Whenever Israel seems to be about to withdraw, the Palestinian army attacks Israel, forcing re-occupation.
There is no Palestinian army. Please stick to facts.
Peaceful demonstrations?
Yes, students gathering in a street carrying signs and chanting slogans are peaceful. That some demonstrations -- on both sides -- have turned violent doesn't negate the existence of peaceful ones.
Land confiscation? Most of the time, this is the land of terrorists.
No, that is incorrect. The land is chosen based on its location and perceived value, not on whether or not Hamas members live there. If that were the case, that would imply they knew where the terrorists lived and could easily arrest them. Illegal Israeli settlements (the Geneva Conventions make settlements in occupied land illegal) are created in such a way as to break up the West Bank into small cantons so Arab areas are discontinuous. Then bypass roads are built that only service the settlements, further breaking up Arab areas.
Arrest without charge? Not an outrage if the arrested are guilty.
Do you think that would fly here in the U.S.? Are you advocating that we ditch due process? You sound more and more like a fascist with each post.
It is never "propaganda". It is information.
You might want to look up propaganda in a dictionary because you keep claiming it has no meaning. It certainly does, and it's not just simple information. Telling you that "two plus two makes four" does not seek to change your opinion or promote my cause.
Yes certainly. Because you and similar anti-semites dwell on much lesser "crimes" of Israel while ignoring the much greater crimes of Israel's enemies.
The crimes I laid out above and attributed to each state to me make Israel the "more criminal," especially when it's an established state with U.S. funding that is committing the crimes whereas in Palestine's case it is mostly small organized resistence and not state-wide. Why don't you lay out the crimes as you see them for each state so we can compare.
Yet you are still missing the main point: I don't believe that Israel's crimes are terrorism based on a belief that Jews are inferior. Rather, I call it terrorism because it fits the definition. If Israel had nothing to do with Jews I would still condemn the state's actions as terrorism. Thus anti-Semitism has nothing to do with my views, just as my criticism of suicide bombing is not based on racial hatred of Arabs.
It is not unreasonable that anti-semitism is the reason.
It's not unreasonable that I hold the views I do simply because I hate anything having to do with the Asian continent, but that doesn't make it true or even likely. Reasonableness doesn't make it true. I would also argue that it is unreasonable because it's not based on any evidence but instead on your personal belief.
[Me:] " Facts are ignored in favor of doctrine." That is your way, not mine.
You haven't provided any facts yet. All I've read is many variations of "No, you're wrong" without anything to back it up.
Your missing one major point: the U.S. itself has laws banning alcohol and tobacco advertising in various forms. We are allowed to "protect the children" by banning TV advertising of those substances, but the Thai people may not.
Regardless, if the Thai people elect representatives that pass a law banning some forms of advertising, who are we to force them to change the law? If we think they are doing something wrong, we're free to take our toys (tobacco) home and not play with them, but that of course would hurt corporate profits. So instead we bully our way in and reverse their democratic process when it interferes with profit-making.
The same happened in South Vietnam. The population, mostly rural farmers, overwhelmingly chose a government that looked too much like Communism for us, so we began exterminating the population and driving the rest to the cities, called urbanization. If people democratically elect a government, who are we to deny them that right in the name of democracy?
No, it doesn't since Israel does not use terrorism.
Terrorism is the use of violence against civilians in an attempt to affect political change. Let's look at the Israel-Palestine situation.
Israel has been occupying Palestine for decades. Some Palestinians have resorted to violence, including suicide bombing, against Israeli civilians to force Israel to end the occupation. That's terrorism.
Many Israelis have resorted to violence (vigilantiism, firing on peaceful demonstrations, expulsion, land confiscation, torture, arrest without charge, etc.) against Palestinian civilians to convince the terrorist groups to stop. That's also terrorism.
The reporting of it becomes propaganda when it is justified because Israel is retaliating for previous terrorism. What's ignored is that they are retaliating against the population as a whole -- not against the terrorist groups. As well, terrorism in retaliation of terrorism is still terrorism, and no terrorism can be justified.
There is plenty of media steeped in anti-semitic bias leveling ludicrous and inconsistnt claims against Israel.
More propaganda. My statements are not critical of the Jewish people, whether you consider them a race or simply people holding the same religious views. Instead, I am criticizing the illegal actions of Israel, the state. Yet I would be considered anti-Semitic for my views. This is nonsense, but it's a very common tactic. Facts are ignored in favor of doctrine.
Abuse of this brain-damaging substances is dangerous, period. The illegality has hampered the pushing of them.
Abuse and use are two different things, and it's the use that is illegal, not the abuse. You can use many drugs without serious health effects, just as you can abuse alcohol -- which is legal -- with very serious effects (death). So again, why are some legal and some illegal?
In Amsterdam, decriminalization resulted in lower use rates of marijuana, mushrooms, and heroine. This directly contradicts your statement that illegality decreases use.
It's your choice. Don't abuse drugs, and this will not happen to you.
It's your choice not to exercise regularly which is a serious health risk. Are you saying that should be made illegal too? As well, criminalization doesn't stop drug use, thus it only adds risks, not decreases them. Finally, the health risks are mine to take, just as when I skydive or ski. It does no good to add more risks on top of the activity. Rape and murder are illegal because another person is harmed without their consent. This is not the case with drug use.
It cripples the drug market and puts the dope fiends where they belong.
No, it creates a billion-dollar black market for drugs. This market is unregulated, isn't taxed, causes violence and crime, and puts money into the hands of criminals. A legal drug market would be taxed, add to the GNP, create jobs, etc. Your use of "dope fiends" tells me that you believe drugs should be illegal on moral grounds rather than as a safety issue. Do "ski fiends" belong in jail too?
structural reforms such as greater fines and increase confiscation of the property of the criminals involved.
We don't confiscate property for any other crimes. Why not take a rapist's house or a murderer's car and money? Why does the crime with no victim have the most brutal punishment?
No, it is much less likely if the substances are illegal (and thus have more limited availability)
Again, decriminalization has shown to reduce drug use across the board.
Breathing the smoke from burning plants probably isn't too healthy regardless of if they contain any drugs or not.
True, but that doesn't negate what I said. Marijuana smokers inhale far less smoke and ash from plant, and smoke less frequently, than tobacco smokers. Thus, the health effects are fewer. And as you implied, it can also be eaten and vaporized with even fewer effects.
What's a soft drug? Pot? Ecstacy? low grade cocaine?
Yes, yes, and maybe. Personally, a soft drug to me is one that has a relatively low degree of addiction potential along with some other factors. The AC reply to your post covers what I was going to say completely, so read it. You overestimate the risk of using soft drugs considerably. And again, any risk there is is due to the fact that they are illegal -- not because they are inherently dangerous.
Not to mention drunk driving (and flying), deaths from direct and indirect tobacco use.
People will drive under the influence of substances whether or not those substances are illegal. Two kids in my high school were killed in a single car accident. The demolished car was placed on the school's front lawn with a sign saying, "This is why your parents don't want you to drink." However, it turned out that the driver had not been drinking. His friends said he was very tired when he dropped them off (two people that had been in the car before the accident) and they invited him to sleep there. He called his parents who told him he had to be home by curfew regardless, so he drove the other friend home, fell asleep, and hit a tree head on. Alcohol was not involved.
As for drugs causing health problems, that's the user's choice. The government is not your mother! If I do something that endangers my health (smoke crack, ski, skydive, etc.), it is not your responsibility to stop me. I don't mind my friends looking out for me, but (1) the government isn't my friend, and (2) confiscating my property and putting me in jail for five years so I can be raped is not good for my health. The criminalization solution does not solve the problem -- it creates many more problems.
Not only is it more realistic, it's far more compassionate! The message in the U.S. today is "Don't use drugs. If you do, you'll probably die and we don't care."
Given that attitude, all extreme sports should be illegal. A sedentary lifestyle should be illegal. Watching TV should be illegal. Driving should be illegal. Etc.
A meaningless term, "propaganda" is. Information is information.
Propaganda is not information; it is the use and presentation of information -- sometimes true, sometimes false -- for the purpose of affecting a person's opinions or actions.
For example, "two plus two makes four" is simply information whereas "Palestinian violence is terrorism; Israeli violence is retaliation and self-defense." is propoganda. Why? The latter statement seeks to alter your perception of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Stated in that way, it condones Israel's use of terrorism without directly negating the definition of terrorism (violence used against a civilian population for the purpose of affecting political change). Of course, in the media it is never stated like that outright; all Israeli violence is simply accepted as self-defense without discussion.
Another example is advertising. Do you think that Pepsi is telling us out of the goodness of their corporate heart that their soft drink is "for those who think young"? Or, perhaps, might the corporation be trying to convince us to buy their soft drink by playing on the cultural obsession with looking and feeling young?
Like most people, I read his stuff and reject it because it makes little sense.
Finally, here's yet one more good example of propaganda. Unless you can cite a scientific study demonstrating that "most people . . . reject it," I'm going to assume you made this up. Your doctrine is that Chomsky is a toad, and you attempt to convince others by stating that most people agree with you. That's propaganda.
The guy is not censored. Rather, hardly anyone cares what he has to say because what he says is irrelevant.
This relates to the recent hoopla that the media are biased for stories that will generate more viewers. Hardly anyone cares about what he says because they've been conditioned not to care. And since they don't care, he's kept off television interviews. However, attend any of his lectures and you'll see that there are thousands of critical thinkers that do care about his views.
He has argued for "democratic" [i.e., govermment] control, and censorship of so-called "corporate" media for the crime of having views he does not agree with.
Please cite a source for this, as this is contrary to every article and book of his that I have read. I have never seen him recommend control of the media in any way. In fact, he often complains that the media practice self-control in order to promote a specific doctrine.
I'm curious to know what articles and books of Chomsky's you have read given how different your view of him is from mine. I'm not saying yours should be the same, just that our impressions of his work are diametrically opposed, and that seems odd given how clearly he writes and states his views.
His basic tenant (sorry, my friend is borrowing the book that has the comment) is that he does not want to tell anyone what to think; instead he provides information from the public sphere and lets you form your own opinion. From the five books and numerous articles I have read, I agree that he is doing exactly that.
"We could make this so-called war on drugs a real war. We go in to Columbia with some military force and start taking out the cartels. . . . We'll just go in there and bomb them."
Wow, that's brilliant. A few years back the Thai government passed a resolution banning cigarette advertising -- not even import or sale -- as they were sick of the massive health problems and wanted to decrease smoking. The U.S. suppliers cried foul and had the WTO and IMF step in to pressure them to revoke the decision. Are you saying then that Thailand had the right to initiate bombing raids on the U.S. to destroy tobacco fields?
There are a few problems with your assessment. First, nicotine, alcohol and caffeine are legal in the U.S., and they are all drugs. This page, and Google will turn up more, addresses the relative addictiveness of six substances: the above three along with heroin, cocaine and marijuana. Here's the summary in decreasing order of addictiveness:
nicotine
heroin
cocaine
alcohol
caffeine
marijuana
Thus, the most addictive drug is legal, and one of the most destructive (alcohol) is legal too. Marijuana, barely addictive and with minor health affects (less than nicotine) is still illegal. The government, then, is not "clamping down on extremely addictive drugs," at least not at all consistently.
Second, you talk of slavery but neglect to mention that it is by personal choice that people use substances, and as long as that choice doesn't affect other people, the government has no right to interfere. If you disagree, then are you pushing to pass a law mandating regular exercise and good eating habits?
Finally, if you had to choose between (1) a life addicted to marijuana or cocaine or (2) five years in prison with all the nice trappings that brings, which would you choose? You see, punishing people severely for choosing to take action that may cause them harm is hardly liberal. And don't try to claim that prison is about correction.
Wow, those are the only choices we have, eh? How about
3. We decriminalize soft drugs one-by-one and watch the results. We'd save billions, earn billions through taxes (a la cigs and alcohol and regular sales tax), save lives, increase GNP, create jobs, reduce crime, reduce prison population (200,000 in US in 1970; 2 MILLION today), reunite families, and promote liberty and self determination. We'd also be taking money out of the criminals' hands and building new industries.
There are already several successful case studies. In the U.S., we have tobacco and alcohol. And then there's Amsterdam, with far smaller incidence rates of drug use, despite what critics say about decriminalization causing higher use.
"wasn't it just a few days ago someone posted here on slashdot about their company refusing to use OpenSSH since it is open source?"
No, the company refused to use any non-commercial product. Basically, they wanted someone to sue if something went wrong. Open source wasn't the issue.
Clearly you haven't read any of Chomsky's work, as your comments are the complete reverse of reality. Chomsky has never advocated government control of the media; in fact, he argues that that is effectively what we have and would love to see it ended. He's never spoken in favor of censorship; rather, he is often the target of it.
He writes that news propaganda is for democracy what torture and death squads are for fascism. When you govern with the consent of the people, it becomes too difficult to oppress them physically without risking a change in government. Thus propaganda is used -- not through mind control but through manufacturing consent -- to feed the populace the opinions you want them to have. The U.S. learned it chiefly from the Nazis, and much of the research made its way into advertising.
"Is it possible to have a minimalist organisation that is cheap, efficient and honest that can manage something like the Internet?"
I do not know. However, if a board member begins to suspect that the organization is failing its charter due to, for example, over-spending on shady subcontracts, that board member has a responsibility and a right to check the books to see what's what.
This is the case here, and the management -- which is supposed to be subservient to the board -- is blocking a board member's request to check the books. That raises red flags for me and obviously the EFF, Gilmore, and others. I agree that this should be against the bylaws of an international organization responsible for managing a world-wide public resource.
"because it isn't [bribery].
You can write a bill. you can send it to a sympathetic congressman. If he thinks it isn't full of shit he can present it to the appropriate committee."
But he does, so you "donate" $200,000 so he will submit the bill.
"if they think it isn't full of shit they'll scrap it."
But they do, so you again "donate" $50,000 to each of the four subcommittee members' reelection funds, and they bring it to the house.
"and the house votes on it."
But first, knowing that it won't pass a vote, house members trade among committees to get their bills passed. Several bills are porked up in exchange for "yes" votes. The house members bribe each other with pork instead of money, but since the pork also produces more campaign contributions, it's really a monetary bribe in the end.
Were you under the impression that it was our representatives that wrote legislation? I think more and more often it's supplied by lobbyists to a committee for porking up. How is this, combined with corporate campaign contributions, not seen for the bribery it is?
"being interruptable anywhere strikes me as a poor idea."
You make the same assumption as some others who resist cell phones: having a cell phone means you are required to answer each call. What you call interruptable, I call available. You always have a choice as to whether or not you want to be interrupted.
When I'm meeting up with friends -- especially at a club where it's hard to find people -- it's extremely handy to be able to call them. When I'm in a movie theatre, it's on vibrate and I'll usually ignore it if I don't have some reason to anticipate an urgent call (no wife, no kids). And if I'm intimately engaged, you can count on me ignoring it, thank you very much.
I'm always surprised when people ask me with surprised shock, "You're not going to answer it?" if I check the caller ID and decide to let the voice mail get it. If I'm having a conversation with someone, the other person can wait their turn. It's the same etiquette that would keep you from interrupting two people in a lively conversation unless you felt welcomed or just wanted them to pass the salt. In this case, the caller doesn't know, so I make the decision.
If your contibution was large enough, it certainly would have influenced the selection of the candidate. Fearing the loss of future contributions, they would make sure to choose people that you would support. If they didn't, they'd lose contributions, and that's clearly the point of contributions. You don't contribute to the party because you just feel like it. You contribute so they will take your positions to heart and support your positions.
In this case, the obviousness of the FUD and lack of clear factual arguments raises the likelihood of MS's influence. I would bet that had the study come out claiming that the GPL was very good for government institutions and recommended that government agencies shy away from proprietary software that MS would cease future contributions. Thus, because of the source of the funding, I find it unlikely that an unbiased report would emerge from the organization in the same way that I feel that campaign contributions amount to little more than legalized bribes.
What's the difference? Microsoft paid money to AdTI. AdTI used money to produce a FUD-laden "study." Given that MS's payment was probably electronic -- rather than in $20 bills -- there's no way to argue that the money was specifically for the study or not.
In the same way, the U.S. gives aid (over $3 billion annually from the early 80's and sooner, IIRC) to Israel. The administration says that the aid money must not be used for building new settlements. However, if Israel spends the aid on the military, that frees up money to be spent on settlements, and the effect is exactly the same.
"Think about what could happen to Ximian if some clandestine op by Microsoft leaked some proprietary.Net code to the Mono project. Microsoft could sit back and wait until Mono started making a dent in their business and then let the hammer fall."
Turn it around. A developer gets a job at Microsoft and slips in some code from Mono. After.NET gains lots of users, they let the hammer fall. Microsoft now has to GPL all of.NET. The risks are the same. GPL is just another license, and its conditions must be followed just as completely as those of a proprietary license.
It's been a long time since I did this (1988), but in my senior year of high school a couple friends and I made a superconductor with our physics teacher. With it we successfully reproduced magnetic levitation via the Meissner Effect: "If a small magnet is brought near a superconductor, it will be repelled becaused induced supercurrents will produce mirror images of each pole. If a small permanent magnet is placed above a superconductor, it can be levitated by this repulsive force."
Thus, the superconductor is not affecting the gravitational field. It is in a sense becoming a magnet itself, producing an exact-opposite magnetic field. This new field simply repels the magnet, producing levitation. By far the coolest effect was spinning/flipping the magnet over the superconductor and having it remain levitated, as the superconductor's magnetic field was always a mirror of the magnet's.
Now, in this I am not talking about the article or paper (I just started reading it). I'm simply talking about the magnetic field that is induced in a superconductor by magnets. My only experience and knowledge of the subject was the experiment in high school.
The weight of an object is precisely the force acting on it resulting from a gravitational field. When the superconducter levitates in a magnetic field, it still weighs the same as neither its mass nor the gravitational field have changed. Instead, the magnetic field applies a force on the superconducter that is larger than the gravitational force.
Similarly, a plane in flight still weighs the same, but the air moving across its wings applies an equal upward force, keeping it aloft.
No worries, you've more than covered belligerent.;)
Your arguments make sense so far, but it took a lot of restraint on my part not to dismiss you entirely due to your attitude. You'll convince far more people in the future if you drop the name-calling.
Seeking a professional worked for you. Switching to the SmartBoard by DataDesk worked for me. I began feeling tingling in my wrists and pain in my forearms a couple years ago and searched for a better keyboard. I tried Microsoft's but did not like the key layout. A post on Slashdot, thankfully, pointed me to the SmartBoard. It may not work for everyone, but that doesn't mean it works for no one.
Please avoid blanket statements such as yours. Yes, seeing a specialist is a good idea, but not the only solution.
The SmartBoard has several benefits. First, like other ergo keyboards, it is split. I would love it if it were actually in two pieces so I could adjust the amount of split, but what it has works for me. Second, and more importantly in my mind, the keys are aligned vertically (like the Kenesis I believe) so your fingers don't need to stretch horizontally. This keeps your wrists from torquing so much and really feels much better to me.
It took a little getting used to, but after a weekend of using the SmartBoard I was back up to my regular 90 wpm (yes, a weekend). After a week, my speed was actually improving beyond what I could achieve before since it was easier to strike all the keys.
Within a couple weeks the pain had disappeared and has not returned. I still recommend exercise, taking breaks, better posture, keyboard and mouse trays, etc. The other nice thing about the SmartBoard is that it's $90 and has held up well to continued pounding. I'd also say it makes playing FPS games easier.:)
The downsides? The key click is quite a bit louder than other soft keyboards. This doesn't bother me, but if you're in a wide-open work environment, you may get complaints. Second, as I said I wish I could adjust the split. Other than that it has been a real joy.
In short, if you're avoiding seeing a specialist due to cost, don't compound your injury by doing nothing because you believe that "ergonomic keyboards are worthless." Instead, drop $90 and try one out. Hell, try a few out. Your continued ability to type is not worth senseless doubt.
Slashdot Mirror
There is no Palestinian army. Please stick to facts.
Peaceful demonstrations?
Yes, students gathering in a street carrying signs and chanting slogans are peaceful. That some demonstrations -- on both sides -- have turned violent doesn't negate the existence of peaceful ones.
Land confiscation? Most of the time, this is the land of terrorists.
No, that is incorrect. The land is chosen based on its location and perceived value, not on whether or not Hamas members live there. If that were the case, that would imply they knew where the terrorists lived and could easily arrest them. Illegal Israeli settlements (the Geneva Conventions make settlements in occupied land illegal) are created in such a way as to break up the West Bank into small cantons so Arab areas are discontinuous. Then bypass roads are built that only service the settlements, further breaking up Arab areas.
Arrest without charge? Not an outrage if the arrested are guilty.
Do you think that would fly here in the U.S.? Are you advocating that we ditch due process? You sound more and more like a fascist with each post.
It is never "propaganda". It is information.
You might want to look up propaganda in a dictionary because you keep claiming it has no meaning. It certainly does, and it's not just simple information. Telling you that "two plus two makes four" does not seek to change your opinion or promote my cause.
Yes certainly. Because you and similar anti-semites dwell on much lesser "crimes" of Israel while ignoring the much greater crimes of Israel's enemies.
The crimes I laid out above and attributed to each state to me make Israel the "more criminal," especially when it's an established state with U.S. funding that is committing the crimes whereas in Palestine's case it is mostly small organized resistence and not state-wide. Why don't you lay out the crimes as you see them for each state so we can compare.
Yet you are still missing the main point: I don't believe that Israel's crimes are terrorism based on a belief that Jews are inferior. Rather, I call it terrorism because it fits the definition. If Israel had nothing to do with Jews I would still condemn the state's actions as terrorism. Thus anti-Semitism has nothing to do with my views, just as my criticism of suicide bombing is not based on racial hatred of Arabs.
It is not unreasonable that anti-semitism is the reason.
It's not unreasonable that I hold the views I do simply because I hate anything having to do with the Asian continent, but that doesn't make it true or even likely. Reasonableness doesn't make it true. I would also argue that it is unreasonable because it's not based on any evidence but instead on your personal belief.
[Me:] " Facts are ignored in favor of doctrine."
That is your way, not mine.
You haven't provided any facts yet. All I've read is many variations of "No, you're wrong" without anything to back it up.
Regardless, if the Thai people elect representatives that pass a law banning some forms of advertising, who are we to force them to change the law? If we think they are doing something wrong, we're free to take our toys (tobacco) home and not play with them, but that of course would hurt corporate profits. So instead we bully our way in and reverse their democratic process when it interferes with profit-making.
The same happened in South Vietnam. The population, mostly rural farmers, overwhelmingly chose a government that looked too much like Communism for us, so we began exterminating the population and driving the rest to the cities, called urbanization. If people democratically elect a government, who are we to deny them that right in the name of democracy?
Terrorism is the use of violence against civilians in an attempt to affect political change. Let's look at the Israel-Palestine situation.
Israel has been occupying Palestine for decades. Some Palestinians have resorted to violence, including suicide bombing, against Israeli civilians to force Israel to end the occupation. That's terrorism.
Many Israelis have resorted to violence (vigilantiism, firing on peaceful demonstrations, expulsion, land confiscation, torture, arrest without charge, etc.) against Palestinian civilians to convince the terrorist groups to stop. That's also terrorism.
The reporting of it becomes propaganda when it is justified because Israel is retaliating for previous terrorism. What's ignored is that they are retaliating against the population as a whole -- not against the terrorist groups. As well, terrorism in retaliation of terrorism is still terrorism, and no terrorism can be justified.
There is plenty of media steeped in anti-semitic bias leveling ludicrous and inconsistnt claims against Israel.
More propaganda. My statements are not critical of the Jewish people, whether you consider them a race or simply people holding the same religious views. Instead, I am criticizing the illegal actions of Israel, the state. Yet I would be considered anti-Semitic for my views. This is nonsense, but it's a very common tactic. Facts are ignored in favor of doctrine.
Abuse and use are two different things, and it's the use that is illegal, not the abuse. You can use many drugs without serious health effects, just as you can abuse alcohol -- which is legal -- with very serious effects (death). So again, why are some legal and some illegal?
In Amsterdam, decriminalization resulted in lower use rates of marijuana, mushrooms, and heroine. This directly contradicts your statement that illegality decreases use.
It's your choice. Don't abuse drugs, and this will not happen to you.
It's your choice not to exercise regularly which is a serious health risk. Are you saying that should be made illegal too? As well, criminalization doesn't stop drug use, thus it only adds risks, not decreases them. Finally, the health risks are mine to take, just as when I skydive or ski. It does no good to add more risks on top of the activity. Rape and murder are illegal because another person is harmed without their consent. This is not the case with drug use.
It cripples the drug market and puts the dope fiends where they belong.
No, it creates a billion-dollar black market for drugs. This market is unregulated, isn't taxed, causes violence and crime, and puts money into the hands of criminals. A legal drug market would be taxed, add to the GNP, create jobs, etc. Your use of "dope fiends" tells me that you believe drugs should be illegal on moral grounds rather than as a safety issue. Do "ski fiends" belong in jail too?
structural reforms such as greater fines and increase confiscation of the property of the criminals involved.
We don't confiscate property for any other crimes. Why not take a rapist's house or a murderer's car and money? Why does the crime with no victim have the most brutal punishment?
No, it is much less likely if the substances are illegal (and thus have more limited availability)
Again, decriminalization has shown to reduce drug use across the board.
True, but that doesn't negate what I said. Marijuana smokers inhale far less smoke and ash from plant, and smoke less frequently, than tobacco smokers. Thus, the health effects are fewer. And as you implied, it can also be eaten and vaporized with even fewer effects.
Yes, yes, and maybe. Personally, a soft drug to me is one that has a relatively low degree of addiction potential along with some other factors. The AC reply to your post covers what I was going to say completely, so read it. You overestimate the risk of using soft drugs considerably. And again, any risk there is is due to the fact that they are illegal -- not because they are inherently dangerous.
Not to mention drunk driving (and flying), deaths from direct and indirect tobacco use.
People will drive under the influence of substances whether or not those substances are illegal. Two kids in my high school were killed in a single car accident. The demolished car was placed on the school's front lawn with a sign saying, "This is why your parents don't want you to drink." However, it turned out that the driver had not been drinking. His friends said he was very tired when he dropped them off (two people that had been in the car before the accident) and they invited him to sleep there. He called his parents who told him he had to be home by curfew regardless, so he drove the other friend home, fell asleep, and hit a tree head on. Alcohol was not involved.
As for drugs causing health problems, that's the user's choice. The government is not your mother! If I do something that endangers my health (smoke crack, ski, skydive, etc.), it is not your responsibility to stop me. I don't mind my friends looking out for me, but (1) the government isn't my friend, and (2) confiscating my property and putting me in jail for five years so I can be raped is not good for my health. The criminalization solution does not solve the problem -- it creates many more problems.
Given that attitude, all extreme sports should be illegal. A sedentary lifestyle should be illegal. Watching TV should be illegal. Driving should be illegal. Etc.
Propaganda is not information; it is the use and presentation of information -- sometimes true, sometimes false -- for the purpose of affecting a person's opinions or actions.
For example, "two plus two makes four" is simply information whereas "Palestinian violence is terrorism; Israeli violence is retaliation and self-defense." is propoganda. Why? The latter statement seeks to alter your perception of the Israel-Palestine conflict. Stated in that way, it condones Israel's use of terrorism without directly negating the definition of terrorism (violence used against a civilian population for the purpose of affecting political change). Of course, in the media it is never stated like that outright; all Israeli violence is simply accepted as self-defense without discussion.
Another example is advertising. Do you think that Pepsi is telling us out of the goodness of their corporate heart that their soft drink is "for those who think young"? Or, perhaps, might the corporation be trying to convince us to buy their soft drink by playing on the cultural obsession with looking and feeling young?
Like most people, I read his stuff and reject it because it makes little sense.
Finally, here's yet one more good example of propaganda. Unless you can cite a scientific study demonstrating that "most people . . . reject it," I'm going to assume you made this up. Your doctrine is that Chomsky is a toad, and you attempt to convince others by stating that most people agree with you. That's propaganda.
The guy is not censored. Rather, hardly anyone cares what he has to say because what he says is irrelevant.
This relates to the recent hoopla that the media are biased for stories that will generate more viewers. Hardly anyone cares about what he says because they've been conditioned not to care. And since they don't care, he's kept off television interviews. However, attend any of his lectures and you'll see that there are thousands of critical thinkers that do care about his views.
He has argued for "democratic" [i.e., govermment] control, and censorship of so-called "corporate" media for the crime of having views he does not agree with.
Please cite a source for this, as this is contrary to every article and book of his that I have read. I have never seen him recommend control of the media in any way. In fact, he often complains that the media practice self-control in order to promote a specific doctrine.
I'm curious to know what articles and books of Chomsky's you have read given how different your view of him is from mine. I'm not saying yours should be the same, just that our impressions of his work are diametrically opposed, and that seems odd given how clearly he writes and states his views.
His basic tenant (sorry, my friend is borrowing the book that has the comment) is that he does not want to tell anyone what to think; instead he provides information from the public sphere and lets you form your own opinion. From the five books and numerous articles I have read, I agree that he is doing exactly that.
Wow, that's brilliant. A few years back the Thai government passed a resolution banning cigarette advertising -- not even import or sale -- as they were sick of the massive health problems and wanted to decrease smoking. The U.S. suppliers cried foul and had the WTO and IMF step in to pressure them to revoke the decision. Are you saying then that Thailand had the right to initiate bombing raids on the U.S. to destroy tobacco fields?
Thus, the most addictive drug is legal, and one of the most destructive (alcohol) is legal too. Marijuana, barely addictive and with minor health affects (less than nicotine) is still illegal. The government, then, is not "clamping down on extremely addictive drugs," at least not at all consistently.
Second, you talk of slavery but neglect to mention that it is by personal choice that people use substances, and as long as that choice doesn't affect other people, the government has no right to interfere. If you disagree, then are you pushing to pass a law mandating regular exercise and good eating habits?
Finally, if you had to choose between (1) a life addicted to marijuana or cocaine or (2) five years in prison with all the nice trappings that brings, which would you choose? You see, punishing people severely for choosing to take action that may cause them harm is hardly liberal. And don't try to claim that prison is about correction.
3. We decriminalize soft drugs one-by-one and watch the results. We'd save billions, earn billions through taxes (a la cigs and alcohol and regular sales tax), save lives, increase GNP, create jobs, reduce crime, reduce prison population (200,000 in US in 1970; 2 MILLION today), reunite families, and promote liberty and self determination. We'd also be taking money out of the criminals' hands and building new industries.
There are already several successful case studies. In the U.S., we have tobacco and alcohol. And then there's Amsterdam, with far smaller incidence rates of drug use, despite what critics say about decriminalization causing higher use.
No, the company refused to use any non-commercial product. Basically, they wanted someone to sue if something went wrong. Open source wasn't the issue.
Clearly you haven't read any of Chomsky's work, as your comments are the complete reverse of reality. Chomsky has never advocated government control of the media; in fact, he argues that that is effectively what we have and would love to see it ended. He's never spoken in favor of censorship; rather, he is often the target of it.
He writes that news propaganda is for democracy what torture and death squads are for fascism. When you govern with the consent of the people, it becomes too difficult to oppress them physically without risking a change in government. Thus propaganda is used -- not through mind control but through manufacturing consent -- to feed the populace the opinions you want them to have. The U.S. learned it chiefly from the Nazis, and much of the research made its way into advertising.
I do not know. However, if a board member begins to suspect that the organization is failing its charter due to, for example, over-spending on shady subcontracts, that board member has a responsibility and a right to check the books to see what's what.
This is the case here, and the management -- which is supposed to be subservient to the board -- is blocking a board member's request to check the books. That raises red flags for me and obviously the EFF, Gilmore, and others. I agree that this should be against the bylaws of an international organization responsible for managing a world-wide public resource.
You can write a bill. you can send it to a sympathetic congressman. If he thinks it isn't full of shit he can present it to the appropriate committee."
But he does, so you "donate" $200,000 so he will submit the bill.
"if they think it isn't full of shit they'll scrap it."
But they do, so you again "donate" $50,000 to each of the four subcommittee members' reelection funds, and they bring it to the house.
"and the house votes on it."
But first, knowing that it won't pass a vote, house members trade among committees to get their bills passed. Several bills are porked up in exchange for "yes" votes. The house members bribe each other with pork instead of money, but since the pork also produces more campaign contributions, it's really a monetary bribe in the end.
Were you under the impression that it was our representatives that wrote legislation? I think more and more often it's supplied by lobbyists to a committee for porking up. How is this, combined with corporate campaign contributions, not seen for the bribery it is?
You make the same assumption as some others who resist cell phones: having a cell phone means you are required to answer each call. What you call interruptable, I call available. You always have a choice as to whether or not you want to be interrupted.
When I'm meeting up with friends -- especially at a club where it's hard to find people -- it's extremely handy to be able to call them. When I'm in a movie theatre, it's on vibrate and I'll usually ignore it if I don't have some reason to anticipate an urgent call (no wife, no kids). And if I'm intimately engaged, you can count on me ignoring it, thank you very much.
I'm always surprised when people ask me with surprised shock, "You're not going to answer it?" if I check the caller ID and decide to let the voice mail get it. If I'm having a conversation with someone, the other person can wait their turn. It's the same etiquette that would keep you from interrupting two people in a lively conversation unless you felt welcomed or just wanted them to pass the salt. In this case, the caller doesn't know, so I make the decision.
In this case, the obviousness of the FUD and lack of clear factual arguments raises the likelihood of MS's influence. I would bet that had the study come out claiming that the GPL was very good for government institutions and recommended that government agencies shy away from proprietary software that MS would cease future contributions. Thus, because of the source of the funding, I find it unlikely that an unbiased report would emerge from the organization in the same way that I feel that campaign contributions amount to little more than legalized bribes.
In the same way, the U.S. gives aid (over $3 billion annually from the early 80's and sooner, IIRC) to Israel. The administration says that the aid money must not be used for building new settlements. However, if Israel spends the aid on the military, that frees up money to be spent on settlements, and the effect is exactly the same.
Turn it around. A developer gets a job at Microsoft and slips in some code from Mono. After .NET gains lots of users, they let the hammer fall. Microsoft now has to GPL all of .NET. The risks are the same. GPL is just another license, and its conditions must be followed just as completely as those of a proprietary license.
Thus, the superconductor is not affecting the gravitational field. It is in a sense becoming a magnet itself, producing an exact-opposite magnetic field. This new field simply repels the magnet, producing levitation. By far the coolest effect was spinning/flipping the magnet over the superconductor and having it remain levitated, as the superconductor's magnetic field was always a mirror of the magnet's.
Now, in this I am not talking about the article or paper (I just started reading it). I'm simply talking about the magnetic field that is induced in a superconductor by magnets. My only experience and knowledge of the subject was the experiment in high school.
Similarly, a plane in flight still weighs the same, but the air moving across its wings applies an equal upward force, keeping it aloft.
Your arguments make sense so far, but it took a lot of restraint on my part not to dismiss you entirely due to your attitude. You'll convince far more people in the future if you drop the name-calling.
No no, he's using BBCode! Credibility (partially) restored.
Please avoid blanket statements such as yours. Yes, seeing a specialist is a good idea, but not the only solution.
The SmartBoard has several benefits. First, like other ergo keyboards, it is split. I would love it if it were actually in two pieces so I could adjust the amount of split, but what it has works for me. Second, and more importantly in my mind, the keys are aligned vertically (like the Kenesis I believe) so your fingers don't need to stretch horizontally. This keeps your wrists from torquing so much and really feels much better to me.
It took a little getting used to, but after a weekend of using the SmartBoard I was back up to my regular 90 wpm (yes, a weekend). After a week, my speed was actually improving beyond what I could achieve before since it was easier to strike all the keys.
Within a couple weeks the pain had disappeared and has not returned. I still recommend exercise, taking breaks, better posture, keyboard and mouse trays, etc. The other nice thing about the SmartBoard is that it's $90 and has held up well to continued pounding. I'd also say it makes playing FPS games easier. :)
The downsides? The key click is quite a bit louder than other soft keyboards. This doesn't bother me, but if you're in a wide-open work environment, you may get complaints. Second, as I said I wish I could adjust the split. Other than that it has been a real joy.
In short, if you're avoiding seeing a specialist due to cost, don't compound your injury by doing nothing because you believe that "ergonomic keyboards are worthless." Instead, drop $90 and try one out. Hell, try a few out. Your continued ability to type is not worth senseless doubt.