People should be held responsible for what they DO, not what they merely HAVE. If some driver has an open bottle of booze in a car they could be tested for alcohol, but not punished for merely having the bottle.
A really radical idea would be that they can be ticketed for driving dangerously, regardless of what they did or didn't have in their car/bloodstream. They would only need to be tested for alcohol if they had killed someone, to decide if they were to be charged with "manslaughter" (sober) or "murder" (drunk)...
If someone has some arbitrarily classified, so called illegal weapon in their house, they should not be punished merely for that fact, only if they threaten someone or in some other way DO something harmful with any object. One can beat someone to death with a baseball bat or cut someone's throat with a kitchen knife.
The whole concept of an "illegal weapon" is daft. Threatening to do harm to someone is generally illegal, injuring someone is generally illegal as is killing someone. Someone killed by a "legal weapon" (or one used by a police officer) is in no way less dead than had they been killed by an "illegal weapon"...
Do we declare the ownership of baseball bats or knives illegal?
You don't need to give Jacqui Smith ideas...
Anyone who merely OWNS say a shotgun a quarter inch shorter than some arbitrarily decided length some politicians came up with, can be thrown in prison for simply that.
A pity there arn't arbitrary length restrictions for politicans.
I'm as against drunk driving as anyone, and am even more against driving while high, but I am also highly against restrictions on these things while not driving. You should be free to get high on your own time as much as you want, just so long as you don't try to operate deadly machinery while doing it.
More concerning is that children are allowed to operate this machinery. In some parts of the US those as young as 14 can be on the road, most alarming is South Dakota where it's possible for 14 year olds to drive unsupervised!
Banning an entire class of substances just because you don't want people driving while under their influence is ridiculous.
Maybe instead you should ban driving or at least have a sensible minimum age. Currently the state of New Jersey and New York City appear to be the only places in the US where only adults may drive unsupervised on the public roads.
And the "kids will try it more because it's legal" argument is a logical fallacy, plain and simple. Salvia is legal in many states (and Canada as well) and is there a salvia epidemic?
If anything it's more the case that "kids (actually teenagers) will try it more because it's illegal". The other factor is that legal recreational drugs tend to be available in different forms and strengths compared with illegal ones.
1. Yes, people should not drive while attending collage. An ex-girlfriend's roommate did once. She'd stay awake the night before studying for an exam, wound up falling asleep at the wheel and rolled her SUV, killing her boyfriend. (This IS a true). So, following your logic, college, or at least exams, should be illegal. That being said, I am for pro-legalization, but allowing people to drive while high should not be legal.
I originally read the last bit as "allowing people to drive while at high school should not be legal":) e.g. by setting the minimum driving age to something like 20.. It might also not be a bad idea for the minimum driving age to be 4-5 years older than the minimum drinking age.
I think it is generally understood that while high: your reasoning and perception are altered. THAT IS THE FUN PART! Well, you shouldn't be behind the wheel in that state of mind. (IMO)
There appear to be people who undergo a Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde (or Dr Banner/Hulk) transformation of personallity when they start driving. Maybe some of these "road ragers" might actually be better drivers when dosed with THC:)
The difference between a drunk driver and a stoned driver is, that while a drunk driver will plow through a stop sign without even slowing down, a stoned driver will stop and wait for it to turn green:)
Which might well make them less dangerous than a sober driver...
Honestly, though, I have a lot of frinds who drive stoned and I really can't tell the difference when riding with them. I think your friend who fell asleep at the wheel must have had something else with his weed, because I've never seen someone pass out from smoking weed.
Drug contamination being a problem made far worst by prohibition.
Yes, people should not drive stoned. My friend did once, wound up falling asleep at the wheel and rolled his new car that his parents had bought him. Car was totaled, the other guy in the car was the one hurt (naturally) and his parents really couldn't afford the first car much less to replace it.
This dosn't really say a lot for your friend's parents. How old was he anyway?
oh and do you know what industry uses the most amount of ammonium nitrate? Hint it isn't demolitions. Heck with the right air mixture flour can be explosive. you know the stuff they make bread and cakes from.
Flour made from rye, rice or maize can go bang just as well. Indeed the dust from wheat can be an explosion risk long before it gets anywhere near being flour.
oh and I would hardly call a field of weed gardening, farming is far more accurate.
You probably shouldn't call it "weed" either the word "crop" might be more appropriate.
what everyone who wants to legalise weed seem to forget in their weed induced stumblings is that it like alcohol affects everyone differently
One fundermental problem is that prohibition has side effects which are worst than even the most dangerous of drugs.
and I don't want people driving drunk let alone so smoked out they forget which is the gas and which is the brake as they laugh and hit the car in front of them.
The obvious solution here is to have the roads patrolled by people who's job it is to identify and stop people driving dangerously for whatever reason. They could be called something like "traffic cops"... If someone cannot operate their vehicle safely it really shouldn't matter if they have more than X mg/l of THC, alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, codeine, cocaine, diamorphine, etc in their blood or not.
It's very big business, indeed several industries. Pharmaceutical, alcoholic beverages, tobacco, coffee, chocolate, etc, etc. You even have foods, mostly yoghurt, spreads and breakfast cereals marketed as having pharmaceutical properties.
Planting bombs is essentially engineering.
Especially when carried out by a military engineer.
There is when the "crime" in question is essentially gardening.
Actually the crime in question here is trespass. The horticultural issue isn't even mentioned in the linked article. Anyway the Slashdot text described more of a 10th ammendment issue than anything else.
failing that simply forward all the mail to gmail or free email account that you can search in a instant... but no one know about...
If you get caught the most likely assumption is that you are sending information to a competitor...
(if you are smart you will configure outlook to use the gmail (or free provider) as the sending email server so things dont go out through the exchange server alerting the admins there when they look at the traffic also make sure that you use the SSL to smtp out )
If there are proper admins operating the network they are likely to notice these connections, possibly even if they are on port 22, 443, 993, etc. You'd also better hope that nobody looks to closely at the headers of emails from you.
But that is likely not the case. It is more likely the company is trying to limit the amount of data stored on its Exchange system. Adding storage and additional backup capacity is expensive.
So is buying additional filing cabinets... Also nobody obliged these people to choose a specific email platform. Any more than they are obliged to choose a specific brand of filing cabinet.
Implementing a policy that requires end users to keep the size of their mailboxes down does not work, because many people insist they need every bit of those six years of archived e-mail; people use e-mail as much for CYA as doing real business.
They are also likely to find "creative" ways around such quotas.
Well, obviously this company has decided that old emails are much more likely to work against them, and this even overrides the loss of productivity due to important emails going missing etc.
Wonder if they also destroy any pieces of paper over 180 days old or if this policy only applies to email...
Think of it this way, if a restaurant wasn't looked at as a good place to get food because the food was expired and moldy, hiring a new greeter to say welcome isn't going to change people's opinion of the restaurant.
Such a restaurant would probably be shut down under public health laws. A better analogy might be one which served overpriced food with bad service.
Same with this, if the restaurant/ISP is serving bad food/internet experience, being nice to customers doesn't solve the root problem.
The situation here would be more like a restaurant hiring private detectives to find out which of their customers were unhappy then sending a "customer service rep" to visit just those people.
I do not download what I haven't paid for. Even stealing from theiving scumbag record company executives is stealing.
Copyright infringement isn't theft. Even where copyright laws have been mutated by corporate lobbying copyright infringement is still distinct from theft.
If I get any such letter, I will calmly reply and ask for a formal apology. If that fails, they will get bad publicity. Users come to me all the time at work and ask for reccomendations.
This is also the reason why ISP's are reluctant to go for the "three strikes" route. If they actually start disconnecting customers they are going to be sued for breach of contract. Which will be very bad publicity when they lose.
In that case you use "document envelopes" which are backed with stiff card. The really paranoid could use card constructed by laminating paper and glass/carbon fibre. Which would still be cheaper and lighter than a giant parcel.
The order processing centre was located in Singapore or Malaysia, and so the laptop, the docking station and the carry case were air freighted to me from Singapore even though my office was about 5 Kms from their Warehouse in Sydney.
Just as well they wern't processing orders in Reykjavík. Unless stuff actually came from the warehouse in Sydney, via Singapore
The PC's arrived from IBM in a pair of 2m x 2m x 2m cube boxes on the inside of the container. The driver asked if our IT department happened to have a forklift truck available as it would save time unloading.
Sounds like something from the BOFH:)
Now, mail-order companies seem to enjoy putting the smallest items in the largest boxes. Once ordered some new memory cards and hard disk drives. Each order arrived in a large desktop PC sized box filled with large plastic air-bubbles (empty sealed plastic bags filled with nothing but air), styrofoam peanuts or foam padding. In each case, the padding took up about 20 times as much space as the original item.
Even more daft if the item in question is placed at the bottom of the box...
Slashdot Mirror
People should be held responsible for what they DO, not what they merely HAVE. If some driver has an open bottle of booze in a car they could be tested for alcohol, but not punished for merely having the bottle.
A really radical idea would be that they can be ticketed for driving dangerously, regardless of what they did or didn't have in their car/bloodstream. They would only need to be tested for alcohol if they had killed someone, to decide if they were to be charged with "manslaughter" (sober) or "murder" (drunk)...
If someone has some arbitrarily classified, so called illegal weapon in their house, they should not be punished merely for that fact, only if they threaten someone or in some other way DO something harmful with any object. One can beat someone to death with a baseball bat or cut someone's throat with a kitchen knife.
The whole concept of an "illegal weapon" is daft. Threatening to do harm to someone is generally illegal, injuring someone is generally illegal as is killing someone. Someone killed by a "legal weapon" (or one used by a police officer) is in no way less dead than had they been killed by an "illegal weapon"...
Do we declare the ownership of baseball bats or knives illegal?
You don't need to give Jacqui Smith ideas...
Anyone who merely OWNS say a shotgun a quarter inch shorter than some arbitrarily decided length some politicians came up with, can be thrown in prison for simply that.
A pity there arn't arbitrary length restrictions for politicans.
I'm as against drunk driving as anyone, and am even more against driving while high, but I am also highly against restrictions on these things while not driving. You should be free to get high on your own time as much as you want, just so long as you don't try to operate deadly machinery while doing it.
More concerning is that children are allowed to operate this machinery. In some parts of the US those as young as 14 can be on the road, most alarming is South Dakota where it's possible for 14 year olds to drive unsupervised!
Banning an entire class of substances just because you don't want people driving while under their influence is ridiculous.
Maybe instead you should ban driving or at least have a sensible minimum age. Currently the state of New Jersey and New York City appear to be the only places in the US where only adults may drive unsupervised on the public roads.
And the "kids will try it more because it's legal" argument is a logical fallacy, plain and simple. Salvia is legal in many states (and Canada as well) and is there a salvia epidemic?
If anything it's more the case that "kids (actually teenagers) will try it more because it's illegal". The other factor is that legal recreational drugs tend to be available in different forms and strengths compared with illegal ones.
1. Yes, people should not drive while attending collage. An ex-girlfriend's roommate did once. She'd stay awake the night before studying for an exam, wound up falling asleep at the wheel and rolled her SUV, killing her boyfriend. (This IS a true). So, following your logic, college, or at least exams, should be illegal. That being said, I am for pro-legalization, but allowing people to drive while high should not be legal.
:) e.g. by setting the minimum driving age to something like 20.. It might also not be a bad idea for the minimum driving age to be 4-5 years older than the minimum drinking age.
I originally read the last bit as "allowing people to drive while at high school should not be legal"
I think it is generally understood that while high: your reasoning and perception are altered. THAT IS THE FUN PART! Well, you shouldn't be behind the wheel in that state of mind. (IMO)
:)
There appear to be people who undergo a Dr Jekyll/Mr Hyde (or Dr Banner/Hulk) transformation of personallity when they start driving. Maybe some of these "road ragers" might actually be better drivers when dosed with THC
The difference between a drunk driver and a stoned driver is, that while a drunk driver will plow through a stop sign without even slowing down, a stoned driver will stop and wait for it to turn green :)
Which might well make them less dangerous than a sober driver...
Honestly, though, I have a lot of frinds who drive stoned and I really can't tell the difference when riding with them. I think your friend who fell asleep at the wheel must have had something else with his weed, because I've never seen someone pass out from smoking weed.
Drug contamination being a problem made far worst by prohibition.
Yes, people should not drive stoned. My friend did once, wound up falling asleep at the wheel and rolled his new car that his parents had bought him. Car was totaled, the other guy in the car was the one hurt (naturally) and his parents really couldn't afford the first car much less to replace it.
This dosn't really say a lot for your friend's parents. How old was he anyway?
Well MADD's goal is to keep people from driving drunk, but lately they have just been trying to ban all alcohol.
Something which caused the founder to quit...
There is a lot of tangible proof that driving drunk is dangerous.
Actually driving is dangerous. Adding alcohol just makes it more so.
oh and do you know what industry uses the most amount of ammonium nitrate? Hint it isn't demolitions. Heck with the right air mixture flour can be explosive. you know the stuff they make bread and cakes from.
Flour made from rye, rice or maize can go bang just as well. Indeed the dust from wheat can be an explosion risk long before it gets anywhere near being flour.
oh and I would hardly call a field of weed gardening, farming is far more accurate.
You probably shouldn't call it "weed" either the word "crop" might be more appropriate.
what everyone who wants to legalise weed seem to forget in their weed induced stumblings is that it like alcohol affects everyone differently
One fundermental problem is that prohibition has side effects which are worst than even the most dangerous of drugs.
and I don't want people driving drunk let alone so smoked out they forget which is the gas and which is the brake as they laugh and hit the car in front of them.
The obvious solution here is to have the roads patrolled by people who's job it is to identify and stop people driving dangerously for whatever reason. They could be called something like "traffic cops"... If someone cannot operate their vehicle safely it really shouldn't matter if they have more than X mg/l of THC, alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, codeine, cocaine, diamorphine, etc in their blood or not.
So put up the No Trespassing sign which was missing.
Maybe they need something more along the lines of "Trespassers will be shot, survivors will be shot again. (Repeated until no survivors/ammunition.)"
Selling drugs is essentially business.
It's very big business, indeed several industries. Pharmaceutical, alcoholic beverages, tobacco, coffee, chocolate, etc, etc. You even have foods, mostly yoghurt, spreads and breakfast cereals marketed as having pharmaceutical properties.
Planting bombs is essentially engineering.
Especially when carried out by a military engineer.
There is when the "crime" in question is essentially gardening.
Actually the crime in question here is trespass. The horticultural issue isn't even mentioned in the linked article. Anyway the Slashdot text described more of a 10th ammendment issue than anything else.
Neither fax receipt or a "copy of an email" is any real evidence of anything. Anyone with half a brain can make a perfect fake.
Except that in the former case the "perfect fake" would also need to change records of at least one phone company.
failing that simply forward all the mail to gmail or free email account that you can search in a instant... but no one know about...
If you get caught the most likely assumption is that you are sending information to a competitor...
(if you are smart you will configure outlook to use the gmail (or free provider) as the sending email server so things dont go out through the exchange server alerting the admins there when they look at the traffic also make sure that you use the SSL to smtp out )
If there are proper admins operating the network they are likely to notice these connections, possibly even if they are on port 22, 443, 993, etc. You'd also better hope that nobody looks to closely at the headers of emails from you.
But that is likely not the case. It is more likely the company is trying to limit the amount of data stored on its Exchange system. Adding storage and additional backup capacity is expensive.
So is buying additional filing cabinets... Also nobody obliged these people to choose a specific email platform. Any more than they are obliged to choose a specific brand of filing cabinet.
Implementing a policy that requires end users to keep the size of their mailboxes down does not work, because many people insist they need every bit of those six years of archived e-mail; people use e-mail as much for CYA as doing real business.
They are also likely to find "creative" ways around such quotas.
Well, obviously this company has decided that old emails are much more likely to work against them, and this even overrides the loss of productivity due to important emails going missing etc.
Wonder if they also destroy any pieces of paper over 180 days old or if this policy only applies to email...
but what happens when you need those same emails that are over 180 days old that would have EXONERATED you?
Or simply that the emails in question contain information you need more than 180 days later...
Think of it this way, if a restaurant wasn't looked at as a good place to get food because the food was expired and moldy, hiring a new greeter to say welcome isn't going to change people's opinion of the restaurant.
Such a restaurant would probably be shut down under public health laws. A better analogy might be one which served overpriced food with bad service.
Same with this, if the restaurant/ISP is serving bad food/internet experience, being nice to customers doesn't solve the root problem.
The situation here would be more like a restaurant hiring private detectives to find out which of their customers were unhappy then sending a "customer service rep" to visit just those people.
Exactly. When they saw the specific tickets, they'd know who the seller was.
Then go after him/her for breach of contract...
The real question is why the MPAA spent the money on lawyers and court costs when the could have just bought the tickets!
Presumably because a "corporate person" can have have it's own distinct personality.
I do not download what I haven't paid for. Even stealing from theiving scumbag record company executives is stealing.
Copyright infringement isn't theft. Even where copyright laws have been mutated by corporate lobbying copyright infringement is still distinct from theft.
If I get any such letter, I will calmly reply and ask for a formal apology. If that fails, they will get bad publicity. Users come to me all the time at work and ask for reccomendations.
This is also the reason why ISP's are reluctant to go for the "three strikes" route. If they actually start disconnecting customers they are going to be sued for breach of contract. Which will be very bad publicity when they lose.
So they don't get folded or damaged as easily?
In that case you use "document envelopes" which are backed with stiff card. The really paranoid could use card constructed by laminating paper and glass/carbon fibre. Which would still be cheaper and lighter than a giant parcel.
The order processing centre was located in Singapore or Malaysia, and so the laptop, the docking station and the carry case were air freighted to me from Singapore even though my office was about 5 Kms from their Warehouse in Sydney.
Just as well they wern't processing orders in Reykjavík. Unless stuff actually came from the warehouse in Sydney, via Singapore
The PC's arrived from IBM in a pair of 2m x 2m x 2m cube boxes on the inside of the container. The driver asked if our IT department happened to have a forklift truck available as it would save time unloading.
:)
Sounds like something from the BOFH
Now, mail-order companies seem to enjoy putting the smallest items in the largest boxes. Once ordered some new memory cards and hard disk drives. Each order arrived in a large desktop PC sized box filled with large plastic air-bubbles (empty sealed plastic bags filled with nothing but air), styrofoam peanuts or foam padding. In each case, the padding took up about 20 times as much space as the original item.
Even more daft if the item in question is placed at the bottom of the box...