Alcohol is certainly more dangerous to the users and the bystanders than marijuana. But, don't ignore the damage done to bystanders from other drugs. There are plenty of examples of bystanders killed by drivers using drugs other than alcohol. Alcohol is exempted because drinking has been socially acceptable (generally speaking) for eons.
I think many drug-related deaths are due to the illegality of the supply
You're absolutely correct, as far as I'm concerned. The real question is whether or not legallizing certain drugs would produce a net positive effect on society. Sure, we would have fewer murdering drug dealers, but we might have even more addicted young people. Nobody knows the answer to that question, but it may be worth trying an experiment.
but not the USA, where healthcare is not funded by the government.
While health care in the US is not as socialized as in the UK or Canada, the governments (federal and states) spend a fairly large sum of money on health care in the form of medicare and medicaid. Also, if a patient has an emergency and no funds, the hospital is still required to treat him/her. Thus the damage they do to themselves is costing others.
The average yearly number of total pedestrian deaths is around 250
So, according to your own statistics, the driver-caused pedestrian death rate is 5% of the total (12/250). That says to me that there are some really bad pedestrians in NYC. Get them off the sidewalks.
And I don't see how local and state governments that let sidewalks turn to grass but still manage to build hundreds of miles of four-lane highways are derelict.
Appearantly I didn't make myself clear. What I meant was that the local government is derelict in its duty.
12 out of how many million people that live there, plus all the tourists and business people visiting. Not to trivialize death, especially if it is you or a loved one, but in the big picture that is insignigicant. Also, I didn't read your link, but how many of those deaths were because of the pedestrians jaw-walking?
I would say that your second issue is more because of a derelict local government than the cars.
Re:Oil isn't going away anytime soon.
on
The End of the Oil Age
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Technology has existed for some time to curb our need for oil
Are you using this technology? If it is such great technology, the government would not need to promote it. In a free economy, a business would build it and sell it, and make billions.
1) Develop technology to curb need for oil.
2) (Wait for government to promote?)
3) PROFIT!
I'm sorry, what's the problem you're speaking of? Walking to a corner grocery store? We have sidewalks where I live. I'm not particularly concerned about walking on them. Generally speaking, the cars stay off the sidewalks.
The roads are a good example. Granted they indirectly subsidize alternative fuel cars, but they were subsidizing gasoline cars long before alternative fuels were considered.
1) Bush administration cut funding for my tax cut.
2) Congress people too stupid to care about space.
3) Russian components
4) Liberals that want to give poor people more benefits.
n) NASA shouldn't have given CmdrTaco the helm.
Re:Is this book really neccessary??
on
Software Exorcism
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Just to reassure you, I have NEVER experienced problems of the magnitude that this book talks about. I have been in the industry for 16 years, and in my experience, office life is just like outside life. A few mean and sneaky people exist, but the vast majority are friendly and helpful.
I would guess that your experiences depend somewhat on the type of person YOU are.
I live in the DC metro area, and there are quite a few of us who come very close to 100 miles roundtrip commute. Check out I-95 North and South of DC. My commute for several years was around 90 miles. Throw in a side trip to a different office or the doctors, etc, and it would easily be over 100 miles.
Your rights of free speech have been revoked long ago
Can you give me an example of not being able to say anything you want (other than yelling fire in a crowded theater)? Indeed, your post is an example to the contrary.
What about the other rights that we have lost. Which ones are they again?
done without a warrant, prior knowlegde or consent, or even notification after the fact
Check the Patriot Act. It only grants those searches when the target is not a US citizen. That specific section (213) is under Title II, which enhances the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
These examples degrade the right to privacy and the restrictions on search and seizure that were laid out in the fourth amendment to the US constitution.
Surely, you know that an act of Congress does not supercede the US Constitution. If it did, the courts would strike it down.
You have some a good point with regard to tracking civil rights activists. That can be expanded to include nuclear activists and others. I honestly don't know how it was done in the 60s, but today they are actually pretty good about not spying on citizens without probable cause and/or a court order. The courts have gotten pretty strict about the surveillance of citizens without either of those. If you aren't a citizen, then pretty much anything goes.
As far as LSD is concerned, I don't deny that certain government agencies have don't some pretty evil things, but it isn't really part of the issue of spying.
Those initiatives of the DHS really just amount to encouraging people to keep their eyes open. Is that distasteful? Probably. Do I want my neighbor calling the FBI if I have a muslim house guest? No. Will I call the FBI if I see my neighbor with a half ton of fertilizer? Definitely. So, I don't know where the line should be here. The DHS is not spying on us, they just want the information they need to do their jobs.
Of course, you probably don't believe any of this. Just like how you probably have no idea that the DEA spends $1.8billion on the "war" on drugs.
Government is spending billions to hire tons of people to spy on its own people.
You seem to have a lot of knowledge about this. Could you give me an example please? Or are you just regurgitating what you are reading in the NY and LA Times?
.what military threat does China possess? They're a major economic ally now
We may be cozy with them economically, but you could hardly call China an ally. They have a large, very powerful military. They are not afraid to use that military on their own people (Tiananmen (sp?) square and Tibet are obvious examples and others exist), there is no reason to think they wouldn't use the power outside their borders.
Slashdot Mirror
Alcohol is certainly more dangerous to the users and the bystanders than marijuana. But, don't ignore the damage done to bystanders from other drugs. There are plenty of examples of bystanders killed by drivers using drugs other than alcohol. Alcohol is exempted because drinking has been socially acceptable (generally speaking) for eons.
I think many drug-related deaths are due to the illegality of the supply
You're absolutely correct, as far as I'm concerned.
The real question is whether or not legallizing certain drugs would produce a net positive effect on society. Sure, we would have fewer murdering drug dealers, but we might have even more addicted young people. Nobody knows the answer to that question, but it may be worth trying an experiment.
While health care in the US is not as socialized as in the UK or Canada, the governments (federal and states) spend a fairly large sum of money on health care in the form of medicare and medicaid. Also, if a patient has an emergency and no funds, the hospital is still required to treat him/her. Thus the damage they do to themselves is costing others.
Otherwise, I tend to agree with your post.
So, according to your own statistics, the driver-caused pedestrian death rate is 5% of the total (12/250). That says to me that there are some really bad pedestrians in NYC. Get them off the sidewalks.
And I don't see how local and state governments that let sidewalks turn to grass but still manage to build hundreds of miles of four-lane highways are derelict.
Appearantly I didn't make myself clear. What I meant was that the local government is derelict in its duty.
I would say that your second issue is more because of a derelict local government than the cars.
Are you using this technology? If it is such great technology, the government would not need to promote it. In a free economy, a business would build it and sell it, and make billions.
1) Develop technology to curb need for oil.
2) (Wait for government to promote?)
3) PROFIT!
You're not wrong, you're right on target. The masses will switch to some other form of energy generation when it is economically beneficial.
I'm sorry, what's the problem you're speaking of? Walking to a corner grocery store? We have sidewalks where I live. I'm not particularly concerned about walking on them. Generally speaking, the cars stay off the sidewalks.
The airlines get plenty of subsidies.
Oil exploration also gets subsidized.
1) Bush administration cut funding for my tax cut.
2) Congress people too stupid to care about space. 3) Russian components
4) Liberals that want to give poor people more benefits.
n) NASA shouldn't have given CmdrTaco the helm.
I would guess that your experiences depend somewhat on the type of person YOU are.
What the Hell is that?
I live in the DC metro area, and there are quite a few of us who come very close to 100 miles roundtrip commute. Check out I-95 North and South of DC. My commute for several years was around 90 miles. Throw in a side trip to a different office or the doctors, etc, and it would easily be over 100 miles.
Can you give me an example of not being able to say anything you want (other than yelling fire in a crowded theater)? Indeed, your post is an example to the contrary.
What about the other rights that we have lost. Which ones are they again?
Dirty bombs, though scary, are not generally much more harmful than conventional bombs.
Next time. RTFA
I actually recall seeing an article in a magazine (sorry, forgot which) detailing the idea of building large pneumatic tubes across the Atlantic.
The energy comes from the water pressure requiredd to force the water to flow through the channels.
Check the Patriot Act. It only grants those searches when the target is not a US citizen. That specific section (213) is under Title II, which enhances the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978.
These examples degrade the right to privacy and the restrictions on search and seizure that were laid out in the fourth amendment to the US constitution.
Surely, you know that an act of Congress does not supercede the US Constitution. If it did, the courts would strike it down.
You have some a good point with regard to tracking civil rights activists. That can be expanded to include nuclear activists and others. I honestly don't know how it was done in the 60s, but today they are actually pretty good about not spying on citizens without probable cause and/or a court order. The courts have gotten pretty strict about the surveillance of citizens without either of those. If you aren't a citizen, then pretty much anything goes.
As far as LSD is concerned, I don't deny that certain government agencies have don't some pretty evil things, but it isn't really part of the issue of spying.
Those initiatives of the DHS really just amount to encouraging people to keep their eyes open. Is that distasteful? Probably. Do I want my neighbor calling the FBI if I have a muslim house guest? No. Will I call the FBI if I see my neighbor with a half ton of fertilizer? Definitely. So, I don't know where the line should be here. The DHS is not spying on us, they just want the information they need to do their jobs. Of course, you probably don't believe any of this. Just like how you probably have no idea that the DEA spends $1.8billion on the "war" on drugs.
You don't know me or what I think or believe.
You seem to have a lot of knowledge about this. Could you give me an example please? Or are you just regurgitating what you are reading in the NY and LA Times?
Have a nice day!
We may be cozy with them economically, but you could hardly call China an ally. They have a large, very powerful military. They are not afraid to use that military on their own people (Tiananmen (sp?) square and Tibet are obvious examples and others exist), there is no reason to think they wouldn't use the power outside their borders.
I'm sorry, could you be more specific about the civil rights that I've lost? I don't recall losing any.
Wow, I didn't know GOD had a slashdot account. I bow before thee, oh Great One.
How is this insightful? He didn't even RTFA. The article states that the solar cells are targeted to have a 10% efficiency.