"If you can demonstate that the tendency to parasitism won't be passed on"
THAT is eugenics. Eugenics is the idea that behavior is passed down. Intelligence is an inborn biological trait, suggesting it is passed to offspring is not Eugenics.
"A smart parasite is still a parasite. Thanks, but I'd rather keep the number of parasites down."
We aren't talking about parasites, we are talking about criminals. That is a group that includes everyone who has broken any law which essentially is everyone. Given that the only ones who don't do that are the ones who die without the opportunity to do so I'd imagine it is 'passed down' at a rate that approaches 100% with exceptions on the order of those whose mothers get hit by a bus while carrying them out of the hospital.
Sure, and that is mostly the same with anything. If your son is special agent Johnson you can bet he'll answer the call when YOU are abused. Similarly, if you are special agent Johnson are you going to let your own mother be abused when you help other people each and every day? Does anyone really think that is unreasonable?
In this case, it isn't someone's mother. In this case it was a former director of the FBI and CIA and the guy threatened to put a bullet in his wife's head. When an honored retiree of your organization calls you SHOULD pick up the damn phone. This guy ran our entire intelligence and federal enforcement agencies if you can threaten to kill his wife and get away with it that is a slap in the face of the United States. I'm not much of a nationalist but damn, even I've got that much national pride.
"Do you think asian, latino, or black multimillionaires and Congressmen and other powerful people are held to the same rules as anyone else? It's money and power that move the world. "
I understand the outrage at the double standard and treatment from law enforcement. But if you call and threaten to put a bullet in the head of the former director of the CIA's wife that should illicit a response. For that matter the director or former director of any executive agency, or congressperson or president, or even state equivalents to the same.
At some point it isn't about the person or their special status, you've just thrown down a gauntlet and challenged the power and dignity of the United States of America and all of us in it. We should be quick to laugh, forgiving and charitable to fault, and slow to anger but if despite all of that you still pick a fight with us there should be no survivors.
The guy really should be grateful a little jail time is all he faced. If you think going through the legal system is the worst the former director of the CIA could have arranged you are kidding yourself. Hell, he was in Jamaica, the Jamaican police or any of their gangs would have happily dealt out far worse in response to an unofficial request from the CIA.
Smart criminals aren't criminals at all because they don't normally get caught. But if we caught one by luck (everybody has a bad day) we should turn them loose ASAP to up the odds of someone with a brain reproducing. The dumb ones we should lock away forever to make sure they don't breed.
Nope. The smart ones need to get out and breed whereas if we can stop the dumb ones from breeding there might be hope for the human race. Also, we don't catch the smart ones.
Lets stop with this nonsense. It is disingenuous to change the term for illegal immigrants to try to hide the fact that the definition that goes with the label is a shared criminal act.
"I agree that he was never in any personal danger..."
Sure but if you threaten to kill someone who turns out to be Navy seal it is still the same crime as threatening to kill the sweet old lady from 2B. Now if said seal or old lady kills you alleging they feared for their life considerations like that matter.
It's not just them. We need to stop allowing all the exceptions, debt collectors and political campaigns can fuck off too. They can send letters like everyone else.
"So the message from the FBI is "We only catch the dumb ones", which isn't much of a deterrent."
Well the argument from law enforcement in general is that they only have to be dumb once. Or that the "bad guys have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once"
If you continue to roll the dice on bad behavior then sooner or later you are going to fuck up. You don't have to be dumb, you just have to do something dumb today. Would it be nice if the Feds has a manpower to handle all the cases this way? Sure. But that isn't realistic. If the story had been that the guy got away with it you'd be talking about how they suck so bad they can't even catch the guy who makes a clown of the highest ranking intelligence officer to ever hold office.
Maybe there aren't enough cops and resources to stop mugging but if you try to mug the chief of police in a police station you should get busted. Think of what a laughing stock the police would be if it were otherwise.
No doubt but I'm okay with a double standard. If someone this stupid gets away with it we've broken natural selection altogether.
If a student says you put glue on their chair and you get away with it that is one thing but the system is completely broken if you get away with putting glue on the principal's chair.
"As far as I understand the matter, the FDA would be fine if these unrestricted food additives would change their labels just a bit. Then you still have the option to eat as much garlic as you want. You just can't sell it to others and label it an effective antibiotic and expect nobody to go to court over it"
They already can't claim it is an effective antibiotic.
"Why should the vendors of the product not have to make sure that the attributes of their product are true?"
They do, just like all vendors do within reason. It is difficult to prove any statement that isn't hedged to the point of being meaningless is true. There is almost always some measure of "further" you could go trying to chase down anything that could be wrong.
These things are already requirements, what is shoddy is enforcement. Enforcement for false advertising is largely in the form of lawsuits, nobody is suing these guys for false claims. Enforcement for misleading people with regard to medical properties is down to the FDA.
At some point though, a person does need to be able to communicate their own experiences and offer information to the best of their knowledge in good faith without fear of the FDA coming after them. If every time I snort a bump of unicorn horn my horn goes hard as a rock and I should be able to communicate that to others with a "hey I'm not a doctor but you should try this, it's better than viagra."
If people keep asking how to find it and everybody asks me where they can get some I might just decide to go ahead and start picking the suckers off with a sling shot and make a few bucks selling it, again with the good faith disclaimer that I and others are reporting results but I'm no doctor and this isn't FDA approved.
There is nothing wrong with that, and "good faith" is how high the bar should be. Every step higher you raise it eliminates competition for the guys who can afford to clear your regulatory hurdle as a cost of doing business by blocking the startup of people who can't. If it turns out unicorn horn processing is a tricky business or causing problems and I find out about it but don't stop selling it... well then it is time to do something. If any of that turns out to be the case and I take appropriate measures there is still no foul on my part.
Most medicines are derived from something we found in a plant or animal secretion or based on a mechanism we first discovered from something like that. The last thing we want to do is prevent natural and unpatented or unpatentable solutions from competing with prescription drugs. It's bad enough we create this massive black market for opiods when a bit of poppy tea made from flowers in the garden could do the trick for most aches and pains.
You are speaking of Apple as if it a private company with rights. It isn't, Apple is a publicly traded company and the consumers who pay it's rent for it and the shareholders who are its landlords have a right to make demands of it. Apple has no right to moral judgement. The problem is those consumers are doing just what you said, buying on the basis of advertised functionality and Apple isn't advertising censorship in specs. Since they have a near monopoly censorship is a very big issue indeed.
Some companies do that to make different classes of product for higher profit but in this case Apple is leaving money on the table for.... oh right, there is no upside. And in a case like that Apple may ultimately have to answer to shareholders as well.
'What kind of person says "I have no self control so I'll blame everything I do on others and make THEM change to accommodate me"?'
I don't recall saying anything about making others change or accommodate anything. I'm just making the observation that most all violence and ambition ultimately comes down to the innate and not self controllable male desire for appeal to females combined with the innate female emotional instability with regard to contentment.
Females are never content and men always want females that results in ever moving and shifting goals and social norms and a constant competition and chase to meet them. It is not exactly a new or secret theme. The greeks told the tale in the form of Helen of Troy.
No the larger problem here is your phone manufacturer usurping your right to decide what is sleazy and dishonest or even to be sleazy and dishonest. Their job is to produce a phone, not prevent someone from calling their buddy to buy a joint. How is it any different with your apps? The issue you raise is one for the users mother, spouse, or priest.
Where there are crimes around these things the sleaziest elements really come from the fact that arbitrary natural human behaviors are outlawed and therefore don't take place in the light of scrutiny and judgement. How is porn or even prostitution innately more sleazy than considering 'good provider' or 'has the right father' in your list of criteria for marriage? It isn't, it just threatens to reduce the artificial scarcity of a valuable commodity contrary to the interests of about 60% of the population. Because of that we have a sex slave trade, criminals, and social outcasts running these industries.
There is a flip side to the coin, they aren't given the legitimacy of big pharma or protections. If big pharma causes your penis to explode as a side effect they are immune to prosecution as long as they disclosed it during FDA trials. If your unicorn anal scrapings do the same you can sue them.
Bold claim sir, bold claim, where is your evidence? You better not go selling any and claiming eating food is good for your health!
That is basically what this comes down to. The FDA is in bed with big pharma and always has been. Their approval process keeps out competition and protects pharma from lawsuits. There are thousands of known herbal remedies that work just fine and predate modern medicine, there are also hundreds of thousands of bogus snake oil products as well.
In a sane world the FDA would regulate clear labeling and prevent claims of being medicine and nothing more. They also might regulate production in much the same manner as food. They wouldn't be staffed with pharma industry employees who take lucrative consulting and lobbying gigs as bribes after leaving their positions either.
Slashdot Mirror
"If you can demonstate that the tendency to parasitism won't be passed on"
THAT is eugenics. Eugenics is the idea that behavior is passed down. Intelligence is an inborn biological trait, suggesting it is passed to offspring is not Eugenics.
"A smart parasite is still a parasite. Thanks, but I'd rather keep the number of parasites down."
We aren't talking about parasites, we are talking about criminals. That is a group that includes everyone who has broken any law which essentially is everyone. Given that the only ones who don't do that are the ones who die without the opportunity to do so I'd imagine it is 'passed down' at a rate that approaches 100% with exceptions on the order of those whose mothers get hit by a bus while carrying them out of the hospital.
By that standard everyone is a criminal.
By definition they aren't citizens at all, at least not here.
"Absolutely - it's all on who you know."
Sure, and that is mostly the same with anything. If your son is special agent Johnson you can bet he'll answer the call when YOU are abused. Similarly, if you are special agent Johnson are you going to let your own mother be abused when you help other people each and every day? Does anyone really think that is unreasonable?
In this case, it isn't someone's mother. In this case it was a former director of the FBI and CIA and the guy threatened to put a bullet in his wife's head. When an honored retiree of your organization calls you SHOULD pick up the damn phone. This guy ran our entire intelligence and federal enforcement agencies if you can threaten to kill his wife and get away with it that is a slap in the face of the United States. I'm not much of a nationalist but damn, even I've got that much national pride.
"Do you think asian, latino, or black multimillionaires and Congressmen and other powerful people are held to the same rules as anyone else? It's money and power that move the world. "
Ever hear of OJ? Michael Jackson?
"If you're poor or not white, you get nothing."
Or if you're poor and are white, you get nothing. Stop listening to those who want to divide us. They aren't your friends.
I understand the outrage at the double standard and treatment from law enforcement. But if you call and threaten to put a bullet in the head of the former director of the CIA's wife that should illicit a response. For that matter the director or former director of any executive agency, or congressperson or president, or even state equivalents to the same.
At some point it isn't about the person or their special status, you've just thrown down a gauntlet and challenged the power and dignity of the United States of America and all of us in it. We should be quick to laugh, forgiving and charitable to fault, and slow to anger but if despite all of that you still pick a fight with us there should be no survivors.
The guy really should be grateful a little jail time is all he faced. If you think going through the legal system is the worst the former director of the CIA could have arranged you are kidding yourself. Hell, he was in Jamaica, the Jamaican police or any of their gangs would have happily dealt out far worse in response to an unofficial request from the CIA.
Smart criminals aren't criminals at all because they don't normally get caught. But if we caught one by luck (everybody has a bad day) we should turn them loose ASAP to up the odds of someone with a brain reproducing. The dumb ones we should lock away forever to make sure they don't breed.
Nope. The smart ones need to get out and breed whereas if we can stop the dumb ones from breeding there might be hope for the human race. Also, we don't catch the smart ones.
Did you just assume his or her gender?!?!?!?! Y I K E S
"the undocumented"
Lets stop with this nonsense. It is disingenuous to change the term for illegal immigrants to try to hide the fact that the definition that goes with the label is a shared criminal act.
"I agree that he was never in any personal danger ..."
Sure but if you threaten to kill someone who turns out to be Navy seal it is still the same crime as threatening to kill the sweet old lady from 2B. Now if said seal or old lady kills you alleging they feared for their life considerations like that matter.
It's not just them. We need to stop allowing all the exceptions, debt collectors and political campaigns can fuck off too. They can send letters like everyone else.
"So the message from the FBI is "We only catch the dumb ones", which isn't much of a deterrent."
Well the argument from law enforcement in general is that they only have to be dumb once. Or that the "bad guys have to get lucky every time, we only have to get lucky once"
If you continue to roll the dice on bad behavior then sooner or later you are going to fuck up. You don't have to be dumb, you just have to do something dumb today. Would it be nice if the Feds has a manpower to handle all the cases this way? Sure. But that isn't realistic. If the story had been that the guy got away with it you'd be talking about how they suck so bad they can't even catch the guy who makes a clown of the highest ranking intelligence officer to ever hold office.
Maybe there aren't enough cops and resources to stop mugging but if you try to mug the chief of police in a police station you should get busted. Think of what a laughing stock the police would be if it were otherwise.
No doubt but I'm okay with a double standard. If someone this stupid gets away with it we've broken natural selection altogether.
If a student says you put glue on their chair and you get away with it that is one thing but the system is completely broken if you get away with putting glue on the principal's chair.
Ever notice that sometimes you come across someone you just shouldn't have fucked with?
"As far as I understand the matter, the FDA would be fine if these unrestricted food additives would change their labels just a bit. Then you still have the option to eat as much garlic as you want. You just can't sell it to others and label it an effective antibiotic and expect nobody to go to court over it"
They already can't claim it is an effective antibiotic.
"Why should the vendors of the product not have to make sure that the attributes of their product are true?"
They do, just like all vendors do within reason. It is difficult to prove any statement that isn't hedged to the point of being meaningless is true. There is almost always some measure of "further" you could go trying to chase down anything that could be wrong.
These things are already requirements, what is shoddy is enforcement. Enforcement for false advertising is largely in the form of lawsuits, nobody is suing these guys for false claims. Enforcement for misleading people with regard to medical properties is down to the FDA.
At some point though, a person does need to be able to communicate their own experiences and offer information to the best of their knowledge in good faith without fear of the FDA coming after them. If every time I snort a bump of unicorn horn my horn goes hard as a rock and I should be able to communicate that to others with a "hey I'm not a doctor but you should try this, it's better than viagra."
If people keep asking how to find it and everybody asks me where they can get some I might just decide to go ahead and start picking the suckers off with a sling shot and make a few bucks selling it, again with the good faith disclaimer that I and others are reporting results but I'm no doctor and this isn't FDA approved.
There is nothing wrong with that, and "good faith" is how high the bar should be. Every step higher you raise it eliminates competition for the guys who can afford to clear your regulatory hurdle as a cost of doing business by blocking the startup of people who can't. If it turns out unicorn horn processing is a tricky business or causing problems and I find out about it but don't stop selling it... well then it is time to do something. If any of that turns out to be the case and I take appropriate measures there is still no foul on my part.
Most medicines are derived from something we found in a plant or animal secretion or based on a mechanism we first discovered from something like that. The last thing we want to do is prevent natural and unpatented or unpatentable solutions from competing with prescription drugs. It's bad enough we create this massive black market for opiods when a bit of poppy tea made from flowers in the garden could do the trick for most aches and pains.
You are speaking of Apple as if it a private company with rights. It isn't, Apple is a publicly traded company and the consumers who pay it's rent for it and the shareholders who are its landlords have a right to make demands of it. Apple has no right to moral judgement. The problem is those consumers are doing just what you said, buying on the basis of advertised functionality and Apple isn't advertising censorship in specs. Since they have a near monopoly censorship is a very big issue indeed.
Some companies do that to make different classes of product for higher profit but in this case Apple is leaving money on the table for.... oh right, there is no upside. And in a case like that Apple may ultimately have to answer to shareholders as well.
'What kind of person says "I have no self control so I'll blame everything I do on others and make THEM change to accommodate me"?'
I don't recall saying anything about making others change or accommodate anything. I'm just making the observation that most all violence and ambition ultimately comes down to the innate and not self controllable male desire for appeal to females combined with the innate female emotional instability with regard to contentment.
Females are never content and men always want females that results in ever moving and shifting goals and social norms and a constant competition and chase to meet them. It is not exactly a new or secret theme. The greeks told the tale in the form of Helen of Troy.
No the larger problem here is your phone manufacturer usurping your right to decide what is sleazy and dishonest or even to be sleazy and dishonest. Their job is to produce a phone, not prevent someone from calling their buddy to buy a joint. How is it any different with your apps? The issue you raise is one for the users mother, spouse, or priest.
Where there are crimes around these things the sleaziest elements really come from the fact that arbitrary natural human behaviors are outlawed and therefore don't take place in the light of scrutiny and judgement. How is porn or even prostitution innately more sleazy than considering 'good provider' or 'has the right father' in your list of criteria for marriage? It isn't, it just threatens to reduce the artificial scarcity of a valuable commodity contrary to the interests of about 60% of the population. Because of that we have a sex slave trade, criminals, and social outcasts running these industries.
On the contrary, crimes are invented just to keep the corrupt elements at play.
FDA approval isn't a requirement for FDA ban. That steak in the grocery store isn't FDA approved either but you bet your ass they can block its sale.
There is a flip side to the coin, they aren't given the legitimacy of big pharma or protections. If big pharma causes your penis to explode as a side effect they are immune to prosecution as long as they disclosed it during FDA trials. If your unicorn anal scrapings do the same you can sue them.
Bold claim sir, bold claim, where is your evidence? You better not go selling any and claiming eating food is good for your health!
That is basically what this comes down to. The FDA is in bed with big pharma and always has been. Their approval process keeps out competition and protects pharma from lawsuits. There are thousands of known herbal remedies that work just fine and predate modern medicine, there are also hundreds of thousands of bogus snake oil products as well.
In a sane world the FDA would regulate clear labeling and prevent claims of being medicine and nothing more. They also might regulate production in much the same manner as food. They wouldn't be staffed with pharma industry employees who take lucrative consulting and lobbying gigs as bribes after leaving their positions either.