And as I contend, the "war on drugs" is largely pushed and financed BY the "drug lords" as its in their best financial interests to keep prices artificially high. Between that and the asset forfeiture culture engendered by the DEA (and now spreading to every aspect of law, as new laws are passed) there is huge FINANCIAL incentive to keep the "war on drugs" going.
With anything you can't stop regardless, the best approach is to regulate and tax it, and do so reasonably enough to prevent a black market from regaining prominence. That way at least you aren't creating a criminal class with no benefit to anyone (other than corrupt officials). We should have learned that lesson once and for all during Prohibition, but evidently a couple generations is sufficient to totally forget any lesson from history.
Also, there is a pocket industry of people whose job is to find and confiscate illicit cell phones in prisons. I'd guess they have a vested interest in the cellphone system being untouched, lest they become superfluous.
But as someone above implies, methinks the real reason is kickbacks from inmates' "business ventures", and privatized prisons having essentially no oversight.
Actually, that sounds like fun... put both the device manufacturers and the scientists through the lie detector, and see who more strongly believes in the results.;)
"...start by computing a baseline and run through recordings of previous Presidents, working your way toward the current administration."
That sounds fascinating. Even if the system is totally bogus, it would be very interesting to *compare* the results on this particular subset of humanity.
Campaign speeches might be particularly enlightening...
Works for me. In fact last month I noticed a TV show that I wanted... I could download it for free, or I could pay $5 for the full season at Amazon (plus $3 shipping). For $8, it wasn't worth the time and bother of downloading; I bought the DVDs instead.
Yeah, I noticed that... seems to be a common tactic in such arguments.
The very first thing I can remember learning in any science class is the "Scientific Method", which makes no statements about right or wrong, correct or incorrect, but does require that one collect and examine all relevant evidence (not just carefully selected evidence), without preconception or bias. It was taught akin to what's presented here: http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml
Of course, when all your evidence is hearsay that's been through multiple sessions of Chinese Whispers, it's a little hard to get it to pass muster for the Scientific Method;)
Nonsense. Don't stand on a hill during a thunderstorm; look both ways before crossing the post road (egads, that horse is FAST!) or for that matter the prairie (lordy, those bison can RUN!)
I don't see a problem with teaching ABOUT differing schools of thought -- it's better to know they EXIST, and what they believe (and why), than to be ignorant of them.
When I was in school, we were taught various scientific disciplines, and we were taught ABOUT various unscientific dead ends. Frex, we were taught chemistry, AND we were taught *about* alchemy. Knowing chemistry demonstrates why alchemy doesn't work, and knowing about alchemy helps demonstrate why chemistry works. And we therefore can't be snowed by someone claiming to know the miracles of alchemy, because we know that boiling lead ain't never gonna make it into gold.
We also learned about not only the solar system as it really is, but also the various cosmologies tried and discarded through the ages, and WHY they don't represent reality.
In my observation, being ignorant about snake oil tends to make one MORE susceptible to falling into it, rather than less. Look at any group of new-agers to see that -- most are well-educated people, but were never taught why some stuff DOESN'T work. What people are ignorant about, they tend to believe in as a sort of magic, even if they should intellectually (and educationally) know better.
But one does have to take care not to confuse teaching *information* with teaching *belief*.
Dunno, but PowerDesk v5 is now free, you might try that. It has tons of features that I've barely looked at.
For me, MC is as near to Buerg's LIST as I've found in linux -- my main use is rooting around the directory structure and viewing files' innards. I can't live without LIST.. it's the first util that goes on every DOS/WIN system I ever build!
Thanks for the tip... I shall check out Krusader next time I have a KDE setup to play with. -- For me, MC makes linux tolerable; I couldn't stand to be without it. It lets me see the underhood stuff I'm used to being able to see in DOS/Win. (I think it's normal to root around inside binaries, why do you ask?:)
What bothered me about this article is how SHAC is painted as an innocent "international campaign group" and anyone trying to prevent them from damaging other people is the bad guy; actions against SHAC-style activities that damage other people and property are attacked as restraint of civil liberties.
I guess it's only okay to restrain civil liberties of animal owners, eh?
Ordinarily I'd agree that corporate power has gotten out of hand and bears watching, and that gov't has no business "watching" our speech either (in any form), but when the "watchers" give sideways support to outfits like SHAC, and denigrate those fighting against them, it casts grave doubt on those watchers.
And this is why the "moderate-sounding" outfits like HSUS are so much more dangerous than the lunatic fringes: HSUS has exactly the same goals as PETA, but HSUS has learned diplomacy. So while PETA tries to make kids think of fish as "sea kittens" and everyone laughs at the absurdity, HSUS quietly gets fish farming outlawed.
(Don't think so? Check out the recently passed CA Prop 2, which outlaws modern egg production.)
Given that, I'll present myself as the hole in the "violent games cause realworld violence" theory.
When I am supremely angry and sincerely wish to kill someone (and we've all been there!) the best thing I can do to cool down is... fire up DOOM and slaughter a few thousand innocent hellspawn. After a couple hours of that, I'm relaxed and no longer angry. Great therapy!
Of course, the conclusion the moralists would draw is that violent people should go to hell, where they can freely indulge their violent tendencies;)
What most people don't seem to recognise is that these "school shootings" (or flame throwers, or whatever) and similar "going postal" events are NOT intended as mass murders.
They are intended as loud, messy SUICIDES, that "show the world how much it hurt me by hurting it back".
The problem with the thermite explanation is that once jet fuel ignites other stuff, that other stuff *can* burn hot enough to vaporise steel. Corrugated cardboard doesn't take much to get started, but once going it burns that hot, and I'm sure there are plenty of other materials that once started can get hot enough. (I used to fuel my trash incinerator with corrugated cardboard, the incinerator being just a 3 foot chunk of culvert with a vent at the bottom. Aluminum cans didn't even hit bottom before going POOF, steel cans disappeared within 30 seconds, the 1/4" thick steel culvert got so hot it glowed white, and the dirt underneath was glassified down to a depth of about 4 inches. Once the cans and such got to burning, I didn't need more cardboard to keep it going, either. -- A corrugated cardboard factory's warehouse caught fire in L.A. a few years ago, and when it was done -- maybe half an hour -- the building's steel beams were almost entirely gone.)
Also, even if thermite was present, there's no need for it to be a gov't conspiracy or even coverup -- it could have been placed a long time previous, either by an aborted terrorist mission or by a prep team for this one, with the object of *ensuring* that the towers went completely down in flames (since running a plane into a building isn't a perfect guarantee of that, from what I've read about it). If the attachment points got vapourized along with the metal, there may be no hard evidence left, only speculation.
That said, I wouldn't put it past our gov't to only tell us what they want us to know, in some misguided belief that we'll feel (or be) safer as a result.
The real problem is that what should be adults, but failed to mature past adolescent idealism, are trying to keep the world "childlike", by ensuring that no one need grow up because we're all protected from everything.
Slashdot Mirror
And as I contend, the "war on drugs" is largely pushed and financed BY the "drug lords" as its in their best financial interests to keep prices artificially high. Between that and the asset forfeiture culture engendered by the DEA (and now spreading to every aspect of law, as new laws are passed) there is huge FINANCIAL incentive to keep the "war on drugs" going.
With anything you can't stop regardless, the best approach is to regulate and tax it, and do so reasonably enough to prevent a black market from regaining prominence. That way at least you aren't creating a criminal class with no benefit to anyone (other than corrupt officials). We should have learned that lesson once and for all during Prohibition, but evidently a couple generations is sufficient to totally forget any lesson from history.
Also, there is a pocket industry of people whose job is to find and confiscate illicit cell phones in prisons. I'd guess they have a vested interest in the cellphone system being untouched, lest they become superfluous.
But as someone above implies, methinks the real reason is kickbacks from inmates' "business ventures", and privatized prisons having essentially no oversight.
"I guess it's back to using an E-meter or flipping a coin to see who is telling the truth."
A properly calibrated E-meter will always find that whoever flips the most coins is telling the truth.
NOW you tell me, after I invested in all those box seats!!
Actually, that sounds like fun... put both the device manufacturers and the scientists through the lie detector, and see who more strongly believes in the results. ;)
"...start by computing a baseline and run through recordings of previous Presidents, working your way toward the current administration."
That sounds fascinating. Even if the system is totally bogus, it would be very interesting to *compare* the results on this particular subset of humanity.
Campaign speeches might be particularly enlightening...
Well, that explains the startled look most folks have on their mugshot... ;)
Works for me. In fact last month I noticed a TV show that I wanted... I could download it for free, or I could pay $5 for the full season at Amazon (plus $3 shipping). For $8, it wasn't worth the time and bother of downloading; I bought the DVDs instead.
I certainly don't. NPCs annoy me, so I shoot them!!
Excellent! You can bring the beer. ;)
How is this different from going to a live game and drinking a certain brand of beer while you're in the stadium??
As others have pointed out, the world is full of stuff we associate that way. Video games are hardly unique.
Yeah, I noticed that... seems to be a common tactic in such arguments.
The very first thing I can remember learning in any science class is the "Scientific Method", which makes no statements about right or wrong, correct or incorrect, but does require that one collect and examine all relevant evidence (not just carefully selected evidence), without preconception or bias. It was taught akin to what's presented here: http://www.sciencebuddies.org/science-fair-projects/project_scientific_method.shtml
Of course, when all your evidence is hearsay that's been through multiple sessions of Chinese Whispers, it's a little hard to get it to pass muster for the Scientific Method ;)
Nonsense. Don't stand on a hill during a thunderstorm; look both ways before crossing the post road (egads, that horse is FAST!) or for that matter the prairie (lordy, those bison can RUN!)
Hairdryers, hmmph. Newfangled gadgets anyway...
I don't see a problem with teaching ABOUT differing schools of thought -- it's better to know they EXIST, and what they believe (and why), than to be ignorant of them.
When I was in school, we were taught various scientific disciplines, and we were taught ABOUT various unscientific dead ends. Frex, we were taught chemistry, AND we were taught *about* alchemy. Knowing chemistry demonstrates why alchemy doesn't work, and knowing about alchemy helps demonstrate why chemistry works. And we therefore can't be snowed by someone claiming to know the miracles of alchemy, because we know that boiling lead ain't never gonna make it into gold.
We also learned about not only the solar system as it really is, but also the various cosmologies tried and discarded through the ages, and WHY they don't represent reality.
In my observation, being ignorant about snake oil tends to make one MORE susceptible to falling into it, rather than less. Look at any group of new-agers to see that -- most are well-educated people, but were never taught why some stuff DOESN'T work. What people are ignorant about, they tend to believe in as a sort of magic, even if they should intellectually (and educationally) know better.
But one does have to take care not to confuse teaching *information* with teaching *belief*.
Dunno, but PowerDesk v5 is now free, you might try that. It has tons of features that I've barely looked at.
For me, MC is as near to Buerg's LIST as I've found in linux -- my main use is rooting around the directory structure and viewing files' innards. I can't live without LIST .. it's the first util that goes on every DOS/WIN system I ever build!
I didn't care for Norton Commander, but I think LIST and XTree are fundamental parts of any DOS system. MC is close enough to XTreeGold. :)
You can get MC for Windows??
(And being used to similar tools for DOS/Win, like XTree... I couldn't STAND linux without MC. Gotta have it!!)
Thanks for the tip... I shall check out Krusader next time I have a KDE setup to play with. -- For me, MC makes linux tolerable; I couldn't stand to be without it. It lets me see the underhood stuff I'm used to being able to see in DOS/Win. (I think it's normal to root around inside binaries, why do you ask? :)
I guess you agree, then, that it's perfectly okay to kill people in the name of your political agenda.
What bothered me about this article is how SHAC is painted as an innocent "international campaign group" and anyone trying to prevent them from damaging other people is the bad guy; actions against SHAC-style activities that damage other people and property are attacked as restraint of civil liberties.
I guess it's only okay to restrain civil liberties of animal owners, eh?
Ordinarily I'd agree that corporate power has gotten out of hand and bears watching, and that gov't has no business "watching" our speech either (in any form), but when the "watchers" give sideways support to outfits like SHAC, and denigrate those fighting against them, it casts grave doubt on those watchers.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
("Who will protect us against the protectors?")
And this is why the "moderate-sounding" outfits like HSUS are so much more dangerous than the lunatic fringes: HSUS has exactly the same goals as PETA, but HSUS has learned diplomacy. So while PETA tries to make kids think of fish as "sea kittens" and everyone laughs at the absurdity, HSUS quietly gets fish farming outlawed.
(Don't think so? Check out the recently passed CA Prop 2, which outlaws modern egg production.)
Given that, I'll present myself as the hole in the "violent games cause realworld violence" theory.
When I am supremely angry and sincerely wish to kill someone (and we've all been there!) the best thing I can do to cool down is ... fire up DOOM and slaughter a few thousand innocent hellspawn. After a couple hours of that, I'm relaxed and no longer angry. Great therapy!
Of course, the conclusion the moralists would draw is that violent people should go to hell, where they can freely indulge their violent tendencies ;)
What most people don't seem to recognise is that these "school shootings" (or flame throwers, or whatever) and similar "going postal" events are NOT intended as mass murders.
They are intended as loud, messy SUICIDES, that "show the world how much it hurt me by hurting it back".
The problem with the thermite explanation is that once jet fuel ignites other stuff, that other stuff *can* burn hot enough to vaporise steel. Corrugated cardboard doesn't take much to get started, but once going it burns that hot, and I'm sure there are plenty of other materials that once started can get hot enough. (I used to fuel my trash incinerator with corrugated cardboard, the incinerator being just a 3 foot chunk of culvert with a vent at the bottom. Aluminum cans didn't even hit bottom before going POOF, steel cans disappeared within 30 seconds, the 1/4" thick steel culvert got so hot it glowed white, and the dirt underneath was glassified down to a depth of about 4 inches. Once the cans and such got to burning, I didn't need more cardboard to keep it going, either. -- A corrugated cardboard factory's warehouse caught fire in L.A. a few years ago, and when it was done -- maybe half an hour -- the building's steel beams were almost entirely gone.)
Also, even if thermite was present, there's no need for it to be a gov't conspiracy or even coverup -- it could have been placed a long time previous, either by an aborted terrorist mission or by a prep team for this one, with the object of *ensuring* that the towers went completely down in flames (since running a plane into a building isn't a perfect guarantee of that, from what I've read about it). If the attachment points got vapourized along with the metal, there may be no hard evidence left, only speculation.
That said, I wouldn't put it past our gov't to only tell us what they want us to know, in some misguided belief that we'll feel (or be) safer as a result.
The real problem is that what should be adults, but failed to mature past adolescent idealism, are trying to keep the world "childlike", by ensuring that no one need grow up because we're all protected from everything.