And the Corps of Engineers should be able to take the damn thing to a safe place and blow it up. I'd rather see it destroyed than stand in mockery of the men it commemorates.
Then they can send him the bill for their time and explosive.
More people die from acetaminophen overdoses every year than, say, marijuana.
Acetaminophen is better known as Tylenol in the US and Paracetamol elsewhere.
Combining codeine and Tylenol is more effective than Tylenol alone, but not as effective as codeine alone in a larger dose. So, they mix them to reduce abuse, and if abuse happens, it will kill the abuser.
It will kill in an especially nasty way. Since the results of an acetaminophen overdose is to destroy the liver. Whereas a fatal overdose of an opiate tends to result respiratory depression.
I can smoke weed all day and never be in danger of overdosing because the dosages are so low.
IIRC the only recorded death due to an "overdose of cannabis" involves a truck load falling on someone.
Compare that with drugs that are refined and concentrated.
Including plenty which are perfectly legal.
It's not just the fact that a particular drug is produced by nature instead of a lab, it's the fact that nature doesn't produce such high doses.
High or low dosage is a relative term. Many pills and potions are mostly filler to turn a tiny amount of a drug into something you can easily handled. With pharmaceutical drugs you have something called "therapeutic index" which is measure of the difference between a dosage which will have the desired effect and one which will poison. With a drug with a narrow therapeutic index dosage must be very carefully controlled. If you were to apply this classification to the drugs in cannabis you'd probably find they have a wide (even very wide) index.
I've smoked dope and tabacoo for 35yrs, I have 2-3 joints a day. When I can't get dope for a month it's no big deal, one day without tabacoo (a "natural" plant) and I'm climbing the walls.
Tobacco contains a drug (nicotine) which is clinically addictive, to humans, if you become addicted you need a regular supply or you will encounter withdrawal symptoms whilst your body chemistry readjusts. Whereas "dope" dosn't appear to contain anything which is clinically addictive.
I wasn't trying to play the appeal to nature card, nor was I attempting to suggest that marijuana is good for you. Dieffenbachia, castor bean, poison ivy, pokeweed, and mayapple are all plants that can mess you up good (although many people grow the first two as an ornamental and some like to eat the last two and no one wants any of them banned).
In many cases the only difference between a "drug" (recreational or pharmaceutical) and a "poison" is the dose. In pharmacology there is the concept of "therapeutic index" something similar could be applied to recreational drugs.
That was just a cover story... the REAL fear of the right wing was that their elite women would start DANCING with "jazz musicians" (which is code for 'negro'). That's right, if you smoke pot you will be of loose morals and cavort with the Other Races.
Given the original meaning of "jazz" the concern was probably about "horizontal dancing"...
I don't think it's fair to equate authoritarianism with christianity. As far as I can tell, christianity is directly opposed authoritarianism. Don't get me wrong, many who claim to be christian advocate authoritarianism, but is it really fair to say that someone subscribes to a philosophy when they either fail to grasp one of it's basic tenants, willfully ignore it, or are lying specifically to give the false impression they subscribe to the philosophy?
Fairly early on in it's history Christianity was adopted by a "super power" state. Roman Catholisism could hardly have been anything other than authoritatian. All of the Abrahamic religions appear to be somewhat anti-athoritarian. But that dosn't stop highly authoritarian versions of them existing.
Others drink alcohol in their ceremonies (e.g. Anglican Christians, and plenty of pagans, druids etc)
Not just Anglican Christians. Monks and Monasteries have a long association with the production of drinking alcohol, including wines. Anyway until very recently, in Europe, beer was drunk by just about everyone (drinking untreated water tended to be rather lethal). To the extent that people who's ancestors drank beer are much more able to deal with alcohol than those who's ancestors didn't.
Especially as it relates to Slashdot. Not really seeing how a story about a government policy on alcohol prohibition 90 years ago is "news for nerds", nor how it affects "my rights online".
Maybe the question should be more along the lines of "What nasty things are various governments up to NOW, which won't get reported until the early 22nd century?"
That's assuming those extra deaths didn't happen at the same time as poisoning.
There were probably fewer motor vehicle collision related deaths in the 1920's simply because there were fewer vehicles.
If we're going to use fuzzy numbers, let's look at alcohol producers and distributors at that time. Why don't we limit it to the Chicago area. The Capone organisation had real occupational health and safety issues that should be counted.
As well as from law enforcement opposing the bootleggers. A problem we continue to have with the current "war on drugs".
Now, when consumption-grade ethanol is perfectly legal in the US, it kills more than 10000 people annually, taking into account only alcohol-related road accidents.
The problem here is that driving is a dangerous activity. There are also other things which can make drivers more dangerous. e.g. doing something else whilst driving.
You should get familiar with your rights, then. Landlords have to give 24 hour notice before entering your apartment. Failure to do this constitutes breaking and entering and I have taught one of my landlords this lesson the hard way.
The "hard way" can be very hard in certain parts of the US where the intruder can face summery execution...
That's why they always start with "child porn" etc, to get the "thin end of the wedge" into the Constitution. Then the hammer comes and they open it up to FAR more than "protecting the children".
Assuming that any children were actually protected in the process. Even without the irony of "child porn" laws being used to persecute children.
Laws should not be passed just based on how they are to be used.
You mean how their advocates claim they will be used...
They should be passed based on how they can be abused.
Which may be exactly how they are intended to be used in the first place.
f there are too many ways they can be abused (or if the impact of abuse is high), they should not be passed.
This is difficult when you have a political class. Either these people will be so out of touch with the public that they can't understand this or they just won't care since any abuse won't affect them and "theirs".
Instead go with length wise connections and "People on the highway for long trips that want to save money on gasoline can connect multiple vehicles into a train."
Indeed trains are the only kind of vehicle where such splitting and combining is common, even routine.
No it won't work in the cities where people get off the the highway often, but out west where people ride for miles, a little bit of comm networking and boom you can easily have people joining up into road trains, saving gas.
You'd probably want physical couplings otherwise engine and/or brake failure is likely to cause a lot of problems. Similarly you'd want to very careful how you communicated data. e.g. to be able to have one "train" safely overtake another.
I'd say the school very clumsily and stupidly tried to do something good. Stop the practice, tell them they are idiots and that they broke the law.
If anything those who do evil because they think it's good are worst than those who do evil and know full well that what they are doing is evil. Remember the about paving the road to Hell.
Then, asses the situation and analyze the actual damages.
Should these idiots and criminals have any reason to continue working in a school?
I don't know why public employees aren't held personally accountable for their actions. If a police officer deliberately withholds or fabricates evidence and someone goes to jail why aren't they personally held to account? The worst that ever happens is that they are fired.
Without getting a criminal record in the process... Instead you have this daft idea of suing the wrongdoer's employer (something which is not unique to the US, certainly in respect of police officers).
Upon reading the article, they apparently run software that takes a snapshot ever few minutes. That doesn't mean that they were not viewing streaming footage, but it does make it plausible that they were only getting snapshots.
On what basis does the school have a legitimate basis to do this? This isn't the police or even the insurance company acting in response to a report of the machine being stolen. It's starting to sound as though every laptop involved was operating as a surveillance device. So maybe the school should be renamed "Ministerium für Staatssicherheit" (short form "Stasi").
Connect any web server to the internet and you'll see tons of connections from botnets trying randomly to exploit various old vulnerabilities. Technically, these are attacks, though you don't need to worry about them if you're patched up.
A fair proportion might not have done much even if you were not "patched up", since they never targeted the web server you are running. The actual real risk is that they could operate as a DDOS. Either to the webserver or whatever "security software" you put in front of it. The latter could even be less able to cope with the situation.
Currently, it could well be said that the two parties in the US are being run by the Nuts and the Creeps. I'll leave it to you to decide which is which.
That's easy you just see which is tyhe first lot to "bolt":)
Slashdot Mirror
And the Corps of Engineers should be able to take the damn thing to a safe place and blow it up. I'd rather see it destroyed than stand in mockery of the men it commemorates.
Then they can send him the bill for their time and explosive.
More people die from acetaminophen overdoses every year than, say, marijuana.
Acetaminophen is better known as Tylenol in the US and Paracetamol elsewhere.
Combining codeine and Tylenol is more effective than Tylenol alone, but not as effective as codeine alone in a larger dose. So, they mix them to reduce abuse, and if abuse happens, it will kill the abuser.
It will kill in an especially nasty way. Since the results of an acetaminophen overdose is to destroy the liver. Whereas a fatal overdose of an opiate tends to result respiratory depression.
I can smoke weed all day and never be in danger of overdosing because the dosages are so low.
IIRC the only recorded death due to an "overdose of cannabis" involves a truck load falling on someone.
Compare that with drugs that are refined and concentrated.
Including plenty which are perfectly legal.
It's not just the fact that a particular drug is produced by nature instead of a lab, it's the fact that nature doesn't produce such high doses.
High or low dosage is a relative term. Many pills and potions are mostly filler to turn a tiny amount of a drug into something you can easily handled.
With pharmaceutical drugs you have something called "therapeutic index" which is measure of the difference between a dosage which will have the desired effect and one which will poison. With a drug with a narrow therapeutic index dosage must be very carefully controlled. If you were to apply this classification to the drugs in cannabis you'd probably find they have a wide (even very wide) index.
I've smoked dope and tabacoo for 35yrs, I have 2-3 joints a day. When I can't get dope for a month it's no big deal, one day without tabacoo (a "natural" plant) and I'm climbing the walls.
Tobacco contains a drug (nicotine) which is clinically addictive, to humans, if you become addicted you need a regular supply or you will encounter withdrawal symptoms whilst your body chemistry readjusts. Whereas "dope" dosn't appear to contain anything which is clinically addictive.
I wasn't trying to play the appeal to nature card, nor was I attempting to suggest that marijuana is good for you. Dieffenbachia, castor bean, poison ivy, pokeweed, and mayapple are all plants that can mess you up good (although many people grow the first two as an ornamental and some like to eat the last two and no one wants any of them banned).
In many cases the only difference between a "drug" (recreational or pharmaceutical) and a "poison" is the dose. In pharmacology there is the concept of "therapeutic index" something similar could be applied to recreational drugs.
That was just a cover story... the REAL fear of the right wing was that their elite women would start DANCING with "jazz musicians" (which is code for 'negro'). That's right, if you smoke pot you will be of loose morals and cavort with the Other Races.
Given the original meaning of "jazz" the concern was probably about "horizontal dancing"...
So can you explain the role of God in your non-authoritarian Christianity?
It's non human authoritarian. God is not a human.
I don't think it's fair to equate authoritarianism with christianity. As far as I can tell, christianity is directly opposed authoritarianism. Don't get me wrong, many who claim to be christian advocate authoritarianism, but is it really fair to say that someone subscribes to a philosophy when they either fail to grasp one of it's basic tenants, willfully ignore it, or are lying specifically to give the false impression they subscribe to the philosophy?
Fairly early on in it's history Christianity was adopted by a "super power" state. Roman Catholisism could hardly have been anything other than authoritatian.
All of the Abrahamic religions appear to be somewhat anti-athoritarian. But that dosn't stop highly authoritarian versions of them existing.
Others drink alcohol in their ceremonies (e.g. Anglican Christians, and plenty of pagans, druids etc)
Not just Anglican Christians. Monks and Monasteries have a long association with the production of drinking alcohol, including wines. Anyway until very recently, in Europe, beer was drunk by just about everyone (drinking untreated water tended to be rather lethal). To the extent that people who's ancestors drank beer are much more able to deal with alcohol than those who's ancestors didn't.
Especially as it relates to Slashdot. Not really seeing how a story about a government policy on alcohol prohibition 90 years ago is "news for nerds", nor how it affects "my rights online".
Maybe the question should be more along the lines of "What nasty things are various governments up to NOW, which won't get reported until the early 22nd century?"
That's assuming those extra deaths didn't happen at the same time as poisoning.
There were probably fewer motor vehicle collision related deaths in the 1920's simply because there were fewer vehicles.
If we're going to use fuzzy numbers, let's look at alcohol producers and distributors at that time. Why don't we limit it to the Chicago area. The Capone organisation had real occupational health and safety issues that should be counted.
As well as from law enforcement opposing the bootleggers. A problem we continue to have with the current "war on drugs".
Now, when consumption-grade ethanol is perfectly legal in the US, it kills more than 10000 people annually, taking into account only alcohol-related road accidents.
The problem here is that driving is a dangerous activity. There are also other things which can make drivers more dangerous. e.g. doing something else whilst driving.
You should get familiar with your rights, then. Landlords have to give 24 hour notice before entering your apartment. Failure to do this constitutes breaking and entering and I have taught one of my landlords this lesson the hard way.
The "hard way" can be very hard in certain parts of the US where the intruder can face summery execution...
In a couple of years, give or take, it'll become standard-operating procedure applying at will to *everyone*.
Where "everyone" just happens to exclude politicians, police officers, big business, etc.
That's why they always start with "child porn" etc, to get the "thin end of the wedge" into the Constitution. Then the hammer comes and they open it up to FAR more than "protecting the children".
Assuming that any children were actually protected in the process. Even without the irony of "child porn" laws being used to persecute children.
Someone should pass a law enforcing that. If you use a "think of the children" argument you lose.
One where if a politician says "This law won't ever be used to do X" should the law ever be used to do X he or she will be considered "legally dead".
Laws should not be passed just based on how they are to be used.
You mean how their advocates claim they will be used...
They should be passed based on how they can be abused.
Which may be exactly how they are intended to be used in the first place.
f there are too many ways they can be abused (or if the impact of abuse is high), they should not be passed.
This is difficult when you have a political class. Either these people will be so out of touch with the public that they can't understand this or they just won't care since any abuse won't affect them and "theirs".
In Italy, yes, the government would LOVE it if you had to get police permission to upload evidence of police brutality.
Try and find a government who wouldn't love that...
Instead go with length wise connections and "People on the highway for long trips that want to save money on gasoline can connect multiple vehicles into a train."
Indeed trains are the only kind of vehicle where such splitting and combining is common, even routine.
No it won't work in the cities where people get off the the highway often, but out west where people ride for miles, a little bit of comm networking and boom you can easily have people joining up into road trains, saving gas.
You'd probably want physical couplings otherwise engine and/or brake failure is likely to cause a lot of problems. Similarly you'd want to very careful how you communicated data. e.g. to be able to have one "train" safely overtake another.
You try the executive of a company for embezzling a million dollars, and send him to jail for 6 months, he'll come out and do it again.
Then you jail him for a more sensible length of time, like 6 years.
If you seize all of his assets, he's not going to risk giving up a multi-million dollar lifestyle for a second time.
It isn't an either or situation. You send him to prison and confiscate his assets. It's not as if this would even require any new legislation.
I'd say the school very clumsily and stupidly tried to do something good. Stop the practice, tell them they are idiots and that they broke the law.
If anything those who do evil because they think it's good are worst than those who do evil and know full well that what they are doing is evil. Remember the about paving the road to Hell.
Then, asses the situation and analyze the actual damages.
Should these idiots and criminals have any reason to continue working in a school?
I don't know why public employees aren't held personally accountable for their actions. If a police officer deliberately withholds or fabricates evidence and someone goes to jail why aren't they personally held to account? The worst that ever happens is that they are fired.
Without getting a criminal record in the process... Instead you have this daft idea of suing the wrongdoer's employer (something which is not unique to the US, certainly in respect of police officers).
Upon reading the article, they apparently run software that takes a snapshot ever few minutes. That doesn't mean that they were not viewing streaming footage, but it does make it plausible that they were only getting snapshots.
On what basis does the school have a legitimate basis to do this? This isn't the police or even the insurance company acting in response to a report of the machine being stolen.
It's starting to sound as though every laptop involved was operating as a surveillance device. So maybe the school should be renamed "Ministerium für Staatssicherheit" (short form "Stasi").
Connect any web server to the internet and you'll see tons of connections from botnets trying randomly to exploit various old vulnerabilities. Technically, these are attacks, though you don't need to worry about them if you're patched up.
A fair proportion might not have done much even if you were not "patched up", since they never targeted the web server you are running. The actual real risk is that they could operate as a DDOS. Either to the webserver or whatever "security software" you put in front of it. The latter could even be less able to cope with the situation.
Currently, it could well be said that the two parties in the US are being run by the Nuts and the Creeps. I'll leave it to you to decide which is which.
:)
That's easy you just see which is tyhe first lot to "bolt"