Would you care to do a study over how many people meth heads hurt around them v the mortality due to 2nd hand smoke and other area effects of tobacco (house fires, etc) on a per smoker basis?
That's a straw man argument. I of course think robbery, abuse, neglect, and other forms of doing harm to people should be illegal. There's no reason to make something using the drug itself illegal as that does no harm to anyone but the user. If they can't use the drug responsibly then that person can be dealt with seperatly (it works with alcohol, does it not?).
Also while it's true some drugs like meth and crack are inherently more dangerous the others, guess what? People wouldn't be using them if not for prohibition. You know that radiator distilled white lightening type whisky people drank during alcohol prohibition? The kind of stuff that could make you go blind or insane. How many people drink that now that alcohol is legal again? The more dangerous forms of drugs are mostly a result of prohibition. The black market status encourages he creation of drugs that are cheaper to make and more potent.
Abortion, of course, is 99.99% lethal to the fetus. So it comes down to the question of whether or not that's a person from the point of view of rights. If yes, the Reps are right, if no, the Dems are right.
I think the current legal standing is as reasonable as one could be. A third trimester fetus is pretty clearly well developed and it's abortion should not be treated lightly. OTOH, the first trimester fetuses can in no way be put on the same level as a thinking, feeling human. The second trimester is a gray area, but that sort of nuance is of no concern to the anti-abortion crowd.
Finally you can get health care without relying on a big paperwork socialized system. In fact, the paperwork is massively enlarged by medicare/medicaid, the number of useless and expensive tests is massively enlarged by the pro-Dem trial lawyers, and doctor supply is artificially limited via government action in order to raise prices. Healthcare needs vastly less government and the Reps seem to be the only party even halfway moving in that direction.
I said nothing about how to go about providing healthcare to all American's. It's a complex issue and I'm in no way qualified to debate it, however the point is that somehow or another it needs to be done. It works in Europe so there is no reason why it can't work here as well. BTW, what is this progress on healthcare the Republican's are making which you speak of? They've controlled the entire government for almost 6 years and I haven't see anything but a massive failure of a medicade drug bill.
it irks me when I hear Dems say "Keep your morals off my body!" when referring to abortion or drugs and then demand universal healthcare or public smoking bans because it's the moral/humane thing for the government to do.
You don't see the huge difference between these issues?
Abortion and drugs bans = government telling you you can't do something which only effects you.
Smoking bans in public places = government telling you you can't do something which effects the people around you (note: i highly oppose making cigs illegal, just as i oppose all other drug prohibitions)
Healtcare = providing something to benefit people which they want and need but can't get by themselves.
I don't see there being any hypocrisy evident in my views on these issues.
I love mplayer in Linux, but it doesn't work with multiple monitors in windows which is the only reason I don't use it. I frequently have video on one monitor while working on the other, but I can't get mplayer to do that in windows.
Public transport in San Diego sucks, actually. No where near as good as New York or even Boston. Maybe almost as good Philly, but my experience there is pretty limited. I hear LA and SF are better, but haven't used them.
The problem with SD is that light rail doesn't go far outside of downtown. And what rail service they do have stops running around midnight, and those are the extended weekend hours. If I can't take a train home from the bar on Friday night that is a very serious deficiency in my book.
I believe it. I've never been to Riverside, but on the coast in Del Mar when the wind is right, you can see a great brown cloud coming from the direction of LA. What a majestic sight that is.
I'm assuming you aren't from CA? I don't know about the rest of the state, but in San Diego ridiculously small parking sports are already common. Besides, it doesn't seem to help. Assholes with Hummers just take up two spots instead of squeezing into one.
This is insightful? What a crock. None of the environmentalists I know have any motives other than a concern that we are doing irreparable harm to the only planet we have.
No environmental problem has a suggested solution using technology? That's funny, I hear a lot of talk about renewable sources of energy. Solar power (including wind)? fusion research? Ever heard of these things? You think these are just supposed to hold us over until we are able to ban electricity?
The idea that environmentalists hate western society is foolish to the extreme. Equally foolish however is denying the fact that some lifestyle changes will need to be made at some point for the sake of a sustainable society. Look at how much energy and other resources are used by each and every American. Now think about what would happen if everyone in China had the same requirements. That might be a problem, no? Well at the rate of their progress that will be a serious problem in the future and everyone will have to make changes. If changes aren't made then some serious fighting over resources is likely to result.
For me the holy grail of desktop design is one that allows me to place what I want, where I want on the desk top and have it remain exactly where I put it.
Amen to that. I can't figure out why XP on my work laptop is always rearranging my desktop. I've got about 20 different icons on my desktop, is it too much to ask that they don't move around at random times? From what I can tell it looks like when the icons move they are going back to some previous configuration, but I'm not positive. Either way, it's a pain.
Celeb's have ego's they like to stroke, that's not news. And so what, I only find it creepy that people pay any attention to what celebrities are doing in their private life.
So what if not everyone can afford to pay extra for a carbon-neutral product? There's nothing wrong with that. Do you find it also disturbing that you have indoor plumbing to dispose of waste while people in the third world frequently live in disease ridden pools of their own filth? Sure you should, but doing away with our plumbing is not the way to pursue equality with the poor.
Who even said anything about the poor having to do without? Have none eco-friendly CPU's been banned recently? I must have missed that.
So given the choice between: a) A computer that isn't contributing to global warming b) A computer that is contributing to global warming c) No computer
It's edgy because it's a warning on freedom of speech and propaganda. The advocacy of freedom of expression and freedom from propaganda is highly offensive to some in power.
#2 sounds like it would be a more unequivocal benefit.
Maybe, but even if you managed to get it to provide meaningful insight into the reliability of the content, could you do it without turning the page into a rainbow striped eyesore?
Independantly, I have notice the news has lately referred to global warming as "climate change."
I think climate change is the term preferred by climate scientists because it is less likely to be abused by Republicans. Global warming is an accurate term in that the average temperature of the earth does increase, however at the scale of local climates some places get warmer while others actually get cooler. That gives the climate change deniers "evidence" to disprove global warming.
The creationists you hear from don't believe in Day-Age creationism. They are all fundamentalists who believe the Bible is literally true, so that excludes the possibility of a day meaning something other than 24 hours.
Slashdot Mirror
Here's one amazing fact: The total amount of money that the government has given to the wealthy through tax breaks is a whopping huge $0.
I am anxiously awaiting the source for that amazing fact. It sounds like utter bollocks to me.
Let me take a guess, a tax cut doesn't count as money "given to the wealthy" because it's only "less taken from the wealthy". Is that how it works?
Would you care to do a study over how many people meth heads hurt around them v the mortality due to 2nd hand smoke and other area effects of tobacco (house fires, etc) on a per smoker basis?
That's a straw man argument. I of course think robbery, abuse, neglect, and other forms of doing harm to people should be illegal. There's no reason to make something using the drug itself illegal as that does no harm to anyone but the user. If they can't use the drug responsibly then that person can be dealt with seperatly (it works with alcohol, does it not?).
Also while it's true some drugs like meth and crack are inherently more dangerous the others, guess what? People wouldn't be using them if not for prohibition. You know that radiator distilled white lightening type whisky people drank during alcohol prohibition? The kind of stuff that could make you go blind or insane. How many people drink that now that alcohol is legal again? The more dangerous forms of drugs are mostly a result of prohibition. The black market status encourages he creation of drugs that are cheaper to make and more potent.
Abortion, of course, is 99.99% lethal to the fetus. So it comes down to the question of whether or not that's a person from the point of view of rights. If yes, the Reps are right, if no, the Dems are right.
I think the current legal standing is as reasonable as one could be. A third trimester fetus is pretty clearly well developed and it's abortion should not be treated lightly. OTOH, the first trimester fetuses can in no way be put on the same level as a thinking, feeling human. The second trimester is a gray area, but that sort of nuance is of no concern to the anti-abortion crowd.
Finally you can get health care without relying on a big paperwork socialized system. In fact, the paperwork is massively enlarged by medicare/medicaid, the number of useless and expensive tests is massively enlarged by the pro-Dem trial lawyers, and doctor supply is artificially limited via government action in order to raise prices. Healthcare needs vastly less government and the Reps seem to be the only party even halfway moving in that direction.
I said nothing about how to go about providing healthcare to all American's. It's a complex issue and I'm in no way qualified to debate it, however the point is that somehow or another it needs to be done. It works in Europe so there is no reason why it can't work here as well. BTW, what is this progress on healthcare the Republican's are making which you speak of? They've controlled the entire government for almost 6 years and I haven't see anything but a massive failure of a medicade drug bill.
- Abortion and drugs bans = government telling you you can't do something which only effects you.
- Smoking bans in public places = government telling you you can't do something which effects the people around you
- Healtcare = providing something to benefit people which they want and need but can't get by themselves.
I don't see there being any hypocrisy evident in my views on these issues.(note: i highly oppose making cigs illegal, just as i oppose all other drug prohibitions)
True, but I'm pretty sure the threshold is nowhere near where it should be. It's amazing the amount of BS constituents seem to put up with.
Perhaps it will be a good thing when low-lying parts of the US capitol are among the first to flood if sea levels do rise 40 or more feet.
And along with them goes all strongly progressive coastal areas. No wonder the Republicans don't care about global warming.
I love mplayer in Linux, but it doesn't work with multiple monitors in windows which is the only reason I don't use it. I frequently have video on one monitor while working on the other, but I can't get mplayer to do that in windows.
Public transport in San Diego sucks, actually. No where near as good as New York or even Boston. Maybe almost as good Philly, but my experience there is pretty limited. I hear LA and SF are better, but haven't used them.
The problem with SD is that light rail doesn't go far outside of downtown. And what rail service they do have stops running around midnight, and those are the extended weekend hours. If I can't take a train home from the bar on Friday night that is a very serious deficiency in my book.
I believe it. I've never been to Riverside, but on the coast in Del Mar when the wind is right, you can see a great brown cloud coming from the direction of LA. What a majestic sight that is.
I blame Steven Colbert. I got the number from Wikipedia's page on California.
...Making metropolitan parking spaces smaller
I'm assuming you aren't from CA? I don't know about the rest of the state, but in San Diego ridiculously small parking sports are already common. Besides, it doesn't seem to help. Assholes with Hummers just take up two spots instead of squeezing into one.
Hmm...I guess the cars manufacturers could just stop selling their 'horrible' product in CA, and see how that works, eh?
Yeah, stop selling in the 8th largest economy in the world. I'm sure that would work great for them.
Oh, and by the way, it's really nice to be able to hear your song without speakers... resonation through unloaded tubes
I tried that. I put my ear to the internet while streaming some audio. Didn't hear a thing.
Well said! I wish I could give that a +1 Insightful.
This is insightful? What a crock. None of the environmentalists I know have any motives other than a concern that we are doing irreparable harm to the only planet we have.
No environmental problem has a suggested solution using technology? That's funny, I hear a lot of talk about renewable sources of energy. Solar power (including wind)? fusion research? Ever heard of these things? You think these are just supposed to hold us over until we are able to ban electricity?
The idea that environmentalists hate western society is foolish to the extreme. Equally foolish however is denying the fact that some lifestyle changes will need to be made at some point for the sake of a sustainable society. Look at how much energy and other resources are used by each and every American. Now think about what would happen if everyone in China had the same requirements. That might be a problem, no? Well at the rate of their progress that will be a serious problem in the future and everyone will have to make changes. If changes aren't made then some serious fighting over resources is likely to result.
For me the holy grail of desktop design is one that allows me to place what I want, where I want on the desk top and have it remain exactly where I put it.
Amen to that. I can't figure out why XP on my work laptop is always rearranging my desktop. I've got about 20 different icons on my desktop, is it too much to ask that they don't move around at random times? From what I can tell it looks like when the icons move they are going back to some previous configuration, but I'm not positive. Either way, it's a pain.
The non-evil, of course.
Celeb's have ego's they like to stroke, that's not news. And so what, I only find it creepy that people pay any attention to what celebrities are doing in their private life.
So what if not everyone can afford to pay extra for a carbon-neutral product? There's nothing wrong with that. Do you find it also disturbing that you have indoor plumbing to dispose of waste while people in the third world frequently live in disease ridden pools of their own filth? Sure you should, but doing away with our plumbing is not the way to pursue equality with the poor.
Who even said anything about the poor having to do without? Have none eco-friendly CPU's been banned recently? I must have missed that.
WTF? He was just making a pun dude.
So given the choice between:
a) A computer that isn't contributing to global warming
b) A computer that is contributing to global warming
c) No computer
You would take choices B or C?
Doubt it, but if it was good for him. It is an excellent idea.
It's edgy because it's a warning on freedom of speech and propaganda. The advocacy of freedom of expression and freedom from propaganda is highly offensive to some in power.
#2 sounds like it would be a more unequivocal benefit.
Maybe, but even if you managed to get it to provide meaningful insight into the reliability of the content, could you do it without turning the page into a rainbow striped eyesore?
Also, if he pays restitution, what's the point of the jail sentence?
There's no deterrent to others if the only punishment is paying back what you made and carrying on with your life.
Independantly, I have notice the news has lately referred to global warming as "climate change."
I think climate change is the term preferred by climate scientists because it is less likely to be abused by Republicans. Global warming is an accurate term in that the average temperature of the earth does increase, however at the scale of local climates some places get warmer while others actually get cooler. That gives the climate change deniers "evidence" to disprove global warming.
The creationists you hear from don't believe in Day-Age creationism. They are all fundamentalists who believe the Bible is literally true, so that excludes the possibility of a day meaning something other than 24 hours.