could" would be a more reasonable excuse than the ones posited above.
My point, as is often confirmed by but not exclusively by anecdotes, was that parents are often poor judges of their children's failings. Or am I mistaken in this?
In that you made a generalization, and that all generalizations are false by default, yes, you are mistaken. As with most things, it all depends on the parent.
Question is, of course, is the government any better in practice?
That is a fair question, though I'm not certain we really want the answer confirmed...
Slashdot Mirror
45 million people smoke cigarettes. Maybe around 1 million use meth.
Bullshit, made-up statistic != fact, fucktard.
I'm in favor of partial legalization and regulation. Smoking kills 300k a year.
Allegedly, if you take the government at their word. Get rid of the weasel words and mischaracterizations, however, and the real number is a lot harder to pin down.
Something like widespread meth use could come in 10x, 20x that.
Speculation != fact.
Besides, ever met any tweekers? A culling of that particular herd would, IMO, be a net gain for society in general.
The reason drugs can get banned is because they are so incredibly devastating to individuals to families and to communities when their use becomes common.
No, the reasons drugs were banned in the first place is because some smart, greedy people realized that not only could they become rich by creating entire industries around persecuting certain groups of people, but that they could also use drugs as a scapegoat for many of society's perceived ills.
Pretending they are harmless undermines other points.
False equivalence - saying "I don't think the government has a right to regulate what I put in my body" is not even similar to "drugs are harmless," by any stretch of the imagination.
The question is whether the benefits of criminalization, the avoidance of widespread use, can be achieved without criminalization.
Oh, malarkey. Prohibition, especially criminalized prohibition, does not lead to "the avoidance of widespread use." Portugal, Holland, and oh yea, most countries prior to 1927 are/were living proof that you're wrong.
Wow, you are really paranoid. Do you really think that gun owners are sitting in the dark with their guns pointed at their doors?
Of course he does - that's how these morons maintain their illusion of moral superiority. They just fantasize that everyone who doesn't agree with them is some mouth-breathing troglodyte just aching for the opportunity to commit some heinous offense, slap some marginalizing label on them, then strut around like their own shit smells like fresh cinnamon rolls.
If a gun seller knew the person was going to use the gun in a drug heist, then they could be arrested.
True.
But we're not talking about gun 'sellers,' we're talking about gun manufacturers.
Guns are designed for many purposes - grease guns, paint guns, pellet guns, air guns, et. al.
Firearms are designed for one purpose: to accelerate a small hunk of metal and/or plastic in a linear direction of the operator's choosing, at a very high rate of speed. PERIOD - that's what they are designed to do.
What the operator chooses to point said firearm at is NOT an aspect of the tool itself, but rather a consequence of the operator's decision.
What other functional use does it have?
Stump removal, of course!
On a more serious note, though, you yourself pointed out a use for guns other than killing - target practice.
Not only do winners get their very own, individually serialized Higgs Boson, it comes complete with an elegant display case, molded to resemble a stale baguette
Best. Tattoo. EVER.
Of all time.
I have a wonderful and beautiful girlfriend who treats me right in every way
This part is a April's Fool day prank.
All a matter of perspective, friend.
Even an ogre is hot, if you're looking through the eyes of a bridge troll.
he has the upper body strength of a pre-pubescent girl
Bias! I have a 9 y.o. daughter of average build and I'm forever amazed at how much she can lift.
Yea, but how far can she huck a standard-issue office chair? If it's better than what Linus can do, you'd better get a call in to Microsoft HR quick, before they find some H1-B 9-year-old girl to take her place!
There's a difference?
I can't wait to see Linus' potty mouth vs. Balmer's chair throwing.
Bill Gates, as he watches the impending showdown from atop his throne made of human skulls: "Good, good... Let the open-source hatred flow through you..."
Stallman was being considered, but they decided to go another direction when it came to light that he has the upper body strength of a pre-pubescent girl.
Why Linus? Little known fact: Linus Torvalds is actually the illegitimate son of world-renown muscle man Magnus Magnusson, and thus possesses the raw power necessary to launch office chairs at terminal velocity.
I don't get it - is that the setup, or the punchline?
Usually when people use stuff, that involves resources.
And resources are finite. Hence the need for greater efficiency.
I think you may be in the wrong place - posts of mindless drivel, free of cogent thought belong to Yahoo, not Slashdot.
Correction: an abacus with a human operator is a calculator. Without the human an abacus does nothing.
There's a "guns don't kill people" joke in here somewhere, I just know it...
What other use would there be for a swarm of evil, er, I mean, mini robots at my command?
Hmm, I suddenly feel a bout of particularly malevolent laughter coming on...
The next time we need to hunt down someone in a cave complex we can use a drone swarm to autonomously explore all the holes. We'll only need the giant thermobaric bombs once the right caves are identified.
Yay drone swarms.
Who is "we?" I have never in my life needed to hunt anyone down, let alone in a cave complex.
FWIW - careful what you wish for.
Best rationale posited thus far.
Typical American conservative moron, afraid of the new.
Typical moron in general, making assumptions based on what must be a lack of reading comprehension skills.
Since when does it need a direct use?
Since I'm paying for it.
With advancements, you often only find the usages long after it has been invented/discovered.
Yea, just look at how long it took for someone to find a practical application for direct current generation, atom-splitting, aircraft, internal combustion, etc. /sarc
We can do something we couldn't do before. (Have a jellyfish robot.) That is always of use.
Proven wrong by a sitcom:
Barney: "New is always better."
Ted: "Really? Waitress, what's your oldest bottle of scotch?"
Waitress: "80 year old Glenlivet, excellent vintage."
Ted: "And your newest?"
Waitress: "... Gary's Grape Scotch.... Don't let it touch your skin."
The system composing technologies, like developed actuators, control algorithms, communication systems, materials, waterproofing, underwater sensors, etc, are what really matters.
Perhaps, but couldn't they have just tested those technologies on an existing and proven useful platform?
Just seems to me like a waste of tax dollars, so a handful of academics can say, "dude, check out the cool toy we built!"
Personally, I'm a bit surprised they aren't using this as an opportunity to try and find a way to use ocean currents for a power source, as we do with tidal generators; i.e., as the machine sinks, turbines spin and generate power that it can use to push itself back up towards the surface.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the continual advancement of science, but... why? What useful purpose could a giant, robot jellyfish possibly serve?
From TFA:
Potential uses include ocean monitoring
.. which we already have, and better methods at that.
perhaps clearing oil spills,
Again, not a novel concept, and the methods we have in place now (partially thanks to the Deepwater Horizon disaster) seem to work pretty well (since oil tends to sit on the surface of the water, what good would an underwater robot do, anyway?)
...the US Navy, which is funding the work, sees an opportunity to recruit jellies for underwater surveillance -- a job the researchers say is suited to their natural-looking disguise.
Riiiiiight... like a 10-foot diameter silicon disk with a flashy-flashy LED on the top is going to fool anybody...
Seriously, I think "Because we thought it would be cool, and wanted to prove that we could" would be a more reasonable excuse than the ones posited above.
Well, yea, when you put it in a way that actually makes sense...
My point, as is often confirmed by but not exclusively by anecdotes, was that parents are often poor judges of their children's failings. Or am I mistaken in this?
In that you made a generalization, and that all generalizations are false by default, yes, you are mistaken. As with most things, it all depends on the parent.
Question is, of course, is the government any better in practice?
That is a fair question, though I'm not certain we really want the answer confirmed...