You ARE trolling, or acting as such even if you didn't intend it.
If he didn't intend it, he's not trolling. Trolling is an intentional action. From the Slashdot FAQ:
"Troll -- A Troll is similar to Flamebait, but slightly more refined. This is a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses. A Troll might mix up vital facts or otherwise distort reality, to make other readers react with helpful "corrections." Trolling is the online equivalent of intentionally dialing wrong numbers just to waste other people's time."
And this is why the moderation system sucks, because people like YOU can't take 2 minutes to read definitions and actually understand the words you are using.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I for one doubt that highly; I'm sure there's plenty of people that think drugs are bad, not just drug companies that make money.
A cool example of that is adding a turbocharger to a car under warranty; unless you blow the engine with the turbocharger, your warranty is still intact.
"Id. (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 513 F.2d 38, 39-40 (4th Cir.1975)).
[3,4] We hold that Congress may constitutionally regulate intrastate criminal cultivation of marijuana plants found rooted in the soil. We defer to Congress' findings that controlled substances have a detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people and that intrastate drug activity affects interstate commerce. Rodriquez-Camacho, 468 F.2d at 1221-22. We further hold that local criminal cultivation of marijuana is within a class of activities that adversely affects interstate commerce."
But it is common knowledge that the aftermath of the Civil War led to the understanding that states don't have the right to do something that would damage the union as a whole -- for example, secession is definitely not a right guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment.
The Food and Drug Administration is a federal construct, created in the interest of public health. For a state to undermine it's authority could be potentially damaging to public health and thus the union, therefore I would venture to say that the Tenth Amendment doesn't give states the right to undermine federal public health regulations.
If you want to argue about the constitutionality of the FDA, that's another story.
You're making a big deal about nothing, and it's obvious that you're just upset because Diebold did something you didn't like, and now you're going to attack everything about them, even petty things like an employee's sig.
If Diebold was doing a good job and pleasing you, you'd think the signature was funny, and you wouldn't be throwing a shit fit about it.
Simply send a counter notice stating that the documents do not breach copyright, and put the website back up. This moves the obligation to Diebold to bring suit!
And then when they do bring the suit, where does your money come from to pay for your lawyer?
When you are carrying around a controlled substance, it is your responsibility to be able to prove that you have a right to carry that controlled substance. That substance on its own is illegal, and the prescription is the exception to the rule, not the other way around.
And, just as a common sense safety measure, if you have some kind of bad reaction to your medication and are unable to communicate, you'd be in much better shape if someone could determine what you were taking. When you get to the hospital, they'd be able to help you a lot quicker and minimize damage.
Furthermore, your prescription bottle doesn't contain the diagnosis, just the name of the drug and dosage. So what are the odds that someone a) has a photographic memory and can, at a glance, fully read the tiny-ass print on your original prescription, and b) somehow is a pharmacist or doctor that could instantly diagnose your disease based on your particular kind of medication, and c) is in a position to discriminate against you somehow?
If you're that paranoid, it's time to go live in a bunker with your tinfoil hat.
Summary: If you're carrying something around that is ordinarily illegal (prescription medication, concealed weapon, etc.), and a legal exception has been made for you, it's your responsibility to carry documentation to prove that the legal exception was made. Otherwise, yes, you deserve to go through the hassle of waiting for the authorities to go and look everything up before they let you go.
They stop you. If you have a non-illegal amount on you (i.e. you have 2 pills of ritalin on you, not 20, without your prescription handy) they just let you go. If you're carrying 20 pills without the bottle, then you kinda deserve to get in trouble...
Tell that to the highway patrolmen that get to inform the families of drunk-driving victims. Not everyone will consume these newly-legal drugs at home (and stay there). They aren't worried about the safety of the people that are already using them.
Why would the drug-driving victim rate suddenly increase if drugs were legalized? People do (and always will) drive under the influence of drugs and alcohol, drug legalization isn't going to significantly impact that number one way or the other.
If drugs are ever legalized it will be because someone high up will have finally figured out that taxing the shit out of it == profit.
And we're not in a democracy in the US, we're in a democratic republic... you're probably saying "I know that" but I don't think people really differentiate between the two, and there's a huge difference.
I thinl there's a certain amount of prescription drugs you have to have on you in order for it to be considered criminal?
I could be wrong, but I know at least for weed, there's a difference between carrying around a little and carrying around a lot, I'd imagine for prescription stuff the laws allow for that kind of thing.
Actually, if I could have reasonable assurances that you wouldn't try to rip me off, we could meet, and I could show you my bank records for the last few years.
It's worth it to watch you put your foot in your mouth.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe that's what the generic "-1 Overrated" is for -- modding down stuff that isn't quite Troll or Flamebait.
You ARE trolling, or acting as such even if you didn't intend it.
If he didn't intend it, he's not trolling. Trolling is an intentional action. From the Slashdot FAQ:
"Troll -- A Troll is similar to Flamebait, but slightly more refined. This is a prank comment intended to provoke indignant (or just confused) responses. A Troll might mix up vital facts or otherwise distort reality, to make other readers react with helpful "corrections." Trolling is the online equivalent of intentionally dialing wrong numbers just to waste other people's time."
And this is why the moderation system sucks, because people like YOU can't take 2 minutes to read definitions and actually understand the words you are using.
Perhaps, perhaps not. I for one doubt that highly; I'm sure there's plenty of people that think drugs are bad, not just drug companies that make money.
This is absolutely true.
A cool example of that is adding a turbocharger to a car under warranty; unless you blow the engine with the turbocharger, your warranty is still intact.
Wouldn't be hard for them to enforce, either; the unmistakable floating chunks of fecal matter in shitty generic ink can be spotted instantly.
But Lexmark lost...
The text I found was:
"Id. (quoting United States v. Atkinson, 513 F.2d 38, 39-40 (4th Cir.1975)).
[3,4] We hold that Congress may constitutionally regulate intrastate criminal cultivation of marijuana plants found rooted in the soil. We defer to Congress' findings that controlled substances have a detrimental effect on the health and general welfare of the American people and that intrastate drug activity affects interstate commerce. Rodriquez-Camacho, 468 F.2d at 1221-22. We further hold that local criminal cultivation of marijuana is within a class of activities that adversely affects interstate commerce."
http://www.druglibrary.org/olsen/DPF/visman.html
I'm not goot at using FindLaw, but I'd imagine you can find the full text there.
You can't just pick and choose between "you're" and "your"; they're not interchangable.
OK... so were you going to present an argument?
Hey, moron -- we don't live in a democracy. We live in a democratic republic. Do you even know the difference?
Hey are you going to get upset if Diebold fires the guy, because they didn't let him exercise his First Amendment rights?
Like I said, you people only care because Diebold made you angry. If Diebold was making you happy, you'd be laughing. Hypocrisy at its finest!
Scoff.
Not entirely.
But it is common knowledge that the aftermath of the Civil War led to the understanding that states don't have the right to do something that would damage the union as a whole -- for example, secession is definitely not a right guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment.
The Food and Drug Administration is a federal construct, created in the interest of public health. For a state to undermine it's authority could be potentially damaging to public health and thus the union, therefore I would venture to say that the Tenth Amendment doesn't give states the right to undermine federal public health regulations.
If you want to argue about the constitutionality of the FDA, that's another story.
You're making a big deal about nothing, and it's obvious that you're just upset because Diebold did something you didn't like, and now you're going to attack everything about them, even petty things like an employee's sig.
If Diebold was doing a good job and pleasing you, you'd think the signature was funny, and you wouldn't be throwing a shit fit about it.
Simply send a counter notice stating that the documents do not breach copyright, and put the website back up. This moves the obligation to Diebold to bring suit!
And then when they do bring the suit, where does your money come from to pay for your lawyer?
Have you ever heard of this thing called "the Civil War"? You know, where the federal government won?
Enjoy.
When you are carrying around a controlled substance, it is your responsibility to be able to prove that you have a right to carry that controlled substance. That substance on its own is illegal, and the prescription is the exception to the rule, not the other way around.
And, just as a common sense safety measure, if you have some kind of bad reaction to your medication and are unable to communicate, you'd be in much better shape if someone could determine what you were taking. When you get to the hospital, they'd be able to help you a lot quicker and minimize damage.
Furthermore, your prescription bottle doesn't contain the diagnosis, just the name of the drug and dosage. So what are the odds that someone
a) has a photographic memory and can, at a glance, fully read the tiny-ass print on your original prescription, and
b) somehow is a pharmacist or doctor that could instantly diagnose your disease based on your particular kind of medication, and
c) is in a position to discriminate against you somehow?
If you're that paranoid, it's time to go live in a bunker with your tinfoil hat.
Summary: If you're carrying something around that is ordinarily illegal (prescription medication, concealed weapon, etc.), and a legal exception has been made for you, it's your responsibility to carry documentation to prove that the legal exception was made. Otherwise, yes, you deserve to go through the hassle of waiting for the authorities to go and look everything up before they let you go.
I know.
My point was:
They stop you. If you have a non-illegal amount on you (i.e. you have 2 pills of ritalin on you, not 20, without your prescription handy) they just let you go. If you're carrying 20 pills without the bottle, then you kinda deserve to get in trouble...
Tell that to the highway patrolmen that get to inform the families of drunk-driving victims. Not everyone will consume these newly-legal drugs at home (and stay there). They aren't worried about the safety of the people that are already using them.
Why would the drug-driving victim rate suddenly increase if drugs were legalized? People do (and always will) drive under the influence of drugs and alcohol, drug legalization isn't going to significantly impact that number one way or the other.
If drugs are ever legalized it will be because someone high up will have finally figured out that taxing the shit out of it == profit.
And we're not in a democracy in the US, we're in a democratic republic... you're probably saying "I know that" but I don't think people really differentiate between the two, and there's a huge difference.
This is true.
However, there are no gangs of people smuggling alcohol and cigarettes around the country and killing people, at least to my knowledge.
Less murder is always nice.
I thinl there's a certain amount of prescription drugs you have to have on you in order for it to be considered criminal?
I could be wrong, but I know at least for weed, there's a difference between carrying around a little and carrying around a lot, I'd imagine for prescription stuff the laws allow for that kind of thing.
Where do ewe won 2 goatse today??
I vomit.
Actually, if I could have reasonable assurances that you wouldn't try to rip me off, we could meet, and I could show you my bank records for the last few years.
It's worth it to watch you put your foot in your mouth.
Then why are business ethics classes offered in colleges?
Umm... they are the problem. The shareholders ARE Amazon.
By the way, companies also have a duty to be ethical.
Prove I'm astroturfing. Prove I'm on RIAA's payroll.
Just because my opinions differ from yours doesn't justify your scarlet-lettering me.