That is exactly what they were doing. The problem they're having is that the companies manufacturing these general anesthetics don't like having their drugs used for executions, or, in the case of European manufacturers, are prohibited from selling their drugs for use in executions by the EU.
That's true. I work with nitrogen, and the dangerous thing about it - so they tell me - is that you don't even notice it happening until it's too late.
I am all for this. Shooting, specificly with a high calibre weapon is most likely the most humane way to kill someone. Unlike the firing squads of yore, the rifle is attached to a fixed bench, with a fixed aim point, and the victim is dead before he hits the floor.
But yeah, its messy, and not politically correct enought. Instead we let people squirm around taking 20+ min to die.
Then we have the entire contracition of using medicine to harm. This by itself is rather disgusting on its own
I'm not at all for this. A thirty-percent fuck up rate - approximately thirty-percent of executed "criminals" end up being found innocent later - ought to be enough to stop this practice. That said, why not use the heroin they've confiscated in the drug war? A big, fat shot of dope would not be unpleasant, and the supply is unlimited, and not controlled by anyone who might get squeamish about supplying it. You're welcome!
You can have the best of both worlds. That's why I like OS X - a great GUI, and a unix CLI when you need it. Doesn't have to be an either/or situation.
The science linking smoking to lung disease is pretty clear, not to mention common-sensical. Inhaling large amounts smoke of any kind is not going to be good for you. OTOH, the so-called science behind the second-hand smoke scare is inconclusive, at best. Nor does it pass the common-sense test. You would think that people would question a claim that minute exposure to tobacco smoke could be dangerous, when smokers inhale huge lungfuls of smoke, all day, every day, for decades, and yet only 70% eventually develop lung disease. If their claims were true, smokers would be dead in a year. But people don't question it, of course, because the resulting bans suit them.
The amazing thing is that, once the anti-smoker movement got away with that one, their claims became ever more wild and unbelievable. So much so, that's it's become transparent that this is about moral disapproval, and not about science, or "saving lives." Witness the fight against e-cigs. But I'm guessing none of this will interest you.
The news is not that DRM is bad. The news is that people outside of IT are realizing it.
I thought almost everyone outside of the two media associations (and Congress) have known it for at least a solid decade. But I guess someone must be buying CDs. They still make 'em, believe it or not!
Right, I don't get why researchers find altruism puzzling. So-called altruism benefits, if not just the group, the species as a whole. An example is when one person sacrifices themselves in a battle to save the others. Taking one for the team, as it were. Selfish behavior might bring everyone down with you, so I think the evolutionary advantage is quite clear. It's not always about the individual.
Doing something for someone else with no expectation of it being returned is altruism.
I agree with that. It seems little different than the "round buying" that goes on in bars/pubs. When one buys a round, there's a reasonable expectation that everyone in the group will in turn buy a round. Unless you have a guy like Bob, who's always broke, but he's very entertaining to drink with, and a good guy. I guess we're buying him rounds for entertainment and companionship, so even that's not pure altruism.
Because the Tsimane don't have local bars, and making up a batch of brew is such a pain, it looks like they came up with a way to take turns being treated so that one is treated more often than one has to treat. Hardly altruism.
Not quite my experience. I'm a truck driver here in the US, so I've seen it all. What I would say is that city drivers are the most aggressive, especially around old cities that are not laid out in grids. I think it has something to with having heavy traffic on chaotic road designs. Boston is a great example of that, as is Atlanta, and really, all of the eastern cities. That would include Philly. It's not that there aren't rules, (I'm not talking about laws), in these areas, it's just that they're different. If you grow up in an area, you absorb the local road culture, and it makes sense to you. If you're not from there, it seems like everyone is driving like either an idiot, or a maniac.
You have to learn to adapt your driving habits, and, as a truck driver, I've had to learn a lot of patience.
It's not just Apple, not by a long shot. Corporate welfare is really out of control, with states like Texas devoting up to 50% of their budgets to it. Many, many corporations pay no taxes, and even receive land grants, and other freebies. As I read the blurb, the thing that amazed me was that Apple was paying taxes at all.
Well can you have an anti aircraft rocket then? A gun is not much use if that government has jets and rockets to bomb you...
Really? Two words: Iraq & Aghanistan If they didn't "beat" us, they kept us from winning, mostly with small arms and improvised weapons. It's not so easy to take over an armed populace.
Why not just use an email client? I could never use webmail, simply because I have more than one email address, but you also have a lot more control (and consistency) with an email client. I've used Mail.app for many years, (my earliest stored email is from '98, but those first couple of years may have been transferred from Outlook), and it works for me. Rule sets, smart folders, and that sort of thing. Has its own excellent spam filter, so I can turn off gmail's filter, knowing nothing will get lost. Mail.app works well with PGP, too. Of course there are other email clients, and for all platforms. I've probably used gmail's web interface two or three times, at most.
Haha! My first thought was: Was this before, or after, watching Homeland? That said, even I wouldn't want anything that critical hooked up to the net. These people with their alarm systems, home controls, etc., connected to the net are just asking for it.
I get that they have oil, but come on already. This sort of crap should simply not be tolerated by the west. We should not sell them arms or have diplomatic relations with these kinds of states. They abuse women, have a cave man's idea of a criminal justice system, are a theocracy and fund terrorism. What else do they need to do before we decide to stop tolerating their shit?
"We" have nothing to do with it. The ruling class has their own reasons for what they do, and morality doesn't have much to do with it.
They will suffer being put aside from the 21st century society and become technology illettrates.
Not likely. And perhaps by using printed materials for reading, rather than the internet, they won't become illiterate in the usual sense. I began using computers in 1986, (hey, they could get a Mac Classic!), and the previous twenty-seven computer-less years were no great impediment to my learning to use them.
Wow, here I am being that old guy, but I have to say it: These kids nowadays are a bunch of pussies.
Somehow, as a child, I survived chemistry sets, dissecting kits, a lead melting kit (with cowboy molds and, likely, lead paint), a wood-burning iron, my uncle's cigars and every other adult's cigarettes, all sorts of now illegal fireworks and amateur bomb-making, and a go-cart. Most of those while my age was in the single digits. Not to mention that we somehow managed to cross the street after school without the state forcing traffic to slow to a crawl, (and we did walk to school). When I was in high school, we had "open" lunch, and two smoke breaks. Can you imagine that kind of freedom given to teenagers today? I won't even mention arranged "play dates" - ugh.
And we see what kind of allergy prone, germ- and tobacco-phobic, conservative hipster wanna-be, unrebellious young adults that have resulted, and the conservative era they've bequeathed us all. At this point, you can see why parents would prefer that the state decide for them that their children cannot play with magnets.
We Americans are brainwashed from an early age to believe they live in a "free country" and that the US is the "greatest country in the world." The level of ignorance of my own country about the rest of the world continues to astound me. And of course, people in the rest of the world are fed the same line as well through the popular culture media machine. But when foreigners get here, they at least have a basis of comparison.
So no, there was never a promise of "no ads" by cable TV companies.
Not sure how old you are but while there may, or may not, have been a promise, I definitely remember that that is indeed what the deal was. We never had cable, but I well remember that when I expressed amazement that anyone would pay $ for TV, they'd always shoot back, "But there's no commercials!" The network feeds were the only exception. Not an argument that won me over, since TV still sucked back then. Later, I watched as more and more commercials crept in, to the point that it's completely unwatchable now.
Slashdot Mirror
If you like your dope dealer, you can keep him.
That does seem to be the case in this instance. They've piled on enough tax to keep the black market viable.
That is exactly what they were doing. The problem they're having is that the companies manufacturing these general anesthetics don't like having their drugs used for executions, or, in the case of European manufacturers, are prohibited from selling their drugs for use in executions by the EU.
That's true. I work with nitrogen, and the dangerous thing about it - so they tell me - is that you don't even notice it happening until it's too late.
I am all for this. Shooting, specificly with a high calibre weapon is most likely the most humane way to kill someone. Unlike the firing squads of yore, the rifle is attached to a fixed bench, with a fixed aim point, and the victim is dead before he hits the floor.
But yeah, its messy, and not politically correct enought. Instead we let people squirm around taking 20+ min to die.
Then we have the entire contracition of using medicine to harm. This by itself is rather disgusting on its own
I'm not at all for this. A thirty-percent fuck up rate - approximately thirty-percent of executed "criminals" end up being found innocent later - ought to be enough to stop this practice. That said, why not use the heroin they've confiscated in the drug war? A big, fat shot of dope would not be unpleasant, and the supply is unlimited, and not controlled by anyone who might get squeamish about supplying it. You're welcome!
You can have the best of both worlds. That's why I like OS X - a great GUI, and a unix CLI when you need it. Doesn't have to be an either/or situation.
Junk science huh? Keep telling yourself that.
The science linking smoking to lung disease is pretty clear, not to mention common-sensical. Inhaling large amounts smoke of any kind is not going to be good for you. OTOH, the so-called science behind the second-hand smoke scare is inconclusive, at best. Nor does it pass the common-sense test. You would think that people would question a claim that minute exposure to tobacco smoke could be dangerous, when smokers inhale huge lungfuls of smoke, all day, every day, for decades, and yet only 70% eventually develop lung disease. If their claims were true, smokers would be dead in a year. But people don't question it, of course, because the resulting bans suit them.
The amazing thing is that, once the anti-smoker movement got away with that one, their claims became ever more wild and unbelievable. So much so, that's it's become transparent that this is about moral disapproval, and not about science, or "saving lives." Witness the fight against e-cigs. But I'm guessing none of this will interest you.
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/000602.html
I like how he threw drugs in with assassination and child pornography. I'm sure the rest of his opinions are valid, though.
The news is not that DRM is bad. The news is that people outside of IT are realizing it.
I thought almost everyone outside of the two media associations (and Congress) have known it for at least a solid decade. But I guess someone must be buying CDs. They still make 'em, believe it or not!
I can't understand how misspellings end up online at all. Mine are all underlined in red. Doesn't Windows do that?
But allow me this opportunity to air my pet slashdot peeve: Why do people consistently forget to put a space after an italics tag? That drivesme nuts.
Yeah, I can just imagine explaining this to my girlfriend: "For the hundredth time, I am not looking at porn! I'm doing top secret government work."
Right, I don't get why researchers find altruism puzzling. So-called altruism benefits, if not just the group, the species as a whole. An example is when one person sacrifices themselves in a battle to save the others. Taking one for the team, as it were. Selfish behavior might bring everyone down with you, so I think the evolutionary advantage is quite clear. It's not always about the individual.
If I look at liberal and conservative politicians, it seems like there is only one mold. Seriously, why do Americans still vote at all?
Well, if you look at voting statistics, you can see that most of us don't.
It's happened to more than one innocent person.
Doing something for someone else with no expectation of it being returned is altruism.
I agree with that. It seems little different than the "round buying" that goes on in bars/pubs. When one buys a round, there's a reasonable expectation that everyone in the group will in turn buy a round. Unless you have a guy like Bob, who's always broke, but he's very entertaining to drink with, and a good guy. I guess we're buying him rounds for entertainment and companionship, so even that's not pure altruism.
Because the Tsimane don't have local bars, and making up a batch of brew is such a pain, it looks like they came up with a way to take turns being treated so that one is treated more often than one has to treat. Hardly altruism.
You have to learn to adapt your driving habits, and, as a truck driver, I've had to learn a lot of patience.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/01/us/government-incentives.html?_r=0
Well can you have an anti aircraft rocket then? A gun is not much use if that government has jets and rockets to bomb you...
Really? Two words: Iraq & Aghanistan
If they didn't "beat" us, they kept us from winning, mostly with small arms and improvised weapons. It's not so easy to take over an armed populace.
Why not just use an email client? I could never use webmail, simply because I have more than one email address, but you also have a lot more control (and consistency) with an email client. I've used Mail.app for many years, (my earliest stored email is from '98, but those first couple of years may have been transferred from Outlook), and it works for me. Rule sets, smart folders, and that sort of thing. Has its own excellent spam filter, so I can turn off gmail's filter, knowing nothing will get lost. Mail.app works well with PGP, too. Of course there are other email clients, and for all platforms. I've probably used gmail's web interface two or three times, at most.
Haha! My first thought was: Was this before, or after, watching Homeland? That said, even I wouldn't want anything that critical hooked up to the net. These people with their alarm systems, home controls, etc., connected to the net are just asking for it.
I get that they have oil, but come on already. This sort of crap should simply not be tolerated by the west. We should not sell them arms or have diplomatic relations with these kinds of states. They abuse women, have a cave man's idea of a criminal justice system, are a theocracy and fund terrorism. What else do they need to do before we decide to stop tolerating their shit?
"We" have nothing to do with it. The ruling class has their own reasons for what they do, and morality doesn't have much to do with it.
They will suffer being put aside from the 21st century society and become technology illettrates.
Not likely. And perhaps by using printed materials for reading, rather than the internet, they won't become illiterate in the usual sense. I began using computers in 1986, (hey, they could get a Mac Classic!), and the previous twenty-seven computer-less years were no great impediment to my learning to use them.
Wow, here I am being that old guy, but I have to say it: These kids nowadays are a bunch of pussies.
Somehow, as a child, I survived chemistry sets, dissecting kits, a lead melting kit (with cowboy molds and, likely, lead paint), a wood-burning iron, my uncle's cigars and every other adult's cigarettes, all sorts of now illegal fireworks and amateur bomb-making, and a go-cart. Most of those while my age was in the single digits. Not to mention that we somehow managed to cross the street after school without the state forcing traffic to slow to a crawl, (and we did walk to school). When I was in high school, we had "open" lunch, and two smoke breaks. Can you imagine that kind of freedom given to teenagers today? I won't even mention arranged "play dates" - ugh.
And we see what kind of allergy prone, germ- and tobacco-phobic, conservative hipster wanna-be, unrebellious young adults that have resulted, and the conservative era they've bequeathed us all. At this point, you can see why parents would prefer that the state decide for them that their children cannot play with magnets.
We Americans are brainwashed from an early age to believe they live in a "free country" and that the US is the "greatest country in the world." The level of ignorance of my own country about the rest of the world continues to astound me. And of course, people in the rest of the world are fed the same line as well through the popular culture media machine. But when foreigners get here, they at least have a basis of comparison.
So no, there was never a promise of "no ads" by cable TV companies.
Not sure how old you are but while there may, or may not, have been a promise, I definitely remember that that is indeed what the deal was. We never had cable, but I well remember that when I expressed amazement that anyone would pay $ for TV, they'd always shoot back, "But there's no commercials!" The network feeds were the only exception. Not an argument that won me over, since TV still sucked back then. Later, I watched as more and more commercials crept in, to the point that it's completely unwatchable now.
There are ads on Facebook? Oh right, I use ad-blocking software.