Or, you know, a genetic flaw, exposure to a disease, or environmental contamination. Also, allopathic medicine is a technically incorrect nomenclature that would probably not accurately apply completely to any kind of doctor except for an anesthesiologist.
That's not even what I claimed. I claimed that they the CIA and NSA are bigger threats than anything they protect us from. They very rarely actually protect us, the CIA has nearly ended the world a few times, and the NSA records everything all the time with worse internal security than a Chuck E. Cheese. Terrorism is not a threat (and the incompetence of most terrorists is more effective at stopping terrorism than the NSA). There is not an existential military threat, just a great degree of political dick waving. Thus, the threat of our unchecked TLAs is greater than the threats that justify the existence of said agencies.
The manner in which you state it seems far more common in strawman arguments than the actual arguments being made. Most claims regarding FOSS security are rooted in averages in situations with all other factors being roughly equal.
We shouldn't give the benefit of the doubt to government institutions that won't do likewise. That they are harmless now is inconsequential. We should be outraged that anyone in government even suggest a censorship regime.
Because pretty much the only jobs that are exempt from overtime are medical professionals, managers, salesmen, and IT. Medical is likely to remain that way because of how hospitals work, managers pretty much have to have OT on big projects, and, salesmen often work in a manner that makes tracking actual hours of work impractical. IT is pretty much the only one that could change.
This isn't armchair engineering, this is just doing their fucking job. Police get distracted from doing their job because they deal with bullshit revenue generation tasks like seizing anything that could plausibly be tied to drugs and predatory traffic tickets with no ties to actual road safety. Violent crime has been going down for decades, so the actual job should be getting easier.
As Firethorn pointed out, we can track it in both the increases and the decreases with adoption, banning and differing usage patterns, and the effects of lead on the brain have been known and studied for millennia. It's also generally considered unethical to introduce a known toxin to an entire population just to see what it does, especially if the suspected effects are harmful.
You mean, doing their actual job instead of trying to make a quick buck? That is actually a very easy technical problem, it's just that there are a lot of politics to it that get in the way of just doing their job.
I believe that it's been shown to have correlated with the areas that removed it with a certain amount of delay, making it most likely either have a causal relationship or that there was some factor that caused both to change on extremely similar, yet delayed time frames. Given that lead would be a reasonable causal factor here, and that IQ scores also increased, it seems likely that brain damage from leaded fuel is the culprit..
The last generation of Americans that were affected by leaded gas were probably born in the early seventies, most street crime is committed by younger people.
And street crime went down since then with a very strong correlation to the timeframes of removing leaded fuel.
In all fairness, at this point, it kind of goes without saying that anyone spouting idiotic garbage like this is obviously a shill, especially since it's regarding copyright.
If you are at the point where most of what you are doing is mainly muscle memory and rote memorization, you are probably playing lousy or at least uninteresting music. Improvisation and communication with the rest of the band and the audience are going to be where most of the work goes.
I can drive (both on the street and the track) and play the Guitar... but never at the same time (only have one pair of hands).
You need to step up, then, I can play bongos while driving, and I've seen guitarists play alright using only one hand.
No, there is such a thing as an action having worse results than doing nothing, which is why 'first, do no harm' is something that's considered very important for doctors.
If you see someone having a heart attack, and the first thing you do is grab the defibrillator that you have no idea how to properly use, you probably will end up making things worse.
If being a responsible adult were as simple as just deciding to do so, there would be no need for rehab, and really no need for any government at all. We'd just be responsible adults all the time and that would be the end of it. However, reality is a bit more complicated than that.
It's not that the taxpayers have a duty to shell out anything, it's just that paying for rehab is more cost effective since it actually reduces recidivism. You don't have to have as many cops, judges, public defenders, etc.
In the end, as I have said before, all I seek is a way to deter stoned people from going out in public.
That seems like a pretty harsh sentence. Why not just deter stoned people from driving or operating heavy machinery, which is a situation in which they could actually be a threat?
A field sobriety test is the mother of all qualitative tests, really. Even if it is administered in view of the camera on the car (or a body camera if the police officer is wearing one) it is still not a robust test and they are often challenged in court on a number of grounds. A field sobriety test for pot would be at least as bad.
Field sobriety tests are very qualitative in the middle ground of moderate impairment, but if you clearly pass or clearly fail, it's pretty objective. If someone stumbles across a line or falls down immediately while standing on one leg, they are clearly not in a condition to safely drive. If they can juggle while standing on one leg reciting the alphabet in reverse, they are clearly fit to drive.
If pro-pot people really want pot treated the same as alcohol they should be behind this as well, rather than treating it like some magical faultless cure for everything.
The problem is that all tests devised so far run an extreme risk of false positives and don't accurately assess the mental state of the driver. If an accurate test could be created, it might receive a different response, but until that point, it should not be embraced as having any utility.
So, by a 'test along these lines', you really mean a test that actually works. That's a pretty big difference, and given that the current evidence suggests that any purely objective chemical test would be unreliable. Fortunately, a field sobriety test actually tests how fit you are to drive, which is what is already relevant.
You just keep screaming that there are studies that show that being high can impair your driving. That doesn't mean that blood tests can be reliably used to determine whether or not a driver is impaired.
Actually, he addressed your entire argument. If there were a test that accurately determined one's level of intoxication and inability to drive from cannabis, it would be hard to not get behind it. However, the test proposed has not been shown to be scientifically accurate, making it have no advantage over a field sobriety test, which actually tests the motor and cognitive skills required to drive. You are peddling pseudoscience, which is why you are drawing ire.
Slashdot Mirror
Or, you know, a genetic flaw, exposure to a disease, or environmental contamination. Also, allopathic medicine is a technically incorrect nomenclature that would probably not accurately apply completely to any kind of doctor except for an anesthesiologist.
That's not even what I claimed. I claimed that they the CIA and NSA are bigger threats than anything they protect us from. They very rarely actually protect us, the CIA has nearly ended the world a few times, and the NSA records everything all the time with worse internal security than a Chuck E. Cheese. Terrorism is not a threat (and the incompetence of most terrorists is more effective at stopping terrorism than the NSA). There is not an existential military threat, just a great degree of political dick waving. Thus, the threat of our unchecked TLAs is greater than the threats that justify the existence of said agencies.
And that the information was obtained by torture in no way indicates that the information could not have been obtained without torture.
If you want to make us safer, shut down the CIA and NSA completely. They are more dangerous to us than any threat they claim to protect us from.
The manner in which you state it seems far more common in strawman arguments than the actual arguments being made. Most claims regarding FOSS security are rooted in averages in situations with all other factors being roughly equal.
They apparently use code that's two decades old, as this bug was only recently fixed
An unmanned vehicle made of light yet strong biological material? So, a bird?
We shouldn't give the benefit of the doubt to government institutions that won't do likewise. That they are harmless now is inconsequential. We should be outraged that anyone in government even suggest a censorship regime.
Because pretty much the only jobs that are exempt from overtime are medical professionals, managers, salesmen, and IT. Medical is likely to remain that way because of how hospitals work, managers pretty much have to have OT on big projects, and, salesmen often work in a manner that makes tracking actual hours of work impractical. IT is pretty much the only one that could change.
This isn't armchair engineering, this is just doing their fucking job. Police get distracted from doing their job because they deal with bullshit revenue generation tasks like seizing anything that could plausibly be tied to drugs and predatory traffic tickets with no ties to actual road safety. Violent crime has been going down for decades, so the actual job should be getting easier.
As Firethorn pointed out, we can track it in both the increases and the decreases with adoption, banning and differing usage patterns, and the effects of lead on the brain have been known and studied for millennia. It's also generally considered unethical to introduce a known toxin to an entire population just to see what it does, especially if the suspected effects are harmful.
You mean, doing their actual job instead of trying to make a quick buck? That is actually a very easy technical problem, it's just that there are a lot of politics to it that get in the way of just doing their job.
I believe that it's been shown to have correlated with the areas that removed it with a certain amount of delay, making it most likely either have a causal relationship or that there was some factor that caused both to change on extremely similar, yet delayed time frames. Given that lead would be a reasonable causal factor here, and that IQ scores also increased, it seems likely that brain damage from leaded fuel is the culprit..
And street crime went down since then with a very strong correlation to the timeframes of removing leaded fuel.
In all fairness, at this point, it kind of goes without saying that anyone spouting idiotic garbage like this is obviously a shill, especially since it's regarding copyright.
Yeah, only a few services like first class mail, the overwhelming bulk of non-spam mail.
The internet of things has toasters.
You need to step up, then, I can play bongos while driving, and I've seen guitarists play alright using only one hand.
No, there is such a thing as an action having worse results than doing nothing, which is why 'first, do no harm' is something that's considered very important for doctors.
If you see someone having a heart attack, and the first thing you do is grab the defibrillator that you have no idea how to properly use, you probably will end up making things worse.
If being a responsible adult were as simple as just deciding to do so, there would be no need for rehab, and really no need for any government at all. We'd just be responsible adults all the time and that would be the end of it. However, reality is a bit more complicated than that.
It's not that the taxpayers have a duty to shell out anything, it's just that paying for rehab is more cost effective since it actually reduces recidivism. You don't have to have as many cops, judges, public defenders, etc.
That seems like a pretty harsh sentence. Why not just deter stoned people from driving or operating heavy machinery, which is a situation in which they could actually be a threat?
Field sobriety tests are very qualitative in the middle ground of moderate impairment, but if you clearly pass or clearly fail, it's pretty objective. If someone stumbles across a line or falls down immediately while standing on one leg, they are clearly not in a condition to safely drive. If they can juggle while standing on one leg reciting the alphabet in reverse, they are clearly fit to drive.
The problem is that all tests devised so far run an extreme risk of false positives and don't accurately assess the mental state of the driver. If an accurate test could be created, it might receive a different response, but until that point, it should not be embraced as having any utility.
So, by a 'test along these lines', you really mean a test that actually works. That's a pretty big difference, and given that the current evidence suggests that any purely objective chemical test would be unreliable. Fortunately, a field sobriety test actually tests how fit you are to drive, which is what is already relevant.
You just keep screaming that there are studies that show that being high can impair your driving. That doesn't mean that blood tests can be reliably used to determine whether or not a driver is impaired.
Actually, he addressed your entire argument. If there were a test that accurately determined one's level of intoxication and inability to drive from cannabis, it would be hard to not get behind it. However, the test proposed has not been shown to be scientifically accurate, making it have no advantage over a field sobriety test, which actually tests the motor and cognitive skills required to drive. You are peddling pseudoscience, which is why you are drawing ire.