Really? I will be sure to let all those foreign.com address know that. There are non-country specific tld domains registered to people and companies all over the world. Especially.com's. In fact, I can't even think of any country specific urls off hand other than the bbc site.
Easier to parse for a computer. But it would be a nightmare to try to remember more than two or three addresses that way. I don't know about you, but I pull up numerous sites on a lot of different computers. I need to be able to recall the full url for all of those sites from memory and need to be able to add and remove urls from the list without a study session.
"Do you keep all your files in your computer in the root directory of the filesysystem (i.e. "/" on Unix or "C:\" on Windows)"
Of course not, but burying things several levels deep is even worse. Putting everything in root would be only using tld's. Putting things one dir deep would be like using just the current registered domain with not subdomain such as x.com. The current system I am saying is quite enough is x.x.com. And things have gone much too far with x.x.x.com. Websites with that many sub-levels of content are confusing and unwieldy. Directory structures that do so are also confusing (especially if they use the same names for sub-folders in different folders).
The fewer levels of depth and sub-classification the easier it is for HUMANS to parse the address. Sorry mods, my post was a legitimate point, just because something might upset the foreign GUESTS to the forum does not make it flamebait.
"Although I still believe that this would be better served as *.xxx.us instead."
Don't go there. No really. In principle that is great. But we have seen something similar in the public school systems across the us. It is a nightmare. You end up 5-8 segments; addresses like www.ehs.unit40.effingham.il.us *mythical, but the real ones are worse*. Anything beyond three segments is unwieldy.
Woot this is perfect. The first time I saw electric cars I didn't have warm fuzzies for the environment. After all, the oil will last for my lifetime anyway. Instead I thought of the millions of locations that have utility outlets on the outside. If you look for them you discover that every gas station, car wash, apartment buildings, almost all other commercial buildings, and many residences have those outlets outside.
"The last I checked, Stephen Hawking had never been to outer space, though he has observed it from a distance, exactly as I have with alcohol."
Last I checked Stephen Hawking is using every bit of experimentation and information he has available to him. If he could go and there was something to be learned from it then I am sure he would.
You on the other hand have actually gone out of your way to avoid an experience that would give valid information on the subject you are now implying you are an expert on.
"And no doctor should be allowed to treat cancer, unless he himself has had it."
Doctors don't have the option of experiencing cancer so they are doing the best they can. If I were a cancer patient I would certainly prefer an otherwise equally qualified doctor who had an understanding of the subject experience over one who did not. Especially when it comes to prescribing medications related to pain, nausea, and other subjective experiences.
If the subjective experience were not critical, then doctors wouldn't bother talking to the patients at all.
You have the option of gaining the experience that the doctors can not, and you propose to position yourself as an expert in a forum full of people who have access to all the information you do AND information gained through subjective experience.
Marijuana is an example of this. There are massive volumes of propaganda on the subject. Marijuana becomes a gateway drug because any high school student who tries it discovers that almost everything he was told in DARE class is false or misrepresented. Without actual experience there is no way to tell the difference between the false war on drugs information and actual data.
"Newsflash: You drive on the same roads other people drive on. I don't care what you're "against".. either the car will be to spec or you'll be breaking the law. As soon as you operate your vehicle on a public road you lose a bit of autonomy decided what will and will not be functional on your car. If you don't like it, don't drive."
And who would you recommend I give this authority to? You? I think not. I also have no qualms about breaking the law. The law means nothing to me. I prefer to work on a right versus wrong basis. You can keep your corrupt and unworkable legal system. The rules I follow are not open to the highest bidder (unless perhaps it is me that they are going to pay the bid to instead of a congressman).
"If enough people back the in-vehicle detection system, it will happen. If enough people try to remove it, we'll get laws passed that will stick your ass in the clink for a considerable length of time. My father had three DUIs in his lifetime and he just couldn't seem to get the fucking message. Thankfully he didn't kill anybody. I'd have been very grateful had something like this detector been installed in his car, and I'm sorry, but given the number of DUI license plates I see here in Ohio (i.e. just the ones they actually caught) I don't trust any of you."
An argument could be made for putting a detector in the car of someone convicted of a DUI. Probably something that would go hand in hand with probation (there is no reason a mistake should give the government hooks into you beyond the term of punishment). However, I don't drink. I will not be treated as if I am a criminal who can't be trusted and must be policed as if the police were somehow more competent than myself.
"For those of you from other states, I'd highly recommend distinctive license plates so you can identify the known idiots fairly quickly. Ours are yellow with red numbers. Don't want your kid or spouse to have to drive your car with these plates? Then don't drink and drive...sheesh."
Hell why not brand or tattoo them? We live in a society where you are caught doing something wrong, you are punished, and then after you complete your punishment your debt is considered paid in full. That is why we don't chop the hands off thieves or brand criminals. Your license plate is worse.
"My father had three DUIs in his lifetime and he just couldn't seem to get the fucking message."
Ahh I see. What you are saying is that you have no place in this conversation either due to admitted bias.
P.S. The 15% is just the most obvious adjustment. Out of your 16,000 supposed deaths, maybe 2,000 are actual deaths that were actually CAUSED by a driver with alcohol in his system. As previously discussed the legal limit and drunk are two different things, so those numbers would be further reduced if you only counted those who were actually drunk and not just bad drivers on their home from a business meeting in which they had a drink.
Because Opera is a commercial product and the reason they hid the flaws is to give users a false impression that their product is more secure than it really is.
I think Asprin is a drug. Almost everything is a drug. Perhaps you need to look a little deeper at what your own alternate definition of drug is, and then figure out why.
"you are either in denial or ignorant. Period."
We have already established that it is in fact you who are completely ignorant of the topic. You don't know the taste, you don't know the differences between different forms of consumption, you don't know the effects, you know absolutely nothing about the substance you are attempting to classify. If you have any information at all it comes from third party sources that may or may not be accurate. You have declared that the heavens revolve around the earth and actually go out of your way to avoid situations where you could look out of a telescope.
P.S. I don't drink. When I was 18 I experimented with alcohol and its effects for about a month and filled a notebook with subjective and objective observations. About a year ago I tested anti-hangover pills and active carbon filtering of low grade alcohol to remove contaminents. I added more information to my notebook.
"What a stupid statement. I "willfully choose" ignorance of plenty of things. Drinking antifreeze, raping porcupines, self castration and nude cliff jumping are just a few of them."
Sorry about that, I forgot for a moment that I was posting on Slashdot where anal pricks abound (including me). Let me clarify by stating the obvious condition that experiences which are known to cause irreparable harm are the exception to the rule. That exception that I felt went without saying does not change that willful ignorance is the only true form of stupidity.
Besides that, the porcupine spread her quills, she was asking for it. And even though you have willfully chosen ignorance of raping porcupines I am sure that you understand that disqualifies you from being a keynote speaker at a porcupine fucker convention.
There are plenty of things I remain ignorant of despite the fact that they aren't harmful. I have never put on makeup for instance and have no desire to do so. But I am not refusing the experience, I am simply prioritizing because I believe the knowledge gained from other experiences is more worthwhile. Alcohol, while not high priority, one would actually have to go out of their way to avoid experiencing.
"So I have to jump into a pool of lava before I can tell someone else it isn't smart to jump into a pool of lava?"
Jumping into a pool of lava is an action that is known to cause harm. Taking a drink is not.
"I am missing out on exactly zero by not drinking. I have a full and happy life."
No, your missing out on whatever can be learned about yourself and the things around you that could be experienced with an altered perception. Saying you are missing out on nothing by not doing so is the same as saying there is nothing to be learned by looking at a room through a black light, without having any clue what a black light does.
"I can't imagine a whole lot of people whose dying wish is that they had just tried alcohol once"
Please save the drama. I can't imagine a whole lot of people whose dying wish is that they had just read 'insert classic or great philosophical literature here'. That doesn't somehow change whether or not it is a worthwhile experience. Most experiences that are relatively safe are worth having at least once. Reaching conclusions about things and refusing to learn about them or experience them based on those conclusion is willful ignorance. Willful ignorance is the literal definition of stupidity. I don't say for the sake of name calling, it is a simple statement of fact. Everyone without some sort of actual mental impairment has billions of neurons ready to be shaped by input. This means that everyone has within them the ability to choose whether they want to be intelligent or stupid. Intelligent people are the ones who utilize those neurons, they seek new information and input. Stupid people are the ones who avoid new information and input.
Aside from that, if they are dying of heart failure they might wish they had drank more. Evidence has surfaced that drinking small amounts is beneficial.
"But I know and hear about a lot of people who regret ever taking their first drink (first smoke, first hit of cocaine, first oxycontin, whatever)."
Nicotine, Cocaine, and Oxycontin all have one thing in common. They are physically addictive substances. It is true that some people carry a genetic mutation that causes alcohol to be converted into an addictive substance in the brain. Most do not, including 99% of AA meeting attendees. Most alcoholics have a psychological addiction and anyone can form a psychological addiction to literally anything. There are also no shortage of people who are predisposed to addiction, they will become addicted to something. If you help them overcome one addiction they will turn around and be addicted to something else. My point is, in order for alcohol to be more physically addictive than table sugar you would need to have a genetic defect about as common as allergy to sunlight. Alcohol also does not have any negative physical effects unless taken in very extreme quantities or heavy doses habitually.
"So to say I have no place in this discussion because I've never tried alcohol is ludicrous."
Sorry, but saying that someone without the prerequisite experience to understand a topic has no place debating on that topic is perfectly valid logic. You calling it ludicrous is not a counter point. That's like sitting on a committee that sets safety guidelines for rocket design without having ever designed a rocket.
"I've never drank a drop of alcohol in my life, and never will, so I'd gladly see this feature in every car sold. Mandatory is fine with me."
So what you are saying is that you are entirely ignorant of the topic. You are likely the only person on the forum that has no context to place any of their reasoning on because you have no experience to give you that context. A single drink of alcohol is not a substantial enough amount to make an average adult male feel any effect. As any adult male who has experienced a drink could tell you. I am not talking bout being 'buzzed' or 'drunk', a single drink is not enough to be able to even tell that you have drank any without the aftertaste. A single drink would put an average male over the legal limit. If at a business meeting I had a single drink to avoid offending my boss by refusing his offer, would my car stop operating? I would have a serious problem with that.
"Add up all of those what ifs, and you'll still come up WAY short of the 17,000 people killed each year by drunk drivers."
There aren't 17,000 people killed each year by drunk drivers. There aren't even 17,000 people who died to make up that figure. At least 15% of that 17,000 were added to make up for the ones that the stats missed. As someone else already pointed out, you can find plenty of information about other nonsense that goes into those figures here:
Personally I doubt drunk drivers are responsible for nearly as many accidents as senior citizens. Here in Florida we have the gray panthers lobbying and stopping legislation go in place that would require grandma to show quick response times to keep her license. Don't get me wrong, grandma is almost never in an accident. She will blissfully drive through an intersection and go on her way without seeing the collision that resulted from her action. Traffic accidents are usually caused by someone careless, that doesn't mean the careless one is the one who had the accident.
I am against anyone modifying my car, computer, stereo, TV, clock, lights, or any other tool I own or purchase in a way that removes control from me. If this something is taking control from me because that will allow the tool to perform its function in some improved way, I might be willing to give on this point with little grumbling. But we are talking about something that removes control from the drivers of the car and does so for reasons that have NOTHING to do with improving the operation of the vehicle.
P.S. Choosing not to be drunk is something to be proud of. Willfully choosing ignorance is the definition of stupidity.
I don't drink. Not responsibily, not recreationally, not a drink at a party, not even cough syrup. But there is no way that I would ever consider buying a vehicle that is going to try to police my behavior.
A car is a tool, my tools are used how I want, when I want, for better or wose. They are the tool and I am the operator and the wisdom to decide how, when, and if I will use the tool is going to remain with the operator. If these were legally mandated in vehicles I would remove it aftermarket on principle alone.
"They just had a megalomaniac for a president who erred in judgement and attacked Kuwait."
Indeed. Actually among Iraqis attacking Kuwait was a popular choice since Iraqis believed that Kuwait is stolen Iraqi territory. The error was forgetting that an oil tycoon was at the helm of the United States and stood to lose millions if not billions.
"Ok, they had no chemical weapons production - the chemical weapons they used in Iran and in northern Iraq to kill hundreds of thousands of people magically appeared from behind Saddam's left ear during a magic trick."
Nice dodge, completely ignoring the part where he explained where Iraq DID get its weapons... from us. That Iraq got weapons and money from us is documented fact, whether they EVER had a plant of their own I couldn't say. But of course there were no plants operating when the united states invaded.
"Iraq has had free elections and is in the process of rebuilding itself after decades of dictatorship and former colonial rule that didn't work out very well."
Free elections is a question of semantecs. You believe that is better, that doesn't mean Iraq does. Iraq was a stable country and had a strong economy before US involvement. You can claim Saddam was cruel to his people, but the idea that the nation was not stable under him is a lie. Economic sanctions brought about the poverty in Iraq, and 10 years of US bombing destroyed the infrastructure. It is the massive devestation caused by the United States that Iraq is rebuilding. The puppet government put in place there may be better than saddam for the people but that doesn't change the fact that US had no business invading the sovereign nation of Iraq in the first place.
There were no WMD's, not that Iraqi WMD's are a US concern. There was no connection between Osama bin Laden and Iraq. The manhunt for those reponsible for 9/11 that the American people supported did not include a war against every intimidator in the world, or a holy crusade against aggressive muslims. It included only Osama bin Laden and those responsible.
"It's stored and contained by a relatively responsible and sane government with no intention of using it."
According to whom? Your trust in a government that has done little else but snowball its populace for the past 200 years or so is not only astonishing, it is unfounded. It is the same as those who dismiss conspiracies simply because they are conspiracies. It is true that some things would require lots of participant's and are highly unlikely, but dismissing conspiracies within a government that has been caught with its hands inside the conspiracy cookie jar again and again is a bit naive.
"Iraq's stockpile of WMDs was not alleged - it was filmed and documented by United Nations weapons inspectors and it was actively used against Iran and the Kurds."
Lets stay within the GP's implied time line. I believe he was referring to the alleged stockpile present when the US invaded. That was not merely alleged, it was an outright lie spoken by a president who had been fully briefed time and again on the fact that Iraq did not have and was not constructing those weapons.
"North Korea's stockpile isn't alleged either - they've admitted on numerous occasions that they have weaponized Uranium and have working nuclear weapons. Furthermore, they've threatened to actually use those weapons against those they perceive as conspiring against them (ie "sea of fire...")."
I can do that one.
The United States stockpile isn't alleged either - they've admitted on numerous occasions that they have weaponized Uranium and have working nuclear weapons. Furthermore, they are the only nation to have irresponsibly used those weapons and have done so on multiple occasions.
Any impartial observer would be forced to admit that the United States is more likely to use nuclear weapons than any other nation. We have instigated or gotten ourselves into the middle of bloodshed all over the globe and continue to do so as an active process. Since we tasted blood in WWII the United States has been in an almost constant unending state of undeclared war. The United States has slaughtered MILLIONS of its own people. The United States also had a Eugenics cleansing program not very different from what the Nazi's did with Jews, the program did not completely die until the 70's.
Before our chemical weapons programs went underground the weapons were tested extensively on our own soldiers on a large scale and without consent.
"Iraq murdered hundreds of thousands of its own citizens and attacked its neighbors"
As said previously the United States has killed millions of its own citizens. I believe your Iraq numbers are also exaggerated propaganda. As for attacking neighbors, Kuwait at least was believed by Iraqi's to rightfully belong to Iraq. The invasion of Kuwait was a rescue mission to liberate and reclaim that lost part of Iraq.
But then, lets not pretend that any war mongering Iraq perpetuated could possibly compare to the war mongering of the United States. The United States assaults and conquers nations under the guise of a liberator, spreading democracy. What the United States really spreads are puppet governments to mop up the rivers of blood we leave.
"North Korea is threatening nearby democracies with nuclear destruction while its citizens starve en masse in an Orwellian police state"
Maybe, maybe not. The United States is notorious for spreading lies and propaganda about its enemies. This is especially true if the government is communist. God knows a ongoing attack against the evil adherents of an opposing economic system is justified. Surely, everyone who strives for that sort of economic system where everyone has what they need is vile and evil. Also, a police state does not mean the citizens are starving. The United States has was one of the worst concentrations of wealth among an elite class in the world. Something like 95% of the nations wealth is controlled by 1% of the population. Now the United States has a great deal of wealth, and 5% provides a decent standard of living relative to the rest of the world but that is hardly the result of being good, pure, or right.
That isn't to say we are the bad guys, but we certainly are not the good guys. It is all a matter of perspective.
I love how everyone shivers at how terrible and evil communist NK is. Their nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare programs ALL pale in comparison to our own. Our weapons grade corrosive sarin's dad could kick their sarin's dad's ass.
tsk tsk, it has nothing to do with the oil. Well, okay, maybe it has a little to do with the oil. Alright, alright, maybe it has a lot to do with the oil. But you also have to remember, North Koreans aren't muslims. It wouldn't be a proper crusade if the christians weren't fighting muslims, now would it?
"Quite frankly, I'm tired of people claiming that their liberty is gone when, without freedom of speech, they wouldn't be able to say such a thing! They can say that they have LESS rights, but don't try to claim that we live under some sort of oppressive dictatorship when we've had elections every two years with multiple candidates."
Except that it has been proven that counts have been drastically wrong in a large number of districts and it has been shown that the opportunity and technical feasibility existed to rig the elections in those districts. There is a mountain of evidence to support a claim of Republican electronic vote tampering in the last presidential election. You make it sound like things went smoothly. That is ignoring the dubious circumstances of the first Bush election. With everything that went on there, I wouldn't have been comfortable with any result. You can shake a pinball machine to gain an unfair advantage, but if you shake too much the machine will register a tilt. Sometimes you lose the ball or miss the shot despite shaking the machine. It is likely that someone was shaking the machine during the elections, but the democrat vote was such a landslide that it overcame the advantage.
"Quite frankly, I'm tired of people claiming that their liberty is gone when, without freedom of speech, they wouldn't be able to say such a thing!"
I just filled out a petition to initiate the impeachment process against Bush for the undisputed violation of at least 4 US Codes of Law, the Geneva convention, and the Constitution. I showed this to 10 other people. All of them agreed that Bush should be impeached. They were all afraid to put their names on the paperwork. This wasn't some underground anti-government group or a like-minded club. These are separate individuals. They were literally afraid that they would be persecuted like others have.
If you say the wrong keywords on your phone conversation it will be wiretapped without judicial oversight and anti-American (read anti-bush) sentiments CAN get you investigated. Bush has empowered himself to have you arrested without being charged and detained indefinitely without trial. Who knows how many times he has used this? By definition nobody is informed, if someone is arrested this way they simply disappear. After being detained without charge or trial, Bush has empowered himself to literally torture you.
It sounds crazy. Like something out of a sci-fi novel or something but its not. All of this fact and is not even debated. Bush actually has the nerve to admit all of this publicly. He claims he has the right to do all this because congress said he could go in Iraq. Congress does not have the authority to allow Bush to conduct searches of mail and communications without a warrant, that is Constitutional Law and would require an amendment.
Hey maybe you support prayer in school. Maybe you don't want to see tax hikes or want smaller government. Strong support of the right to bear arms? Perhaps you feel that abortion is murder. That's great. Some of those things I agree with, some I don't. Others I might agree with the principle but believe in a different solution. But don't back this bloodthirsty madman who wants to set himself as a dictator just because he has an (R) by his name on the television screen. Unless you actually want to see things move to the point where even a slashdot post can get you arrested people like Bush need to be put down hard. The moment you have LESS rights there is a problem, as time goes on you should have MORE rights, not less. 9/11 was a terrible tragedy and my heart goes out to the people who died and lost loved ones there. My family before me fought in Vietnam, WWII, the civil war, and the revolution. MY forefathers spilled blood and puss in the mud so that I would have the freedoms I enjoy. I am not willing to give up any of those freedoms because I am afraid of some terrorist and need GWB to protect me. Our forefathers were at war with over 60% of the population loyal to the other side. Instead o
"The impeachment process was designed to work that way: it's not supposed to be used just because you disagree with the other party's politics,"
It isn't a question of Republican politics. In general I don't support Democrat politics anymore than I do Republican (at least if you exclude the Republican politics that only came about to prop up the Republican president). GWB broke the law, repeatedly, not even the President is above the law. This is precisely what impeachment is for. It doesn't matter who follows him into office, you aren't going to expel a party by tossing one guy. The message is still sent, loud and clear, the people of the United States will NOT just take whatever Bush force feeds down their throat.
"Scientific evidence shows that neither liberals nor conservatives actually switch off the logic centers of the brain and work solely using the emotional centers of the brain when anything related to politics is being considered or if a political party is mentioned."
Should read:
Scientific evidence shows that BOTH liberals AND conservatives actually switch off the logic centers of the brain and work solely using the emotional centers of the brain when anything related to politics is being considered or if a political party is mentioned.
I think it's possible that you're so defensive about the topic that you're parroting this talking point without actually accepting reality.
His talking point is correct. Unfortunately for him it doesn't support his case. The corrupt and bad actions of this president are corrupt and bad regardless of what any other president has done previously. If a president is violating the constitution and abusing power he should be punished. If presidents before him got away with the same offenses then that is a sad historical fact. But that doesn't mean a bad course of action should be continued. Carter should have been smacked down for his wrongdoings just as surely as Bush should be. Frequency and severity of the statements and intentions only comes into play when determining how hard to smack.
If he issues an executive order to break the law (executive orders neither make, nor change the law) then he is personally responsible and accountable for it. For instance, an executive order to violate the Constitution by searching mail without a warrant would be evidence in black and white that would make an impeachment hearing (and a criminal trial following it) a mere formality.
A signing statement on the other hand is just an opinion. The executive branch with enforce the law in accordance with his signing statement and will use it as defense if ever called into question. But you can't impeach someone for simply giving their opinion on how a law should be interpreted.
The effect is the same but the semantics change the accountability factor dramatically.
"Mind you, that was during the Carter administration, for any of you partisan boobs out there."
Unfortunately for your argument there are still a few of us who think dirty corrupt presidents are bad regardless of whether there were dirty corrupt presidents previously who subscribed to a different class of group think.
Although I will give the liberals one thing, at least they never actually used the word 'intellectual' as if it were a slur. Last I checked, acting based upon intellect is what... intelligent... people strive for. I mean really, how can you respect an individual who just called someone a 'pointy headed intellectual' and thereby called himself an idiot?
Yes that is called probable cause and warrants are granted with probable cause. In that case they should get the warrant first since the round isn't going anywhere in the meantime. If it might be a bomb on a ticker they can actually open the thing and go back for the warrant later. If they do a search and can't show probable cause then there are reprecussions.
Bush is not saying mail should be searched when there is probable cause that would justify a warrant. That power belongs to law enforcement at all levels already. Bush is saying that he should be able to open mail if he thinks there might be something there he wants to read 'to fight terror, hehehe'.
Slashdot Mirror
Really? I will be sure to let all those foreign .com address know that. There are non-country specific tld domains registered to people and companies all over the world. Especially .com's. In fact, I can't even think of any country specific urls off hand other than the bbc site.
"I'd be much more interested in http://www.joes-pizza.lowell.ma.us/ than in http://www.joes-pizza.com/"
Easier to parse for a computer. But it would be a nightmare to try to remember more than two or three addresses that way. I don't know about you, but I pull up numerous sites on a lot of different computers. I need to be able to recall the full url for all of those sites from memory and need to be able to add and remove urls from the list without a study session.
"Do you keep all your files in your computer in the root directory of the filesysystem (i.e. "/" on Unix or "C:\" on Windows)"
Of course not, but burying things several levels deep is even worse. Putting everything in root would be only using tld's. Putting things one dir deep would be like using just the current registered domain with not subdomain such as x.com. The current system I am saying is quite enough is x.x.com. And things have gone much too far with x.x.x.com. Websites with that many sub-levels of content are confusing and unwieldy. Directory structures that do so are also confusing (especially if they use the same names for sub-folders in different folders).
The fewer levels of depth and sub-classification the easier it is for HUMANS to parse the address. Sorry mods, my post was a legitimate point, just because something might upset the foreign GUESTS to the forum does not make it flamebait.
"Although I still believe that this would be better served as *.xxx.us instead."
Don't go there. No really. In principle that is great. But we have seen something similar in the public school systems across the us. It is a nightmare. You end up 5-8 segments; addresses like www.ehs.unit40.effingham.il.us *mythical, but the real ones are worse*. Anything beyond three segments is unwieldy.
Woot this is perfect. The first time I saw electric cars I didn't have warm fuzzies for the environment. After all, the oil will last for my lifetime anyway. Instead I thought of the millions of locations that have utility outlets on the outside. If you look for them you discover that every gas station, car wash, apartment buildings, almost all other commercial buildings, and many residences have those outlets outside.
How fast does this sucker charge?
"The last I checked, Stephen Hawking had never been to outer space, though he has observed it from a distance, exactly as I have with alcohol."
Last I checked Stephen Hawking is using every bit of experimentation and information he has available to him. If he could go and there was something to be learned from it then I am sure he would.
You on the other hand have actually gone out of your way to avoid an experience that would give valid information on the subject you are now implying you are an expert on.
"And no doctor should be allowed to treat cancer, unless he himself has had it."
Doctors don't have the option of experiencing cancer so they are doing the best they can. If I were a cancer patient I would certainly prefer an otherwise equally qualified doctor who had an understanding of the subject experience over one who did not. Especially when it comes to prescribing medications related to pain, nausea, and other subjective experiences.
If the subjective experience were not critical, then doctors wouldn't bother talking to the patients at all.
You have the option of gaining the experience that the doctors can not, and you propose to position yourself as an expert in a forum full of people who have access to all the information you do AND information gained through subjective experience.
Marijuana is an example of this. There are massive volumes of propaganda on the subject. Marijuana becomes a gateway drug because any high school student who tries it discovers that almost everything he was told in DARE class is false or misrepresented. Without actual experience there is no way to tell the difference between the false war on drugs information and actual data.
"Newsflash: You drive on the same roads other people drive on. I don't care what you're "against".. either the car will be to spec or you'll be breaking the law. As soon as you operate your vehicle on a public road you lose a bit of autonomy decided what will and will not be functional on your car. If you don't like it, don't drive."
And who would you recommend I give this authority to? You? I think not. I also have no qualms about breaking the law. The law means nothing to me. I prefer to work on a right versus wrong basis. You can keep your corrupt and unworkable legal system. The rules I follow are not open to the highest bidder (unless perhaps it is me that they are going to pay the bid to instead of a congressman).
"If enough people back the in-vehicle detection system, it will happen. If enough people try to remove it, we'll get laws passed that will stick your ass in the clink for a considerable length of time. My father had three DUIs in his lifetime and he just couldn't seem to get the fucking message. Thankfully he didn't kill anybody. I'd have been very grateful had something like this detector been installed in his car, and I'm sorry, but given the number of DUI license plates I see here in Ohio (i.e. just the ones they actually caught) I don't trust any of you."
An argument could be made for putting a detector in the car of someone convicted of a DUI. Probably something that would go hand in hand with probation (there is no reason a mistake should give the government hooks into you beyond the term of punishment). However, I don't drink. I will not be treated as if I am a criminal who can't be trusted and must be policed as if the police were somehow more competent than myself.
"For those of you from other states, I'd highly recommend distinctive license plates so you can identify the known idiots fairly quickly. Ours are yellow with red numbers. Don't want your kid or spouse to have to drive your car with these plates? Then don't drink and drive...sheesh."
Hell why not brand or tattoo them? We live in a society where you are caught doing something wrong, you are punished, and then after you complete your punishment your debt is considered paid in full. That is why we don't chop the hands off thieves or brand criminals. Your license plate is worse.
"My father had three DUIs in his lifetime and he just couldn't seem to get the fucking message."
Ahh I see. What you are saying is that you have no place in this conversation either due to admitted bias.
P.S. The 15% is just the most obvious adjustment. Out of your 16,000 supposed deaths, maybe 2,000 are actual deaths that were actually CAUSED by a driver with alcohol in his system. As previously discussed the legal limit and drunk are two different things, so those numbers would be further reduced if you only counted those who were actually drunk and not just bad drivers on their home from a business meeting in which they had a drink.
Because Opera is a commercial product and the reason they hid the flaws is to give users a false impression that their product is more secure than it really is.
"If you think alcohol isn't a drug"
I think Asprin is a drug. Almost everything is a drug. Perhaps you need to look a little deeper at what your own alternate definition of drug is, and then figure out why.
"you are either in denial or ignorant. Period."
We have already established that it is in fact you who are completely ignorant of the topic. You don't know the taste, you don't know the differences between different forms of consumption, you don't know the effects, you know absolutely nothing about the substance you are attempting to classify. If you have any information at all it comes from third party sources that may or may not be accurate. You have declared that the heavens revolve around the earth and actually go out of your way to avoid situations where you could look out of a telescope.
P.S. I don't drink. When I was 18 I experimented with alcohol and its effects for about a month and filled a notebook with subjective and objective observations. About a year ago I tested anti-hangover pills and active carbon filtering of low grade alcohol to remove contaminents. I added more information to my notebook.
"What a stupid statement. I "willfully choose" ignorance of plenty of things. Drinking antifreeze, raping porcupines, self castration and nude cliff jumping are just a few of them."
Sorry about that, I forgot for a moment that I was posting on Slashdot where anal pricks abound (including me). Let me clarify by stating the obvious condition that experiences which are known to cause irreparable harm are the exception to the rule. That exception that I felt went without saying does not change that willful ignorance is the only true form of stupidity.
Besides that, the porcupine spread her quills, she was asking for it. And even though you have willfully chosen ignorance of raping porcupines I am sure that you understand that disqualifies you from being a keynote speaker at a porcupine fucker convention.
There are plenty of things I remain ignorant of despite the fact that they aren't harmful. I have never put on makeup for instance and have no desire to do so. But I am not refusing the experience, I am simply prioritizing because I believe the knowledge gained from other experiences is more worthwhile. Alcohol, while not high priority, one would actually have to go out of their way to avoid experiencing.
P.S. I haven't drank since I was 18.
"So I have to jump into a pool of lava before I can tell someone else it isn't smart to jump into a pool of lava?"
Jumping into a pool of lava is an action that is known to cause harm. Taking a drink is not.
"I am missing out on exactly zero by not drinking. I have a full and happy life."
No, your missing out on whatever can be learned about yourself and the things around you that could be experienced with an altered perception. Saying you are missing out on nothing by not doing so is the same as saying there is nothing to be learned by looking at a room through a black light, without having any clue what a black light does.
"I can't imagine a whole lot of people whose dying wish is that they had just tried alcohol once"
Please save the drama. I can't imagine a whole lot of people whose dying wish is that they had just read 'insert classic or great philosophical literature here'. That doesn't somehow change whether or not it is a worthwhile experience. Most experiences that are relatively safe are worth having at least once. Reaching conclusions about things and refusing to learn about them or experience them based on those conclusion is willful ignorance. Willful ignorance is the literal definition of stupidity. I don't say for the sake of name calling, it is a simple statement of fact. Everyone without some sort of actual mental impairment has billions of neurons ready to be shaped by input. This means that everyone has within them the ability to choose whether they want to be intelligent or stupid. Intelligent people are the ones who utilize those neurons, they seek new information and input. Stupid people are the ones who avoid new information and input.
Aside from that, if they are dying of heart failure they might wish they had drank more. Evidence has surfaced that drinking small amounts is beneficial.
"But I know and hear about a lot of people who regret ever taking their first drink (first smoke, first hit of cocaine, first oxycontin, whatever)."
Nicotine, Cocaine, and Oxycontin all have one thing in common. They are physically addictive substances. It is true that some people carry a genetic mutation that causes alcohol to be converted into an addictive substance in the brain. Most do not, including 99% of AA meeting attendees. Most alcoholics have a psychological addiction and anyone can form a psychological addiction to literally anything. There are also no shortage of people who are predisposed to addiction, they will become addicted to something. If you help them overcome one addiction they will turn around and be addicted to something else. My point is, in order for alcohol to be more physically addictive than table sugar you would need to have a genetic defect about as common as allergy to sunlight. Alcohol also does not have any negative physical effects unless taken in very extreme quantities or heavy doses habitually.
"So to say I have no place in this discussion because I've never tried alcohol is ludicrous."
Sorry, but saying that someone without the prerequisite experience to understand a topic has no place debating on that topic is perfectly valid logic. You calling it ludicrous is not a counter point. That's like sitting on a committee that sets safety guidelines for rocket design without having ever designed a rocket.
"I've never drank a drop of alcohol in my life, and never will, so I'd gladly see this feature in every car sold. Mandatory is fine with me."
n g_madd.htm
So what you are saying is that you are entirely ignorant of the topic. You are likely the only person on the forum that has no context to place any of their reasoning on because you have no experience to give you that context. A single drink of alcohol is not a substantial enough amount to make an average adult male feel any effect. As any adult male who has experienced a drink could tell you. I am not talking bout being 'buzzed' or 'drunk', a single drink is not enough to be able to even tell that you have drank any without the aftertaste. A single drink would put an average male over the legal limit. If at a business meeting I had a single drink to avoid offending my boss by refusing his offer, would my car stop operating? I would have a serious problem with that.
"Add up all of those what ifs, and you'll still come up WAY short of the 17,000 people killed each year by drunk drivers."
There aren't 17,000 people killed each year by drunk drivers. There aren't even 17,000 people who died to make up that figure. At least 15% of that 17,000 were added to make up for the ones that the stats missed. As someone else already pointed out, you can find plenty of information about other nonsense that goes into those figures here:
http://www.drunkard.com/issues/08_02/08_02_fighti
Personally I doubt drunk drivers are responsible for nearly as many accidents as senior citizens. Here in Florida we have the gray panthers lobbying and stopping legislation go in place that would require grandma to show quick response times to keep her license. Don't get me wrong, grandma is almost never in an accident. She will blissfully drive through an intersection and go on her way without seeing the collision that resulted from her action. Traffic accidents are usually caused by someone careless, that doesn't mean the careless one is the one who had the accident.
I am against anyone modifying my car, computer, stereo, TV, clock, lights, or any other tool I own or purchase in a way that removes control from me. If this something is taking control from me because that will allow the tool to perform its function in some improved way, I might be willing to give on this point with little grumbling. But we are talking about something that removes control from the drivers of the car and does so for reasons that have NOTHING to do with improving the operation of the vehicle.
P.S. Choosing not to be drunk is something to be proud of. Willfully choosing ignorance is the definition of stupidity.
I don't drink. Not responsibily, not recreationally, not a drink at a party, not even cough syrup. But there is no way that I would ever consider buying a vehicle that is going to try to police my behavior.
A car is a tool, my tools are used how I want, when I want, for better or wose. They are the tool and I am the operator and the wisdom to decide how, when, and if I will use the tool is going to remain with the operator. If these were legally mandated in vehicles I would remove it aftermarket on principle alone.
"They just had a megalomaniac for a president who erred in judgement and attacked Kuwait."
Indeed. Actually among Iraqis attacking Kuwait was a popular choice since Iraqis believed that Kuwait is stolen Iraqi territory. The error was forgetting that an oil tycoon was at the helm of the United States and stood to lose millions if not billions.
"Ok, they had no chemical weapons production - the chemical weapons they used in Iran and in northern Iraq to kill hundreds of thousands of people magically appeared from behind Saddam's left ear during a magic trick."
Nice dodge, completely ignoring the part where he explained where Iraq DID get its weapons... from us. That Iraq got weapons and money from us is documented fact, whether they EVER had a plant of their own I couldn't say. But of course there were no plants operating when the united states invaded.
"Iraq has had free elections and is in the process of rebuilding itself after decades of dictatorship and former colonial rule that didn't work out very well."
Free elections is a question of semantecs. You believe that is better, that doesn't mean Iraq does. Iraq was a stable country and had a strong economy before US involvement. You can claim Saddam was cruel to his people, but the idea that the nation was not stable under him is a lie. Economic sanctions brought about the poverty in Iraq, and 10 years of US bombing destroyed the infrastructure. It is the massive devestation caused by the United States that Iraq is rebuilding. The puppet government put in place there may be better than saddam for the people but that doesn't change the fact that US had no business invading the sovereign nation of Iraq in the first place.
There were no WMD's, not that Iraqi WMD's are a US concern. There was no connection between Osama bin Laden and Iraq. The manhunt for those reponsible for 9/11 that the American people supported did not include a war against every intimidator in the world, or a holy crusade against aggressive muslims. It included only Osama bin Laden and those responsible.
"It's stored and contained by a relatively responsible and sane government with no intention of using it."
According to whom? Your trust in a government that has done little else but snowball its populace for the past 200 years or so is not only astonishing, it is unfounded. It is the same as those who dismiss conspiracies simply because they are conspiracies. It is true that some things would require lots of participant's and are highly unlikely, but dismissing conspiracies within a government that has been caught with its hands inside the conspiracy cookie jar again and again is a bit naive.
"Iraq's stockpile of WMDs was not alleged - it was filmed and documented by United Nations weapons inspectors and it was actively used against Iran and the Kurds."
Lets stay within the GP's implied time line. I believe he was referring to the alleged stockpile present when the US invaded. That was not merely alleged, it was an outright lie spoken by a president who had been fully briefed time and again on the fact that Iraq did not have and was not constructing those weapons.
"North Korea's stockpile isn't alleged either - they've admitted on numerous occasions that they have weaponized Uranium and have working nuclear weapons. Furthermore, they've threatened to actually use those weapons against those they perceive as conspiring against them (ie "sea of fire...")."
I can do that one.
The United States stockpile isn't alleged either - they've admitted on numerous occasions that they have weaponized Uranium and have working nuclear weapons. Furthermore, they are the only nation to have irresponsibly used those weapons and have done so on multiple occasions.
Any impartial observer would be forced to admit that the United States is more likely to use nuclear weapons than any other nation. We have instigated or gotten ourselves into the middle of bloodshed all over the globe and continue to do so as an active process. Since we tasted blood in WWII the United States has been in an almost constant unending state of undeclared war. The United States has slaughtered MILLIONS of its own people. The United States also had a Eugenics cleansing program not very different from what the Nazi's did with Jews, the program did not completely die until the 70's.
Before our chemical weapons programs went underground the weapons were tested extensively on our own soldiers on a large scale and without consent.
"Iraq murdered hundreds of thousands of its own citizens and attacked its neighbors"
As said previously the United States has killed millions of its own citizens. I believe your Iraq numbers are also exaggerated propaganda. As for attacking neighbors, Kuwait at least was believed by Iraqi's to rightfully belong to Iraq. The invasion of Kuwait was a rescue mission to liberate and reclaim that lost part of Iraq.
But then, lets not pretend that any war mongering Iraq perpetuated could possibly compare to the war mongering of the United States. The United States assaults and conquers nations under the guise of a liberator, spreading democracy. What the United States really spreads are puppet governments to mop up the rivers of blood we leave.
"North Korea is threatening nearby democracies with nuclear destruction while its citizens starve en masse in an Orwellian police state"
Maybe, maybe not. The United States is notorious for spreading lies and propaganda about its enemies. This is especially true if the government is communist. God knows a ongoing attack against the evil adherents of an opposing economic system is justified. Surely, everyone who strives for that sort of economic system where everyone has what they need is vile and evil. Also, a police state does not mean the citizens are starving. The United States has was one of the worst concentrations of wealth among an elite class in the world. Something like 95% of the nations wealth is controlled by 1% of the population. Now the United States has a great deal of wealth, and 5% provides a decent standard of living relative to the rest of the world but that is hardly the result of being good, pure, or right.
That isn't to say we are the bad guys, but we certainly are not the good guys. It is all a matter of perspective.
As if we haven't got dozens of super bugs packed away in the biological warfare and chemical weapons facilities we don't have.
I love how everyone shivers at how terrible and evil communist NK is. Their nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare programs ALL pale in comparison to our own. Our weapons grade corrosive sarin's dad could kick their sarin's dad's ass.
tsk tsk, it has nothing to do with the oil. Well, okay, maybe it has a little to do with the oil. Alright, alright, maybe it has a lot to do with the oil. But you also have to remember, North Koreans aren't muslims. It wouldn't be a proper crusade if the christians weren't fighting muslims, now would it?
"Quite frankly, I'm tired of people claiming that their liberty is gone when, without freedom of speech, they wouldn't be able to say such a thing! They can say that they have LESS rights, but don't try to claim that we live under some sort of oppressive dictatorship when we've had elections every two years with multiple candidates."
Except that it has been proven that counts have been drastically wrong in a large number of districts and it has been shown that the opportunity and technical feasibility existed to rig the elections in those districts. There is a mountain of evidence to support a claim of Republican electronic vote tampering in the last presidential election. You make it sound like things went smoothly. That is ignoring the dubious circumstances of the first Bush election. With everything that went on there, I wouldn't have been comfortable with any result. You can shake a pinball machine to gain an unfair advantage, but if you shake too much the machine will register a tilt. Sometimes you lose the ball or miss the shot despite shaking the machine. It is likely that someone was shaking the machine during the elections, but the democrat vote was such a landslide that it overcame the advantage.
"Quite frankly, I'm tired of people claiming that their liberty is gone when, without freedom of speech, they wouldn't be able to say such a thing!"
I just filled out a petition to initiate the impeachment process against Bush for the undisputed violation of at least 4 US Codes of Law, the Geneva convention, and the Constitution. I showed this to 10 other people. All of them agreed that Bush should be impeached. They were all afraid to put their names on the paperwork. This wasn't some underground anti-government group or a like-minded club. These are separate individuals. They were literally afraid that they would be persecuted like others have.
If you say the wrong keywords on your phone conversation it will be wiretapped without judicial oversight and anti-American (read anti-bush) sentiments CAN get you investigated. Bush has empowered himself to have you arrested without being charged and detained indefinitely without trial. Who knows how many times he has used this? By definition nobody is informed, if someone is arrested this way they simply disappear. After being detained without charge or trial, Bush has empowered himself to literally torture you.
It sounds crazy. Like something out of a sci-fi novel or something but its not. All of this fact and is not even debated. Bush actually has the nerve to admit all of this publicly. He claims he has the right to do all this because congress said he could go in Iraq. Congress does not have the authority to allow Bush to conduct searches of mail and communications without a warrant, that is Constitutional Law and would require an amendment.
Hey maybe you support prayer in school. Maybe you don't want to see tax hikes or want smaller government. Strong support of the right to bear arms? Perhaps you feel that abortion is murder. That's great. Some of those things I agree with, some I don't. Others I might agree with the principle but believe in a different solution. But don't back this bloodthirsty madman who wants to set himself as a dictator just because he has an (R) by his name on the television screen. Unless you actually want to see things move to the point where even a slashdot post can get you arrested people like Bush need to be put down hard. The moment you have LESS rights there is a problem, as time goes on you should have MORE rights, not less. 9/11 was a terrible tragedy and my heart goes out to the people who died and lost loved ones there. My family before me fought in Vietnam, WWII, the civil war, and the revolution. MY forefathers spilled blood and puss in the mud so that I would have the freedoms I enjoy. I am not willing to give up any of those freedoms because I am afraid of some terrorist and need GWB to protect me. Our forefathers were at war with over 60% of the population loyal to the other side. Instead o
"The impeachment process was designed to work that way: it's not supposed to be used just because you disagree with the other party's politics,"
It isn't a question of Republican politics. In general I don't support Democrat politics anymore than I do Republican (at least if you exclude the Republican politics that only came about to prop up the Republican president). GWB broke the law, repeatedly, not even the President is above the law. This is precisely what impeachment is for. It doesn't matter who follows him into office, you aren't going to expel a party by tossing one guy. The message is still sent, loud and clear, the people of the United States will NOT just take whatever Bush force feeds down their throat.
"Scientific evidence shows that neither liberals nor conservatives actually switch off the logic centers of the brain and work solely using the emotional centers of the brain when anything related to politics is being considered or if a political party is mentioned."
Should read:
Scientific evidence shows that BOTH liberals AND conservatives actually switch off the logic centers of the brain and work solely using the emotional centers of the brain when anything related to politics is being considered or if a political party is mentioned.
I think it's possible that you're so defensive about the topic that you're parroting this talking point without actually accepting reality.
His talking point is correct. Unfortunately for him it doesn't support his case. The corrupt and bad actions of this president are corrupt and bad regardless of what any other president has done previously. If a president is violating the constitution and abusing power he should be punished. If presidents before him got away with the same offenses then that is a sad historical fact. But that doesn't mean a bad course of action should be continued. Carter should have been smacked down for his wrongdoings just as surely as Bush should be. Frequency and severity of the statements and intentions only comes into play when determining how hard to smack.
If he issues an executive order to break the law (executive orders neither make, nor change the law) then he is personally responsible and accountable for it. For instance, an executive order to violate the Constitution by searching mail without a warrant would be evidence in black and white that would make an impeachment hearing (and a criminal trial following it) a mere formality.
A signing statement on the other hand is just an opinion. The executive branch with enforce the law in accordance with his signing statement and will use it as defense if ever called into question. But you can't impeach someone for simply giving their opinion on how a law should be interpreted.
The effect is the same but the semantics change the accountability factor dramatically.
"Mind you, that was during the Carter administration, for any of you partisan boobs out there."
Unfortunately for your argument there are still a few of us who think dirty corrupt presidents are bad regardless of whether there were dirty corrupt presidents previously who subscribed to a different class of group think.
Although I will give the liberals one thing, at least they never actually used the word 'intellectual' as if it were a slur. Last I checked, acting based upon intellect is what... intelligent... people strive for. I mean really, how can you respect an individual who just called someone a 'pointy headed intellectual' and thereby called himself an idiot?
Yes that is called probable cause and warrants are granted with probable cause. In that case they should get the warrant first since the round isn't going anywhere in the meantime. If it might be a bomb on a ticker they can actually open the thing and go back for the warrant later. If they do a search and can't show probable cause then there are reprecussions.
Bush is not saying mail should be searched when there is probable cause that would justify a warrant. That power belongs to law enforcement at all levels already. Bush is saying that he should be able to open mail if he thinks there might be something there he wants to read 'to fight terror, hehehe'.