Yeah, because nobody tried the MS first-party controller and thought it was shit.
I completely fail to see the correlation between MS's "Seal of Approval" and a quality product. There certainly isn't such a correlation with software...
Yeah, we can't have the market deciding which products should win and which ones should lose. Let's just have Microsoft do all the hard thinking for us!
If you don't want an accessory that turns a cup holder into an iPod holder, don't buy one. (Me, I think it would have been a very handy thing to have in my Miata...would have worked beautifully...)
Many Christians interpret that Commandment to read "Thou shalt not murder", which is a perfectly understandable ethical distinction. (Killing people because they look at me funny is bad. Killing people because they're attacking me with deadly weapons is pretty OK.)
I'm not a conservative (in the neo-con agree with me or you're evil sort of way). I'm also not a terrorist. I'm also not willing to surrender nuance. Thinking hard is the only way to get ourselves out of the mess the fundies are trying to get us into. Thinking in black and white is a real good way to get a lot of folks killed.
If I wanted to flame you, I'd have flamed you. Since I didn't flame you, you can proceed from the assumption that I didn't wish to.
You're lookin' a little jumpy there, amigo. Have a drink and settle down a bit. It'll be OK. This too shall pass.
Well, gee! I don't know why we don't go ahead and make some laws that promote job creation! Nobody's ever thought of that before. I'm sure there won't be any unintended consequences, corruption, or total backfiring.
You're so clever. Why don't you run for President?
Well hell! It's a good thing you're not painting with a really broad brush or anything!
There is no disconnect between opposing abortion and being in favor of capital punishment. People who are executed have been found guilty of serious crimes by a jury of their peers. Unborn fetuses have not.
Saying that one must be against capital punishment if they're against abortion is exactly equivalent to insisting that people who dislike broccoli also dislike strawberries. It's a non-issue.
As far as your bombing brown people rant, that's nothing more than a troll and I'm not going to dignify it with a response.
"public pharmacy"? What difference does that make? In the overwhelming majority of the cases, we're not talking about a "public pharmacy", we're talking about privately owned, profit seeking corporations that operate pharmacies. Regardless, the pharmacist has made a personal oath, and is legally responsible for his decision to dispense or not dispense a proescription. (Note: The pharmacist is PERSONALLY responsible, not Walgreen's.)
If you want to hold a pharmacist legally responsible for dispensing a prescription, then they must be allowed to not dispense it.
Their duty is to exercise their own judgement, not conform to yours.
"stuff like schools not having to have 75 students per teacher, roads being kept up, hospitals well-funded, millions of new jobs being created."
Huh?
I'm no fan of the current administration, but if you think that picking a different president is all that's necessary to solve these problems, you need another civics class.
Pharmacists do not take the Hippocratic Oath, no, but that doesn't mean that they don't feel morally bound to do no harm.
If a pharmacist feels that an abortion pill is not the optimal drug therapy for the patient he/she serves, they are bound to not dispense that drug.
It's convenient that you left out the line about "I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical, and legal conduct." Note the order of precedence there: Moral first. Legal, not first.
Again: You can have an ethical, moral pharmacist making judgements, or you can change the system. The pharmacist is doing his or her duty.
That may be your perception of a pharmacist's responsibility, but the pharmacists I know take their oath seriously. They have a moral obligation to (among other things) do no harm.
I'm inclined to agree with you: I think that the notion of proscribed substances is, by and large, pretty silly.
You can't have it both ways. Either the pharmacist is responsible for safeguarding your health, or they're not. If they're not, well, we need to get rid of the entire profession. If they are, well, they need to rely on their own judgement.
I agree with you: I don't think that an undifferentiated wad o' cells isn't a person. Other people disagree. Some of those people are pharmacists.
If you've got a problem with a pharmacist that refuses to fill a prescription, you can go find another pharmacist. There's no issue there.
A pharmacist is legally responsible for the health of the patient to whom he/she dispenses medication. It puts the pharmacist in an untenable position when the express purpose of that medication is to (in the view of some people) kill one of the two people standing in front of him.
I am firmly pro-choice. I am also firmly in favor of requiring pharmacists to act according to their own conscience in this matter.
Be careful...you're validating my stereotypes of poor spellers.
I am SO PROUD that you managed to spell "Eisenhower" correctly. And propaganda! Good job! Now you just need to work on the paranoid delusions and the whole "I before E except after C" rule.
I don't believe that there's any substantial economic impact due to the exhaustion of the Oregon Bison.
Conversely, future knowledge might very well show that unnecessary and redundant conservation mechanisms delay or eliminate the introduction of important technologies that would provide a net greater good than the conservation mechanisms provide.
In other words, that is an un-arguable point. Any number of things might happen in the future.
Note that I am completely in favor of common-sense conservation efforts. I am in favor of them because I think the economic impacts are minimal, but they are a good idea for largely intangible reasons.
Second: You might be able to think faster than you can type, but since you're obviously not too swuft at stringing together a coherent thought, I'm not sure it matters very much.
Third: For semicolon use, check out an MLA style guide. I'll go out on a limb and assume you can get that typed more or less correctly into a Google search box.
Fourth: If you had something worthwhile to say, it might be worthwhile for me to decipher it. Since you don't, I won't trouble myself with you any further.
How about you make your purchasing decisions, and I'll make mine? Is that OK with you? Is there room in your universe for people with a different set of priorities than yours?
Thousands of people die every day, for much more prosaic reasons than "violent extremists". (Come on, you have to keep up with the constantly changing lingo that's designed to manipulate you...)
Yes, it would be nice to eliminate terrorism. It is not, however, a problem that justifies the absurd situation we're got right now.
Is somebody somehow more dead if they're killed by terrorists than by a drunk driver?
How many people died from getting attacked by wild animals?
I say again: Terrorism is not a problem. And I've got the sack to put my name on my assertion.
It sure would be nice if we could end terrorism. (Oh, I'm sorry, I'm supposed to say "violent extremism" now...) I think it would be even nicer if we could make sure that our national pension plan wasn't going to end up in the shitter. I'd also like a reasonable stab at a good healthcare plan that doesn't ass-rape you when you are out of work for a couple months.
It's only in the last 100 years or so that you could pretty reliably count an adult you met on the street could read a simple sentence.
Our species progresses. Our knowledge increases. Just because there are people that are still ignorant, doesn't mean that some people aren't really smart.
Slashdot Mirror
Right, because everybody knows that these corporations always faithfully execute their contracted responsibilities.
I just puked in my coffee imagining Steve Ballmer running around in tights, with his underwear on the outside. "I am Sweat-Man!"
I had no choice but to share the image with everybody else, in a futile attempt to get it out of my own skull...
Yeah, because nobody tried the MS first-party controller and thought it was shit.
I completely fail to see the correlation between MS's "Seal of Approval" and a quality product. There certainly isn't such a correlation with software...
Yeah, we can't have the market deciding which products should win and which ones should lose. Let's just have Microsoft do all the hard thinking for us!
If you don't want an accessory that turns a cup holder into an iPod holder, don't buy one. (Me, I think it would have been a very handy thing to have in my Miata...would have worked beautifully...)
In other words, it's hard to sketch out a consistent picture of morality with a two-syllable sound bite.
Shocking revelation, that.
Many Christians interpret that Commandment to read "Thou shalt not murder", which is a perfectly understandable ethical distinction. (Killing people because they look at me funny is bad. Killing people because they're attacking me with deadly weapons is pretty OK.)
I'm not a conservative (in the neo-con agree with me or you're evil sort of way). I'm also not a terrorist. I'm also not willing to surrender nuance. Thinking hard is the only way to get ourselves out of the mess the fundies are trying to get us into. Thinking in black and white is a real good way to get a lot of folks killed.
If I wanted to flame you, I'd have flamed you. Since I didn't flame you, you can proceed from the assumption that I didn't wish to.
You're lookin' a little jumpy there, amigo. Have a drink and settle down a bit. It'll be OK. This too shall pass.
Well, gee! I don't know why we don't go ahead and make some laws that promote job creation! Nobody's ever thought of that before. I'm sure there won't be any unintended consequences, corruption, or total backfiring.
You're so clever. Why don't you run for President?
Well hell! It's a good thing you're not painting with a really broad brush or anything!
There is no disconnect between opposing abortion and being in favor of capital punishment. People who are executed have been found guilty of serious crimes by a jury of their peers. Unborn fetuses have not.
Saying that one must be against capital punishment if they're against abortion is exactly equivalent to insisting that people who dislike broccoli also dislike strawberries. It's a non-issue.
As far as your bombing brown people rant, that's nothing more than a troll and I'm not going to dignify it with a response.
"public pharmacy"? What difference does that make? In the overwhelming majority of the cases, we're not talking about a "public pharmacy", we're talking about privately owned, profit seeking corporations that operate pharmacies. Regardless, the pharmacist has made a personal oath, and is legally responsible for his decision to dispense or not dispense a proescription. (Note: The pharmacist is PERSONALLY responsible, not Walgreen's.)
If you want to hold a pharmacist legally responsible for dispensing a prescription, then they must be allowed to not dispense it.
Their duty is to exercise their own judgement, not conform to yours.
"stuff like schools not having to have 75 students per teacher, roads being kept up, hospitals well-funded, millions of new jobs being created."
Huh?
I'm no fan of the current administration, but if you think that picking a different president is all that's necessary to solve these problems, you need another civics class.
I liked that a lot, until I was spending half an hour per visit scouring the shelves for something I wanted to watch.
It's great, until you blow through the selection at the local Blockbuster...
I'm trying GreenCine. Haven't formulated an opinion yet, although the selection seems rockin'.
Pharmacists do not take the Hippocratic Oath, no, but that doesn't mean that they don't feel morally bound to do no harm.
If a pharmacist feels that an abortion pill is not the optimal drug therapy for the patient he/she serves, they are bound to not dispense that drug.
It's convenient that you left out the line about "I will maintain the highest principles of moral, ethical, and legal conduct." Note the order of precedence there: Moral first. Legal, not first.
Again: You can have an ethical, moral pharmacist making judgements, or you can change the system. The pharmacist is doing his or her duty.
That may be your perception of a pharmacist's responsibility, but the pharmacists I know take their oath seriously. They have a moral obligation to (among other things) do no harm.
I'm inclined to agree with you: I think that the notion of proscribed substances is, by and large, pretty silly.
You can't have it both ways. Either the pharmacist is responsible for safeguarding your health, or they're not. If they're not, well, we need to get rid of the entire profession. If they are, well, they need to rely on their own judgement.
I agree with you: I don't think that an undifferentiated wad o' cells isn't a person. Other people disagree. Some of those people are pharmacists.
If you've got a problem with a pharmacist that refuses to fill a prescription, you can go find another pharmacist. There's no issue there.
A pharmacist is legally responsible for the health of the patient to whom he/she dispenses medication. It puts the pharmacist in an untenable position when the express purpose of that medication is to (in the view of some people) kill one of the two people standing in front of him.
I am firmly pro-choice. I am also firmly in favor of requiring pharmacists to act according to their own conscience in this matter.
Wow.
Be careful...you're validating my stereotypes of poor spellers.
I am SO PROUD that you managed to spell "Eisenhower" correctly. And propaganda! Good job! Now you just need to work on the paranoid delusions and the whole "I before E except after C" rule.
You're making progress. Gold star!
I don't believe that there's any substantial economic impact due to the exhaustion of the Oregon Bison.
Conversely, future knowledge might very well show that unnecessary and redundant conservation mechanisms delay or eliminate the introduction of important technologies that would provide a net greater good than the conservation mechanisms provide.
In other words, that is an un-arguable point. Any number of things might happen in the future.
Note that I am completely in favor of common-sense conservation efforts. I am in favor of them because I think the economic impacts are minimal, but they are a good idea for largely intangible reasons.
First: Decaf.
Second: You might be able to think faster than you can type, but since you're obviously not too swuft at stringing together a coherent thought, I'm not sure it matters very much.
Third: For semicolon use, check out an MLA style guide. I'll go out on a limb and assume you can get that typed more or less correctly into a Google search box.
Fourth: If you had something worthwhile to say, it might be worthwhile for me to decipher it. Since you don't, I won't trouble myself with you any further.
More hugs n' kisses!
After digging through your post, I didn't see any critical thought, so my initial impression (that you were a nimrod) was borne out.
Yes, thinking is more important than spelling. Unfortunately, you're bad at both.
Hugs n' kisses.
Whoever told you that spelling doesn't matter was mistaken.
How about you make your purchasing decisions, and I'll make mine? Is that OK with you? Is there room in your universe for people with a different set of priorities than yours?
Thousands of people die every day, for much more prosaic reasons than "violent extremists". (Come on, you have to keep up with the constantly changing lingo that's designed to manipulate you...)
Yes, it would be nice to eliminate terrorism. It is not, however, a problem that justifies the absurd situation we're got right now.
Is somebody somehow more dead if they're killed by terrorists than by a drunk driver?
People who take no position when they have no evidence aren't cowardly, they are intellectually honest.
How many people died in car crashes?
How many people died from getting attacked by wild animals?
I say again: Terrorism is not a problem. And I've got the sack to put my name on my assertion.
It sure would be nice if we could end terrorism. (Oh, I'm sorry, I'm supposed to say "violent extremism" now...) I think it would be even nicer if we could make sure that our national pension plan wasn't going to end up in the shitter. I'd also like a reasonable stab at a good healthcare plan that doesn't ass-rape you when you are out of work for a couple months.
Terrorism is not a problem. It is a puppet show.
Why's that?
It's only in the last 100 years or so that you could pretty reliably count an adult you met on the street could read a simple sentence.
Our species progresses. Our knowledge increases. Just because there are people that are still ignorant, doesn't mean that some people aren't really smart.