I have sympathy with people who feel life isn't worth living. But I wish they would not demand that others validate their choice by killing them.
Well then today is your lucky day! Because you don't know what youre talking about and are completely mistaken about how it all even works.
The person who wants to die makes the choice and is the one who actually carries out the act. All the doctor typically does is discuss, in realistic and rational fashion, the patients options. Which really is what doctors do already. It's just that presently when someone has no options and there is no more that can be done, that's the end of the conversation. the patient can say "I don't want to live like this", but all the doctor can do is empathize. this simply allows the conversation, between a patient and his doctor, to continue rationally about the one option left, if the patient wants it.
If after discussing it the patient makes that his determination, the doctor writes out a prescription. And that is the end of the doctor's participation. It is at the point wholly on the patient to carry it out or not, when they are ready. There is no violence to the self involved, as there would be in hanging, shooting, or other methods. Nor is there pain. The patient simply goes to sleep.
It is not our place to tell someone that must keep living because it is our believe that they must. That's not our place. That's simply another way of forcing someone else to suffer because of our beliefs. Its not right.
Yes we try to prevent the mentally ill from committing suicide. This is not mutually exclusive with the right of a person to choose to end their life with dignity.
The one is an often an irrational and emotional response made in extremis, for which they can get help. The other is often a very rational decision because there really is no more help to be given.
He may not be able to Google, but you are apparently unable to read. Once again you prove your limited intellectual facilities, as the first link you provided actually states the opposite of what you think it does, and the other is just a pile of manure.
Two decades of research on euthanasia in the Netherlands have resulted into clear insights in the frequency and characteristics of euthanasia and other medical end-of-life decisions in the Netherlands. These empirical studies have contributed to the quality of the public debate, and to the regulating and public control of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.
No slippery slope seems to have occurred. Physicians seem to adhere to the criteria for due care in the large majority of cases. Further, it has been shown that the majority of physicians think that the euthanasia Act has improved their legal certainty and contributes to the carefulness of life-terminating acts.
In 2005, eighty percent of the euthanasia cases were reported to the review committees. Thus, the transparency envisaged by the Act still does not extend to all cases. Unreported cases almost all involve the use of opioids, and are not considered to be euthanasia by physicians. More education and debate is needed to disentangle in these situations which acts should be regarded as euthanasia and which should not. Medical end-of-life decision-making is a crucial part of end-of-life care. It should therefore be given continuous attention in health care policy and medical training. Systematic periodic research is crucial for enhancing our understanding of end-of-life care in modern medicine, in which the pursuit of a good quality of dying is nowadays widely recognized as an important goal, in addition to the traditional goals such as curing diseases and prolonging life.
(Emphasis added.)
So other than some tabloid journalism from the likes of the Daily Mail and Breitbart, ie, non-factual, you don't really have a leg to stand on.
Problem with railgun is they are almost a LOS weapon too. That is, ballistically, the projectile trajectory is extremely flat over short range, due to it's extreme speed. No mistake, it's a tremendous amount of firepower, and devastating. Problem is it has a minimum range for any -ballistic- target. A target close enough to see, the railgun will obliterate it. Any far enough to be struck ballistically, same thing. But there's a gap in between such that a ship just over the horizon is largely safe from it and better attacked with traditional artillery or missiles.
I'm hoping, out of old loyalty and nostalgia, that they will come out of bankruptcy and reinventing their business focus, going back to being a geek supply store. But that will require creating a real and competent internet backend for components and tools like Mouser and Grainger have.
I love Grainger for tools, because their internet stock search is fantastic, and you can then (usually) quickly pick it up in store, no shipping/waiting required. I love Mouser because of their absolutely huge selection of components, along with the technical and even engineering data provided right there on the product pages. More than a couple times I've been able to substitute or change components based on that info.
If a vendor were to combine the two, I would be in heaven.
Radio Shacks problems stem in large part from migrating from a parts/geek store to a consumer store. Selling gadgets, phones, TVs, and such, and less of the stuff they were originally known for. They shifted markets, shifted their focus, and were unable to compete.
Meanwhile their backstop, components and parts, they tried to still do, but now you had to order and wait, rather than having a stock in store. Problem was as they did this, the internet was making them irrelevant. Why go to a physical store and place an order when I can go to Mouser.com from home. RadioShack lost their components business to the online retailers like Mouser, because they failed to compete with them. Radio Shack -still- has a vastly inferior online presence for the parts and component market.
RadioShack is dying because of a series of poor decisions on the part of its management: they tried to get into a market they couldn't compete in, and forsook their home turf allowing upstarts to steal their traditional market from them.
The "economic reality" you speak of is the business practice of paying people so little they have no choice but to obtain federal services in order to not be homeless, effectively subsidizing the private profits or the world's largest retailer (and others) by offloading the a portion of their wages to the government.
The solution is remarkably simple: require the minimum wage be more closely matched to the cost of living. Miraculously, anyone who is working is earning enough to not require assistance, saving tax dollars.
This helps mom and pops get a more equal footing, as part of the strategy of a large corp is that they can defray costs in one area by exploiting the economic differences between different cities/states/etc. But a combination of minimum wage laws (Federal floor, and then state and city ordinances tuned to their local costs of living) can do a lot of mitigate that.
And as I said, as a bonus the tax payer is no longer subsidizing Wal-Mart's profits through below poverty level wages.
1- They aren't legal loopholes. A law previously passed by Congress that gives the POTUS authority to act is NOT a legal loophole. It is simply the exercise of powers already granted.
2- He isn't flooding the country with illegal immigrants. No POTUS in history has cracked down as hard on immigration as he has. In his first term alone he deported more people the in the previous 12 years. Furthermore, net immigration across the Mexican border has actually been negative for the past two years.
3- He is the POTUS. He IS the head diplomat of the country. HE SETS FOREIGN POLICY.
4- What you said about taxes is a blatant lie. The taxes proposed are wholly on the upper classes and business.
What's truly frightening isn't how uninformed and detached from reality you are, nor even that you still vote despite that ignorance, but that people modded you insightful, which means you aren't the dumbest one here.
Public safety, the same place we usually draw the line. This isn't about choice. It's about public safety.
"By the people, for the people, of the people". the government is us. and we don't want to get sick from preventable diseases, nor do we want those who can't be vaccinated to get sick, because you had to have a "choice".
The whole concept of "choice" around vaccines is a crock. There simply is no relevant choice to be made. Unless your child has some medically sound reason for not being vaccinated, he is better off being vaccinated than not.
Slashdot Mirror
I have sympathy with people who feel life isn't worth living. But I wish they would not demand that others validate their choice by killing them.
Well then today is your lucky day!
Because you don't know what youre talking about and are completely mistaken about how it all even works.
The person who wants to die makes the choice and is the one who actually carries out the act. All the doctor typically does is discuss, in realistic and rational fashion, the patients options. Which really is what doctors do already. It's just that presently when someone has no options and there is no more that can be done, that's the end of the conversation. the patient can say "I don't want to live like this", but all the doctor can do is empathize. this simply allows the conversation, between a patient and his doctor, to continue rationally about the one option left, if the patient wants it.
If after discussing it the patient makes that his determination, the doctor writes out a prescription. And that is the end of the doctor's participation. It is at the point wholly on the patient to carry it out or not, when they are ready. There is no violence to the self involved, as there would be in hanging, shooting, or other methods. Nor is there pain. The patient simply goes to sleep.
It is not our place to tell someone that must keep living because it is our believe that they must.
That's not our place. That's simply another way of forcing someone else to suffer because of our beliefs.
Its not right.
Yes we try to prevent the mentally ill from committing suicide.
This is not mutually exclusive with the right of a person to choose to end their life with dignity.
The one is an often an irrational and emotional response made in extremis, for which they can get help.
The other is often a very rational decision because there really is no more help to be given.
He may not be able to Google, but you are apparently unable to read. Once again you prove your limited intellectual facilities, as the first link you provided actually states the opposite of what you think it does, and the other is just a pile of manure.
Two decades of research on euthanasia in the Netherlands have resulted into clear insights in the frequency and characteristics of euthanasia and other medical end-of-life decisions in the Netherlands. These empirical studies have contributed to the quality of the public debate, and to the regulating and public control of euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide.
No slippery slope seems to have occurred.
Physicians seem to adhere to the criteria for due care in the large majority of cases.
Further, it has been shown that the majority of physicians think that the euthanasia Act has improved their legal certainty and contributes to the carefulness of life-terminating acts.
In 2005, eighty percent of the euthanasia cases were reported to the review committees. Thus, the transparency envisaged by the Act still does not extend to all cases. Unreported cases almost all involve the use of opioids, and are not considered to be euthanasia by physicians. More education and debate is needed to disentangle in these situations which acts should be regarded as euthanasia and which should not. Medical end-of-life decision-making is a crucial part of end-of-life care. It should therefore be given continuous attention in health care policy and medical training. Systematic periodic research is crucial for enhancing our understanding of end-of-life care in modern medicine, in which the pursuit of a good quality of dying is nowadays widely recognized as an important goal, in addition to the traditional goals such as curing diseases and prolonging life.
(Emphasis added.)
So other than some tabloid journalism from the likes of the Daily Mail and Breitbart, ie, non-factual, you don't really have a leg to stand on.
Besides the assistance is really just a prescription for a drug or medication that will enable you, at your choosing, to slip away.
No pain.
No violence.
No potential harm to others.
No consciousness of the occurrence.
You just go to sleep and not wake up.
No, but we have to trust them.
The free market will obviously solve this for us, as the Invisible Hand slowly drives them out of business.
So just remember to vote with your dollars, after the harm as already been done, no pesky preemptive regulations required.
It's a lightweight sabot encased slug that derives its power and range from its extreme speed.
It's a simple physics problem.
Lower its speed sufficiently to eliminate the "horizon shadow" and you might as well be spitting water at them.
So no. Targets in the shadow would still be engaged by the more traditional battery or missiles.
Are there unicorns in this fantasy world of yours?
Left-leaning new sites absolutely refuse to take a stance against Islamic terrorism
Bull.
Effing.
Manure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...
I can see it now.
We're gonna replace the ALQ-39 chaff dispensers on our aircraft with KTY-56 cat dispensers.
Currently railguns have about the same muzzle velocity as a WW2 battleship cannon
Not even close to true.
The typical muzzle velocity of a typical 16 or 18in gun was around 2500 ft/s.
The Navy's railgun has already surpassed Mach 6, or >6600 ft/s.
No, the railguns the Navy is developing are quite definitely hypersonic and have been for some time.
Not "at some point the in future", but right now.
Problem with railgun is they are almost a LOS weapon too. That is, ballistically, the projectile trajectory is extremely flat over short range, due to it's extreme speed. No mistake, it's a tremendous amount of firepower, and devastating. Problem is it has a minimum range for any -ballistic- target. A target close enough to see, the railgun will obliterate it. Any far enough to be struck ballistically, same thing. But there's a gap in between such that a ship just over the horizon is largely safe from it and better attacked with traditional artillery or missiles.
*double whoosh*
*whoosh*
I'm hoping, out of old loyalty and nostalgia, that they will come out of bankruptcy and reinventing their business focus, going back to being a geek supply store. But that will require creating a real and competent internet backend for components and tools like Mouser and Grainger have.
I love Grainger for tools, because their internet stock search is fantastic, and you can then (usually) quickly pick it up in store, no shipping/waiting required. I love Mouser because of their absolutely huge selection of components, along with the technical and even engineering data provided right there on the product pages. More than a couple times I've been able to substitute or change components based on that info.
If a vendor were to combine the two, I would be in heaven.
Radio Shacks problems stem in large part from migrating from a parts/geek store to a consumer store.
Selling gadgets, phones, TVs, and such, and less of the stuff they were originally known for.
They shifted markets, shifted their focus, and were unable to compete.
Meanwhile their backstop, components and parts, they tried to still do, but now you had to order and wait, rather than having a stock in store. Problem was as they did this, the internet was making them irrelevant. Why go to a physical store and place an order when I can go to Mouser.com from home. RadioShack lost their components business to the online retailers like Mouser, because they failed to compete with them. Radio Shack -still- has a vastly inferior online presence for the parts and component market.
RadioShack is dying because of a series of poor decisions on the part of its management: they tried to get into a market they couldn't compete in, and forsook their home turf allowing upstarts to steal their traditional market from them.
The "economic reality" you speak of is the business practice of paying people so little they have no choice but to obtain federal services in order to not be homeless, effectively subsidizing the private profits or the world's largest retailer (and others) by offloading the a portion of their wages to the government.
The solution is remarkably simple: require the minimum wage be more closely matched to the cost of living. Miraculously, anyone who is working is earning enough to not require assistance, saving tax dollars.
This helps mom and pops get a more equal footing, as part of the strategy of a large corp is that they can defray costs in one area by exploiting the economic differences between different cities/states/etc. But a combination of minimum wage laws (Federal floor, and then state and city ordinances tuned to their local costs of living) can do a lot of mitigate that.
And as I said, as a bonus the tax payer is no longer subsidizing Wal-Mart's profits through below poverty level wages.
Ah yes. The idea that the rich create jobs and businesses out of the goodness of their hearts.....
pretty sure -anything- duct taped to the bottom of a bridge, especially a bright white bag, would arouse suspicions.
Your idiocy is showing.
1- They aren't legal loopholes. A law previously passed by Congress that gives the POTUS authority to act is NOT a legal loophole. It is simply the exercise of powers already granted.
2- He isn't flooding the country with illegal immigrants. No POTUS in history has cracked down as hard on immigration as he has. In his first term alone he deported more people the in the previous 12 years. Furthermore, net immigration across the Mexican border has actually been negative for the past two years.
3- He is the POTUS. He IS the head diplomat of the country. HE SETS FOREIGN POLICY.
4- What you said about taxes is a blatant lie. The taxes proposed are wholly on the upper classes and business.
What's truly frightening isn't how uninformed and detached from reality you are,
nor even that you still vote despite that ignorance,
but that people modded you insightful, which means you aren't the dumbest one here.
This is the same governor who goes out of his way to appeal to Iowans, while ignoring his own state's citizens, because 2016.
Public safety, the same place we usually draw the line.
This isn't about choice.
It's about public safety.
"By the people, for the people, of the people".
the government is us.
and we don't want to get sick from preventable diseases,
nor do we want those who can't be vaccinated to get sick,
because you had to have a "choice".
The whole concept of "choice" around vaccines is a crock.
There simply is no relevant choice to be made.
Unless your child has some medically sound reason for not being vaccinated, he is better off being vaccinated than not.
It's that simple.
Here to explain further, is Penn and Teller:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...
I have been abused by normal taxi drivers who take me on the "long" route, padding their fee. Tell me, how do you fix that problem?
Pretending "abuse" is rampant and widespread, without data is just FUD.
The irony here is amazing.
typical conservative, doesn't understand WHY taxis are regulated in the first place.
http://time.com/3592035/uber-t...
http://www.cnbc.com/id/1018488...
http://www.slate.com/articles/...
Oh shutup.
Youre basically making the "its racist to fix racism" fallacy.
You're like the gu
Oh please. In the conservative world the millionaire would either be given a warning, or a minuscule fine t