Most prostitutes do it because they are poor. Making it illegal just makes it more dangerous for the woman and ensures pimps take most of the money.
Canada has bizarre laws regarding prostitution. Prostitution is legal. Communicating in public to procure the services of a prostitute is illegal. Running a bawdy house if illegal. Being a pimp is illegal. This means street prostitutes, mainly drug addicts, are poor and abused. "Escorts" who are self employed or work for small companies generally are not abused and make good money. Many of the girls at "massage parlours" are recent immigrants being taken advantage of by "snakes" (human smugglers).
Prostitution should be legal and regulated to make it safer for the women and to prevent the violence and abuse that so many of these women face.
And don't kid your self that you are doing a poor Thai women a favour by buying her services - she is most likely a prostitute due to extreme poverty, and would much rather be in a normal relationship, and hold down a normal job
Numerous studies indicate that is is best to keep children under 3 away from all tv's, including dvd's, normal tv programming, movies, video games,etc... and to limit video exposure only increasing allowed hours per day gradually as the child gets older.
I think that there is no objective morality that can be tested like the law of gravity can be tested. Still, there is value in discussing morality and trying to come to an agreement that most people in a society can agree to as to what is good and bad.
God isn't required to explain the universe as it is. The universe as it is has lots of features at odds with an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent being.
Did god let my friends 5 year old daughter die from a brain tumor because: he didn't care, he didn't know, or he could not do anything about it?
Antibiotics have saved more lives than all the "miracles" in all of history.
Moral atheists get the morals form the same place as modern Christians: modern secular humanism principals which boil down to "do not directly harm other people". The bible is full of evil stuff: kill your kids if they back talk, its ok to kill people who don't observe the sabbath, etc... The old testament is down right vile in places. Christians have generally rejected the "bad" parts of the bible and embraced the good parts: love your neighbor as yourself, turn the other cheek, etc... And the good Christians chose what is good the same way the atheists did.
Most atheists do what they want so long as it does not directly harm other people. Most atheists are very moral people who put a lot of thought into their beliefs instead of just accepting accepting the default dogma of their society.
I think it very unlikely there is a god, just as I think it unlikely there is a tooth fairy. BUT, if you were to show me compelling proof of gods existence I would be willing to change my mind. God would have to get busy reducing some of the evil in the world before I'd accept he is good.
Catholic is pretty mainstream and here is their thoughts on what happens to unbelievers after death:
Those who have rejected God and His love are condemned to torment in a temporary hell until the resurrection. At the resurrection the condemned souls are reunited with their bodies and then they are cast into the everlasting hell with the devil and his fallen angels.
Unbelievers go through the same process as Christians. The difference is that someone who does not believe in Christ or His Church is not condemned for that fact IF, and this is ONLY IF, they are invincible ignorant of Christ and His Church.
The ontological proof is the weakest one of the six common proofs.
The cosmological argument argues that there was a "first cause", or "prime mover" who is identified as God. It starts with a claim about the world, like its containing entities or motion.
The teleological argument argues that the universe's order and complexity are best explained by reference to a creator God. It starts with a rather more complicated claim about the world, i.e. that it exhibits order and design. This argument has two versions: One based on the analogy of design and designer, the other arguing that goals can only occur in minds.
The ontological argument is based on arguments about a "being greater than which cannot be conceived". It starts simply with a concept of God.[16] Avicenna,[17][18] St. Anselm of Canterbury and Alvin Plantinga formulated this argument to show that if it is logically possible for God (a necessary being) to exist, then God exists.[16]
The anthropic argument suggests that basic facts, such as our existence, are best explained by the existence of God.
The moral argument argues that the existence of objective morality depends on the existence of God.
The transcendental argument suggests that logic, science, ethics, and other things we take seriously do not make sense in the absence of God, and that atheistic arguments must ultimately refute themselves if pressed with rigorous consistency.
Pretty much all of these boil down to "I really, really, really, want there to be a god".
And the rebuttals:
Cosmological - recursion problem
teleological - explaining away complexity be adding a complex being.
ontological - starting with what you want
anthropic - recursion problem
moral - a quick read of the bible clearly shows that modern christians get their moral values form the same place as athiests: modern liberal secular values that have been explored since the enlightenment and can be simply expressed as do onto others as you would have done to yourself, or do not directly harm other people.
Like what? Ron Paul wants a minimal government so the "worse things" would mainly be a complete lack of a government "safety net", ie welfare state, as opposed to actively doing bad stuff.
Moderation is often the best policy. Pure socialism or pure capitalism are both bad ideas.
The USA constitution basically says that all your rights are due you simply being a person, and the constitution limits the power of government to prevent it from abusing your rights. The government does NOT give you rights, your are "born" with rights.
I'm not sure what "privileges" you are talking about, but generally the law does not grant privileges, but restricts your actions, eg drinking age, drivers license, or grants entitlements, eg public roads, police, schools, medical care, etc...
Actually, having written checklists for complex procedures, eg surgery, is considered a break through idea in medicine that is only recently being adopted by a handful of hospitals. I would say there is room for improvement of medical processes.
All these are fine and dandy, but none of them has the elegance and nearly, I repeat, nearly idiot proof-ness of the OPs different connections concept, which I believe has and is used in various other industries to great success. This is not to say that the nurses themselves are idiots for missing the connections when all the tubes are identical but if you can make something strong against idiots its safe to say that educated people should be able to have even greater success.
The idea of incompatible connections removes the inherent flexibility of the current setup, however.
Say that nurse Bob needs X in the next 30 seconds or that patient is going to die. Currently, it's "grab what's available hook it up right, and go". With the proposed solution, it's "Search for the right setup, hook it up and... oh wait, I don't have one of those here."
I won't say "well, it's worked for the past x years, why bother changing it?". I will say that a lot of talk should be done before ANYTHING of that nature happens to sort out the ramifications of the changes that would be made.
I don't think so. If the patient requires an IV of saline, grabbing that oxy isn't going to help.
Mahoud can want what ever he wants, but he is just the president and thus has no real power in Iran. All real decisions are vetted by the religious leaders above him, who also control the military. He has only slightly more power than Canada's Governor General, or the USA VP.
She is being charged a flat $300 for a "privilege license", on top of any income tax. Being a flat fee that does not take into account how much, or little in this case, the business is making the fee is a punishment.
She is being charged a flat $300 for a "privilege license", on top of any income tax. Being a flat fee that does not take into account how much, or little in this case, the business is making the fee is a punishment.
Being charged $300 for a business license for a "business" that only makes $10 a year is ridiculous. Blogs don't need health inspections, they don't need parking, or building inspectors, or any other government service that could possibly justify a business license.
This is exactly the sort of government abuse that drives people into the black market.
Driving while tired is also illegal. Really, it should be common sense to not drive when impaired by anything: lack of sleep, emotionally upset, drugs, etc...
Slashdot Mirror
So you would deny yourself the vote as you think it is in another man's best interest to implement this new law you think is in his best interest?
The gallop poll more likely just highlights basic ignorance as apposed to an informed belief in a geocentric universe.
Most prostitutes do it because they are poor. Making it illegal just makes it more dangerous for the woman and ensures pimps take most of the money.
Canada has bizarre laws regarding prostitution. Prostitution is legal. Communicating in public to procure the services of a prostitute is illegal. Running a bawdy house if illegal. Being a pimp is illegal. This means street prostitutes, mainly drug addicts, are poor and abused. "Escorts" who are self employed or work for small companies generally are not abused and make good money. Many of the girls at "massage parlours" are recent immigrants being taken advantage of by "snakes" (human smugglers).
Prostitution should be legal and regulated to make it safer for the women and to prevent the violence and abuse that so many of these women face.
And don't kid your self that you are doing a poor Thai women a favour by buying her services - she is most likely a prostitute due to extreme poverty, and would much rather be in a normal relationship, and hold down a normal job
Intentionally spreading a fatal disease gets you jail time in Canada.
Numerous studies indicate that is is best to keep children under 3 away from all tv's, including dvd's, normal tv programming, movies, video games,etc... and to limit video exposure only increasing allowed hours per day gradually as the child gets older.
No tv under 2, limit to under 2 hours for 3 year
No tv under 2
I think that there is no objective morality that can be tested like the law of gravity can be tested. Still, there is value in discussing morality and trying to come to an agreement that most people in a society can agree to as to what is good and bad.
God isn't required to explain the universe as it is. The universe as it is has lots of features at odds with an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent being.
Did god let my friends 5 year old daughter die from a brain tumor because: he didn't care, he didn't know, or he could not do anything about it?
Antibiotics have saved more lives than all the "miracles" in all of history.
Moral atheists get the morals form the same place as modern Christians: modern secular humanism principals which boil down to "do not directly harm other people". The bible is full of evil stuff: kill your kids if they back talk, its ok to kill people who don't observe the sabbath, etc... The old testament is down right vile in places. Christians have generally rejected the "bad" parts of the bible and embraced the good parts: love your neighbor as yourself, turn the other cheek, etc... And the good Christians chose what is good the same way the atheists did.
Most atheists do what they want so long as it does not directly harm other people. Most atheists are very moral people who put a lot of thought into their beliefs instead of just accepting accepting the default dogma of their society.
About 10% of USA citizens are atheists, but atheists only make up about 0.02% of the prison population.
I think it very unlikely there is a god, just as I think it unlikely there is a tooth fairy. BUT, if you were to show me compelling proof of gods existence I would be willing to change my mind. God would have to get busy reducing some of the evil in the world before I'd accept he is good.
Catholic is pretty mainstream and here is their thoughts on what happens to unbelievers after death:
Those who have rejected God and His love are condemned to torment in a temporary hell until the resurrection. At the resurrection the condemned souls are reunited with their bodies and then they are cast into the everlasting hell with the devil and his fallen angels.
Unbelievers go through the same process as Christians. The difference is that someone who does not believe in Christ or His Church is not condemned for that fact IF, and this is ONLY IF, they are invincible ignorant of Christ and His Church.
The ontological proof is the weakest one of the six common proofs.
Pretty much all of these boil down to "I really, really, really, want there to be a god".
And the rebuttals:
Like what? Ron Paul wants a minimal government so the "worse things" would mainly be a complete lack of a government "safety net", ie welfare state, as opposed to actively doing bad stuff.
Moderation is often the best policy. Pure socialism or pure capitalism are both bad ideas.
The USA constitution basically says that all your rights are due you simply being a person, and the constitution limits the power of government to prevent it from abusing your rights. The government does NOT give you rights, your are "born" with rights.
I'm not sure what "privileges" you are talking about, but generally the law does not grant privileges, but restricts your actions, eg drinking age, drivers license, or grants entitlements, eg public roads, police, schools, medical care, etc...
Developer access to prod may be required if the bug can't be found on test, but it should not be normal for devs to have access to prod.
We all know how it should work: develop on dev, push to staging and test it, then push it to prod.
Actually, having written checklists for complex procedures, eg surgery, is considered a break through idea in medicine that is only recently being adopted by a handful of hospitals. I would say there is room for improvement of medical processes.
All these are fine and dandy, but none of them has the elegance and nearly, I repeat, nearly idiot proof-ness of the OPs different connections concept, which I believe has and is used in various other industries to great success. This is not to say that the nurses themselves are idiots for missing the connections when all the tubes are identical but if you can make something strong against idiots its safe to say that educated people should be able to have even greater success.
The idea of incompatible connections removes the inherent flexibility of the current setup, however.
Say that nurse Bob needs X in the next 30 seconds or that patient is going to die. Currently, it's "grab what's available hook it up right, and go". With the proposed solution, it's "Search for the right setup, hook it up and... oh wait, I don't have one of those here."
I won't say "well, it's worked for the past x years, why bother changing it?". I will say that a lot of talk should be done before ANYTHING of that nature happens to sort out the ramifications of the changes that would be made.
I don't think so. If the patient requires an IV of saline, grabbing that oxy isn't going to help.
I would prefer different connectors for different things, plus a standard colour coding.
It was modded up because there ARE places in the USA where getting good grades will get you beaten up for being "white".
Governments should not even be classifying a blog with ads as a business. It is an unethical money grab.
Mahoud can want what ever he wants, but he is just the president and thus has no real power in Iran. All real decisions are vetted by the religious leaders above him, who also control the military. He has only slightly more power than Canada's Governor General, or the USA VP.
Bombastic hyperbole is the norm in political speeches in much of the middle east.
RTFA
She is being charged a flat $300 for a "privilege license", on top of any income tax. Being a flat fee that does not take into account how much, or little in this case, the business is making the fee is a punishment.
RTFA
She is being charged a flat $300 for a "privilege license", on top of any income tax. Being a flat fee that does not take into account how much, or little in this case, the business is making the fee is a punishment.
Being charged $300 for a business license for a "business" that only makes $10 a year is ridiculous. Blogs don't need health inspections, they don't need parking, or building inspectors, or any other government service that could possibly justify a business license.
This is exactly the sort of government abuse that drives people into the black market.
Driving while tired is also illegal. Really, it should be common sense to not drive when impaired by anything: lack of sleep, emotionally upset, drugs, etc...