The point is that I'm not forcing you to go to my hospital, but with these regulations, you want to force me to go to yours.
First off, it's not your hospital, it's not my hospital, it's the community's hospital.
Your mental calculus concludes that the cost of securing a network outweighs the risk of a network being compromised. My mental calculus concludes that not only does the degree of the risk necessitate the cost, it also has the benefit of potentially reducing costs associated with identity theft, law suits due to HIPAA violations, and of course, the reputation risk of the hospital and doctors associated with it.
Well clearly you're much smarter than me, so I guess you're right that I shouldn't have choices. I'll just shut up and let you make all of my decisions for me.
How about you shut up because you make shitty arguments? I'd say that's a much better reason.
2015-01-01, Exec: "I was put out of business by more onerous regulation. Yet again, government has gotten in the way of your health care. Don't vote for candidates who want to choke business with regulation. They are to blame for everything bad in society."
You fool! You're suposed to let the free market decide! If too many people die at hospital A, just go to hospital B!
That should be true for non-life-threatening circumstances.
The satire that leftists make of libertarianism is rather stupid and preaching to the choir.
If that's merely the satire that leftists make of libertarianism, then how come I've talked to so many libertarians who say the exact same thing when it comes to drug safety, for example, and automobile safety, and say it with a completely straight face? "The FDA is just another encroachment of the federal government on our individual liberty! If a company makes a dangerous drug then more people will buy their competitor's drug instead."
The free market isn't the goal of libertarians, it's just one of the consequences. And it works for its purposes which are economic in nature.
Most libertarians I know would claim that it works for all purposes, economic or not. That is, it's not a goal, but it is a cure-all.
Now go back to reading Trotsky, Bakunin, and Marx, I think you missed a few chapters.
sudo make me a sandwich
make: *** No rule to make target `me'. Stop.
It works better if you say it out loud to your geek spouse than if you type it to your computr. If you're lucky enough to have a geek spouse, that is. The rest of us just hear the reply, "What the fuck does sudo mean? And make your own damn sandwich!"
Was pretty funny until I realized you typed it in by hand. Too bad you misspelled sandwich..;)
He was using the new version of make, which is now so clever it can tell what you meant even if you mistype something. How else do you think he would misspell it on the command line but not in the error message?
I wasn't trying to state or imply that marijuana should be legal or illegal. You can't grow legally grow coca plants in your back yard either, right?
No, I can't, but that's not because cocaine is a prescription drug. It's because the relevant legislation specifically addresses the coca plant by name. This restriction is equally stupid as the one for the marijuana plant, because coca leaf has all sorts of uses and benefits apart from the extraction of cocaine. But that's beside my point, which was that being the source of a drug does not, in and of itself, make a plant require a license to grow; plants the government wants to so restrict are done on a case-by-case basis, for plants the government considers particularly dangerous. There are thousands of plants from which one can extract prescription drugs and only a small handful which are controlled by the federal government.
Or argue that it never made sense to ban it in the first place, because it was never anywhere near as dangerous as the government made it out to be.
I would additionally suggest that it might have been at least as much a making of the government as it was a making lobbied for by the legal drugs industry - tobacco, alcohol and pharmaceuticals.
I've done quite a bit of research on this subject and the evidence suggest that at the time the federal government first tried to control it (1937) it was motivated largely by attempts to limit the influence of Mexican immigrants and black jazz musicians on mainstream white America, as well as lobbying by the paper industry which feared competition from hemp paper. The pharmaceutical industry did some lobbying but the AMA was staunchly against any new federal regulation that didn't make exceptions for physician-prescribed cannabis. The alcohol and tobacco industries entered the fray later (though I agree that their influence has been a major factor in perpetuating the war on drugs once it had begun). The Federal Bureau of Narcotics, however, published a number of articles and newspaper editorials and offered congressional testimony to the effect that "marihuana" was one of the most addictive drugs known and instantly turned users into homicidal rapists. This appears to have been largely an attempt to get more power for the FBN, and it worked pretty well, I'd say.
Maybe four times as many people need pot as need slurpees. It's an effective treatment for a vast array of common conditions such as chronic anxiety, ADHD, nausea, or just everyday aches and pains. It's not just for the terminally ill. While most states with medical marijuana laws restrict it to only the most severe cases, California allows it for any condition a doctor feels justified in prescribing it for.
If it's to be treated as a medical treatment, it should be moved to Schedule II or III, prescribed by doctors, and distributed through pharmacies.
You're right, it should. The only thing standing in the way is the federal government.
Nor should their citizens need a license to grow a plant.
They absolutely should if it's prescription medicine.
Growing a plant that can be used to produce prescription medicine doesn't require a license.
If pot were legalized then I would agree with you, but medicinal marijuana != legalized marijuana.
It's not, but it's technically not a prescription drug either. It's still against federal law and federal law provides for prosecution of medicinal marijuana as well as recreational marijuana. Given that, your argument basically boils down to "It absolutely should be illegal because it is illegal. If it were legal I would agree with you that it should be legal."
You want to argue for legalization of marijuana? Fine, argue for the tax potential.
Or argue that it never made sense to ban it in the first place, because it was never anywhere near as dangerous as the government made it out to be.
Or take a philosophical perspective to liberty and how severe ill effect should the be before we limit that.
I think that's exactly what "you shouldn't need a license to grow a plant" is. How is "you shouldn't need a license to do XXXXX" anything other than a "philosophical perspective to liberty"?
But the "It's a plant" and "You can't criminalize a plant, man" are just stupid.
Why? I think the burden's on you to give at least one reason why criminalizing a plant makes sense.
If you are saying that everything natural should be legal just because it is natural, you are arguing for cannibalism, murder, incest and numerous other things that do occur in nature but we prefer to keep illegal.
Too bad for you he's not saying that.
When arguing whether substance X should be legal or illegal is really quite irrelevant from whether it is created by growing plants or synthetizing it in a laboratory (aside from the "difficult to control" thing, which is whole another argument)
Maybe your problem is that you're thinking of it as a substance instead of a plant.
Also, what was up with the mixing of “he” and “she”. I don’t know why, but I found this very distracting.
It's one of several prescriptions for gender neutrality in a language who's only gender neutral pronoun is only politely used for babies, inanimate objects and occasionally animals. Other attempts have included new made up pronouns...
I tried that option once. It didn't work. My pronoun was perfectly suitable but it never caught on, and even I gave up after about a week.
Evidence does not have a reasonable doubt test, the entire case that the prosecution presents has a reasonable doubt test.
Also, what passes the "reasonable doubt test" is for the jury to decide. That's 12 duly-selected members of the community where the alleged crime took place. Not some random yahoo with a slashdot nick of mysidia. If those 12 think there's no reasonable doubt that he did it, then it has passed the reasonable doubt test.
DIY railguns, anthrax, C-4 manufacturing, drug reasearch, including how to extract cannaboids, hydrocodone and other substances from their mixed or natural state, radiant gas heaters, naval bases, and porn are all subjects I have searched for and looked at articles related, in the last 48 hours.
Please do be careful not to mix anything up. Things could go very bad for you.
What? How could using C-4 to fire a railgun loaded with drugs possibly go wrong?? Especially if done in a naval base full of porn stars.
Slashdot Mirror
The point is that I'm not forcing you to go to my hospital, but with these regulations, you want to force me to go to yours.
First off, it's not your hospital, it's not my hospital, it's the community's hospital.
Your mental calculus concludes that the cost of securing a network outweighs the risk of a network being compromised. My mental calculus concludes that not only does the degree of the risk necessitate the cost, it also has the benefit of potentially reducing costs associated with identity theft, law suits due to HIPAA violations, and of course, the reputation risk of the hospital and doctors associated with it.
Well clearly you're much smarter than me, so I guess you're right that I shouldn't have choices. I'll just shut up and let you make all of my decisions for me.
How about you shut up because you make shitty arguments? I'd say that's a much better reason.
2015-01-01, Exec: "I was put out of business by more onerous regulation. Yet again, government has gotten in the way of your health care. Don't vote for candidates who want to choke business with regulation. They are to blame for everything bad in society."
You fool! You're suposed to let the free market decide! If too many people die at hospital A, just go to hospital B!
That should be true for non-life-threatening circumstances.
The satire that leftists make of libertarianism is rather stupid and preaching to the choir.
If that's merely the satire that leftists make of libertarianism, then how come I've talked to so many libertarians who say the exact same thing when it comes to drug safety, for example, and automobile safety, and say it with a completely straight face? "The FDA is just another encroachment of the federal government on our individual liberty! If a company makes a dangerous drug then more people will buy their competitor's drug instead."
The free market isn't the goal of libertarians, it's just one of the consequences. And it works for its purposes which are economic in nature.
Most libertarians I know would claim that it works for all purposes, economic or not. That is, it's not a goal, but it is a cure-all.
Now go back to reading Trotsky, Bakunin, and Marx, I think you missed a few chapters.
Which chapters would those be, exactly?
But if your sudo activity log has you doing "su -", then whatever gets borked up after that is automagically your fault as a matter of policy ^_^
I'm a sysadmin. Whatever gets borked up is automagically my fault as a matter of policy no matter what I do.
If you don't trust your sysadmin, they shouldn't be your sysadmin.
What if I don't trust myself?
fine, no soup. just type sudo make me a sandwich
sudo make me a sandwich
make: *** No rule to make target `me'. Stop.
It works better if you say it out loud to your geek spouse than if you type it to your computr. If you're lucky enough to have a geek spouse, that is. The rest of us just hear the reply, "What the fuck does sudo mean? And make your own damn sandwich!"
$ sudo make sandwitch sandwich: target not found
Was pretty funny until I realized you typed it in by hand. Too bad you misspelled sandwich.. ;)
He was using the new version of make, which is now so clever it can tell what you meant even if you mistype something. How else do you think he would misspell it on the command line but not in the error message?
I wasn't trying to state or imply that marijuana should be legal or illegal. You can't grow legally grow coca plants in your back yard either, right?
No, I can't, but that's not because cocaine is a prescription drug. It's because the relevant legislation specifically addresses the coca plant by name. This restriction is equally stupid as the one for the marijuana plant, because coca leaf has all sorts of uses and benefits apart from the extraction of cocaine. But that's beside my point, which was that being the source of a drug does not, in and of itself, make a plant require a license to grow; plants the government wants to so restrict are done on a case-by-case basis, for plants the government considers particularly dangerous. There are thousands of plants from which one can extract prescription drugs and only a small handful which are controlled by the federal government.
Or argue that it never made sense to ban it in the first place, because it was never anywhere near as dangerous as the government made it out to be.
I would additionally suggest that it might have been at least as much a making of the government as it was a making lobbied for by the legal drugs industry - tobacco, alcohol and pharmaceuticals.
I've done quite a bit of research on this subject and the evidence suggest that at the time the federal government first tried to control it (1937) it was motivated largely by attempts to limit the influence of Mexican immigrants and black jazz musicians on mainstream white America, as well as lobbying by the paper industry which feared competition from hemp paper. The pharmaceutical industry did some lobbying but the AMA was staunchly against any new federal regulation that didn't make exceptions for physician-prescribed cannabis. The alcohol and tobacco industries entered the fray later (though I agree that their influence has been a major factor in perpetuating the war on drugs once it had begun). The Federal Bureau of Narcotics, however, published a number of articles and newspaper editorials and offered congressional testimony to the effect that "marihuana" was one of the most addictive drugs known and instantly turned users into homicidal rapists. This appears to have been largely an attempt to get more power for the FBN, and it worked pretty well, I'd say.
"Medical marijuana" is just a scam. 60 "grow facilities" in Boulder, Colorado? Four times as many "dispensaries" in San Jose as 7-11s?.
Maybe four times as many people need pot as need slurpees. It's an effective treatment for a vast array of common conditions such as chronic anxiety, ADHD, nausea, or just everyday aches and pains. It's not just for the terminally ill. While most states with medical marijuana laws restrict it to only the most severe cases, California allows it for any condition a doctor feels justified in prescribing it for.
If it's to be treated as a medical treatment, it should be moved to Schedule II or III, prescribed by doctors, and distributed through pharmacies.
You're right, it should. The only thing standing in the way is the federal government.
What, provide verification for one's claims on Slashdot? You must be new here.
Nor should their citizens need a license to grow a plant.
They absolutely should if it's prescription medicine.
Growing a plant that can be used to produce prescription medicine doesn't require a license.
If pot were legalized then I would agree with you, but medicinal marijuana != legalized marijuana.
It's not, but it's technically not a prescription drug either. It's still against federal law and federal law provides for prosecution of medicinal marijuana as well as recreational marijuana. Given that, your argument basically boils down to "It absolutely should be illegal because it is illegal. If it were legal I would agree with you that it should be legal."
You want to argue for legalization of marijuana? Fine, argue for the tax potential.
Or argue that it never made sense to ban it in the first place, because it was never anywhere near as dangerous as the government made it out to be.
Or take a philosophical perspective to liberty and how severe ill effect should the be before we limit that.
I think that's exactly what "you shouldn't need a license to grow a plant" is. How is "you shouldn't need a license to do XXXXX" anything other than a "philosophical perspective to liberty"?
But the "It's a plant" and "You can't criminalize a plant, man" are just stupid.
Why? I think the burden's on you to give at least one reason why criminalizing a plant makes sense.
If you are saying that everything natural should be legal just because it is natural, you are arguing for cannibalism, murder, incest and numerous other things that do occur in nature but we prefer to keep illegal.
Too bad for you he's not saying that.
When arguing whether substance X should be legal or illegal is really quite irrelevant from whether it is created by growing plants or synthetizing it in a laboratory (aside from the "difficult to control" thing, which is whole another argument)
Maybe your problem is that you're thinking of it as a substance instead of a plant.
Molten cheese?
That's a long way to dig to get your fondue. Even less worth it if your plan is to make nachos.
"and these discoveries require people pouring over data for extended periods of time."
Well, only if the data is from the Big Dipper.
Or the Little Dipper. There are two, you know.
These days you'd get sued six ways from Sunday if you gave someone an IQ test as a pre-requisite for employment.
That's why you develop your own test in-house and call it a work-related aptitude test.
Also, what was up with the mixing of “he” and “she”. I don’t know why, but I found this very distracting.
It's one of several prescriptions for gender neutrality in a language who's only gender neutral pronoun is only politely used for babies, inanimate objects and occasionally animals. Other attempts have included new made up pronouns...
I tried that option once. It didn't work. My pronoun was perfectly suitable but it never caught on, and even I gave up after about a week.
A forth type I might add is the “unfocused hacker”.
Yeah, but nobody uses that language anymore. Unless you're talking about the firth.
In other words, you're saying Int 15 Wis 15 Cha 15 will get you farther than Int 18 Wis 10 Cha 8.
Your first clue is that you refer to them as "users" :)
Yeah, instead of "lusers" or "id10t errors".
The best parts of the Internet exist in spite of government, not because of it.
In point of fact, 100% of the internet exists because of government.
Do I dare ask what they would think about xkcd's search history?
That depends. Is Randall suspected of murder-by-velociraptor?
Evidence does not have a reasonable doubt test, the entire case that the prosecution presents has a reasonable doubt test.
Also, what passes the "reasonable doubt test" is for the jury to decide. That's 12 duly-selected members of the community where the alleged crime took place. Not some random yahoo with a slashdot nick of mysidia. If those 12 think there's no reasonable doubt that he did it, then it has passed the reasonable doubt test.
DIY railguns, anthrax, C-4 manufacturing, drug reasearch, including how to extract cannaboids, hydrocodone and other substances from their mixed or natural state, radiant gas heaters, naval bases, and porn are all subjects I have searched for and looked at articles related, in the last 48 hours.
Please do be careful not to mix anything up. Things could go very bad for you.
What? How could using C-4 to fire a railgun loaded with drugs possibly go wrong?? Especially if done in a naval base full of porn stars.
How do you say "I am Spartacus" in slashcode?