Ted Kaminsky (sp) wrote that when people are living a more and more pointless life and utterly domesticated life, they will sometimes turn to drugs in order to keep themselves placated, and continue to believe that things make sense.
Yep, that's what I meant. If we would put the same amount of resources (manpower, money,...) that we waste on that impossible-to-win "war on drugs" to the task of improving our society, life would be better for almost everyone.
I think they just want to avoid that there is no more property when the trial ends. Just like a suspect's bank accounts are frozen until the case is closed.
That's also normal. I bet that also his bank accounts are frozen until he's proven guilty or not. Without that, there would never be anything left over to confiscate after the trial.
Well, I take alcohol because a little bit makes me outgoing. But I don't think stopping me from wanting to be friendly is the answer.
Correct. But the answer is to learn how to socialize without ethanol or other substances as a crutch. It may work for you, but for many people this way leads down the drain.
Indeed I don't think my drug-taking is a problem in the first place.
Yes, many people consuming drugs (legal or illegal) don't run into serious problems with that. But around 10 percent develop an addiction, and a good part of the other 90 percent tend to an unhealthy consume.
What I meant with "war on the reasons" was that normally people have a reason why they develop unhealthy substance consume. Some can't handle the pressure in our much too achievement-oriented society. Some feel socially inept like you. And so on. We should reduce this pressure, we should be more friendly to each other, and we should learn from society that there are much better ways to reach what we try to reach by consuming psychoactive substances. And not "drugs are evil" or other bullshit. I hope that makes my POV a little clearer.
I did not go to your links, but would you please care to elaborate? I don't recall the "witches" in Salem dealing with drugs, and neither did the Nazis. And the only drug sold by the catholic church is religion, which is unfortunately legal.
It is absolutely normal that the assets made with crimes get confiscated. Maybe except for the not so usual form of investment, why is this worthy mentioning?
That is nonsense, not an argument. It happens all the time that surrounding noises like voices of bystanders and not only the voice of the person making the call are transmitted. If that would be illegal, these morons in uniforms were "guilty" of the same "offense", like every one else using a telephone is.
Say, don't you US Americans elect your sheriffs/police chiefs? How come that an idiot who not only doesn't suspend that officer for his misbehavior, yes, even backs him up, gets elected for such an office?
See, common sense should tell that it would be wrong to imprison all the wage-slaves of a company for the wrongdoings of their managers. But, I'd like to see something in the law that the whole management is liable for the crimes of a company. But that can only happen if people quit voting for politicians who have an open ear for corporations and other lobbyists, but not for the people. Which unfortunately means around the time when hell freezes over.
That's why we in Germany decide between "natural" and "juristic" persons. The construct of the juristic person makes sense when it's about stuff like contracts. But when it comes to criminal law, it all has to be about natural persons. You can't put a company to jail, or do you?
Why that? Except for those cases where some idiots made the intranet IE6-only, upgrading IE is not a problem. In my experience the biggest hurdles are self-made "applications" that do not work on the new OS version. Many companies that upgrade Windows will also switch to a newer version of Office with that, causing countless little VBA "tools" to cease working and the morons who made them to whine.
- IE doesn't cost license fees. - Second, upgrading your OS may break applications you are running, while upgrading your browser usually has no such downsides. - A XP machine running smoothly with IE6 will do so with IE8, too, but maybe it will not be sufficient for W7. - Upgrading the OS platform in a corporate environment is a much bigger task than upgrading a browser.
I know, and the timeline for IE6-support should have ended years ago. How can they expect their customers to switch if they support such old crap that long?
Many websites still contain special workarounds to make the pages work in IE6. Just remove them (or replace them with a redirection to ie6countdown.com), and the users will upgrade immediately. And for those stubborn corporate users, who still do not get it, MS should just quit offering support for machines with IE6. Both measures should have been taken years ago.
The only room for improvement here is to reduce the scenes with this thing to a minimum. I can only remember one really funny scene, when Qui-Gon grabs his tongue during the meal with Anakin's family. Maybe there are one or two more, but besides that, JJB is just a plain annoyance that makes the movie even worse than it would have been without it.
C3PO was mostly funny, so they knew how to do it right. Why did they screw it up so much with that unfunny and annoying creature?
Just use it correctly and see how great Facebook is.
It's not that Facebook has nothing to offer. The problem with FB is that they mine your data and use it for their own purposes. If they used the data only to provide the service, really deleted anything the user deletes, and so on, Facebook would be really a good thing.
It also helped me to move to other side of the planet and get to know the people and places there and still see how people back home are doing.
Getting to know the people (and with them the places) in your new location is best done in RL. You know, the big room with the blue ceiling, where the pizzaman comes from. Staying in contact with the people back home - there are letters, postcards, telephones, emails, instant messengers, and whatnot. No *need* for FB, although it may make it a little easier to stay in touch.
What are you talking about? Did somebody make up a video of Hitler ranting about some gadget?
LOL, there is a German comedian (Gerhard Polt) who took video footage of a speech Hitler held, and overspoke the audio with a rant about being conned in a leasing contract. Search Youtube for "Hitler Leasingvertrag" if you understand German, I still have to laugh after having it seen approx. 50 times.
What esteem I hold myself in is nowhere near is pertinent as the esteem others hold me in.
Except for the fact that your self-esteem has a massive influence on how others look at you. Ever heard the question "How should anybody else like you, if you don't even like yourself?" It is also my personal experience that people who like themselves are very often more enjoyable to be around than those who don't.
Slashdot Mirror
Ted Kaminsky (sp) wrote that when people are living a more and more pointless life and utterly domesticated life, they will sometimes turn to drugs in order to keep themselves placated, and continue to believe that things make sense.
Yep, that's what I meant. If we would put the same amount of resources (manpower, money, ...) that we waste on that impossible-to-win "war on drugs" to the task of improving our society, life would be better for almost everyone.
I think they just want to avoid that there is no more property when the trial ends. Just like a suspect's bank accounts are frozen until the case is closed.
That's also normal. I bet that also his bank accounts are frozen until he's proven guilty or not. Without that, there would never be anything left over to confiscate after the trial.
Well, I take alcohol because a little bit makes me outgoing. But I don't think stopping me from wanting to be friendly is the answer.
Correct. But the answer is to learn how to socialize without ethanol or other substances as a crutch. It may work for you, but for many people this way leads down the drain.
Indeed I don't think my drug-taking is a problem in the first place.
Yes, many people consuming drugs (legal or illegal) don't run into serious problems with that. But around 10 percent develop an addiction, and a good part of the other 90 percent tend to an unhealthy consume.
What I meant with "war on the reasons" was that normally people have a reason why they develop unhealthy substance consume. Some can't handle the pressure in our much too achievement-oriented society. Some feel socially inept like you. And so on. We should reduce this pressure, we should be more friendly to each other, and we should learn from society that there are much better ways to reach what we try to reach by consuming psychoactive substances. And not "drugs are evil" or other bullshit. I hope that makes my POV a little clearer.
I totally agree with that. The war should not be "on drugs", but on the reasons why people chose taking them.
GFY. People advocating death sentence should be hanged.
Anyone finding irony here - keep it!
I did not go to your links, but would you please care to elaborate? I don't recall the "witches" in Salem dealing with drugs, and neither did the Nazis. And the only drug sold by the catholic church is religion, which is unfortunately legal.
It is absolutely normal that the assets made with crimes get confiscated. Maybe except for the not so usual form of investment, why is this worthy mentioning?
What? (I'm not into sports, and I'm German)
That is nonsense, not an argument. It happens all the time that surrounding noises like voices of bystanders and not only the voice of the person making the call are transmitted. If that would be illegal, these morons in uniforms were "guilty" of the same "offense", like every one else using a telephone is.
Say, don't you US Americans elect your sheriffs/police chiefs? How come that an idiot who not only doesn't suspend that officer for his misbehavior, yes, even backs him up, gets elected for such an office?
Only a few? :-)
See, common sense should tell that it would be wrong to imprison all the wage-slaves of a company for the wrongdoings of their managers. But, I'd like to see something in the law that the whole management is liable for the crimes of a company. But that can only happen if people quit voting for politicians who have an open ear for corporations and other lobbyists, but not for the people. Which unfortunately means around the time when hell freezes over.
The recorded conversation was not a telephone conversation. The only media involved was the air. So, it was airtapping, not wiretapping.
That's why we in Germany decide between "natural" and "juristic" persons. The construct of the juristic person makes sense when it's about stuff like contracts. But when it comes to criminal law, it all has to be about natural persons. You can't put a company to jail, or do you?
Why that? Except for those cases where some idiots made the intranet IE6-only, upgrading IE is not a problem. In my experience the biggest hurdles are self-made "applications" that do not work on the new OS version. Many companies that upgrade Windows will also switch to a newer version of Office with that, causing countless little VBA "tools" to cease working and the morons who made them to whine.
There is some difference.
- IE doesn't cost license fees.
- Second, upgrading your OS may break applications you are running, while upgrading your browser usually has no such downsides.
- A XP machine running smoothly with IE6 will do so with IE8, too, but maybe it will not be sufficient for W7.
- Upgrading the OS platform in a corporate environment is a much bigger task than upgrading a browser.
I know, and the timeline for IE6-support should have ended years ago. How can they expect their customers to switch if they support such old crap that long?
Many websites still contain special workarounds to make the pages work in IE6. Just remove them (or replace them with a redirection to ie6countdown.com), and the users will upgrade immediately. And for those stubborn corporate users, who still do not get it, MS should just quit offering support for machines with IE6. Both measures should have been taken years ago.
The only room for improvement here is to reduce the scenes with this thing to a minimum. I can only remember one really funny scene, when Qui-Gon grabs his tongue during the meal with Anakin's family. Maybe there are one or two more, but besides that, JJB is just a plain annoyance that makes the movie even worse than it would have been without it.
C3PO was mostly funny, so they knew how to do it right. Why did they screw it up so much with that unfunny and annoying creature?
The real culprit is the submitter himself, for not telling his little girl about things like privacy and backups.
Just use it correctly and see how great Facebook is.
It's not that Facebook has nothing to offer. The problem with FB is that they mine your data and use it for their own purposes. If they used the data only to provide the service, really deleted anything the user deletes, and so on, Facebook would be really a good thing.
It also helped me to move to other side of the planet and get to know the people and places there and still see how people back home are doing.
Getting to know the people (and with them the places) in your new location is best done in RL. You know, the big room with the blue ceiling, where the pizzaman comes from. Staying in contact with the people back home - there are letters, postcards, telephones, emails, instant messengers, and whatnot. No *need* for FB, although it may make it a little easier to stay in touch.
What are you talking about? Did somebody make up a video of Hitler ranting about some gadget?
LOL, there is a German comedian (Gerhard Polt) who took video footage of a speech Hitler held, and overspoke the audio with a rant about being conned in a leasing contract. Search Youtube for "Hitler Leasingvertrag" if you understand German, I still have to laugh after having it seen approx. 50 times.
How can they charge for WLAN, if you use e. g. your own? They have no control over it!
Haven't we recently discussed cameras that make people better-looking because 90% of people don't like the way they look?
They don't like the way they look when pictured by bad photographers and/or shitty cameras.
What esteem I hold myself in is nowhere near is pertinent as the esteem others hold me in.
Except for the fact that your self-esteem has a massive influence on how others look at you. Ever heard the question "How should anybody else like you, if you don't even like yourself?" It is also my personal experience that people who like themselves are very often more enjoyable to be around than those who don't.
You have to ask Seagate.