While not popular at the time, cell phones were around in the 50s. They took up the better portion of a typical car trunk/boot at the time. In 1968 increased the frequency range allocation for cell phones, and in 1977, after some more research/prototypes, cell phone use by the average Joe became possible. 1977 was almost 30 years ago.
So, what you're saying is people should ignore the rules of grammar they are taught in school, right? We shouldn't have to worry about being able to correctly communicate our ideas to others. Rather, they should have to infer them through whatever word or phrase of the week is cool on the streets?
No thank you. I would much rather be understood by the 90% of English speakers that actually took the time to learn the language. I would also much rather not pay any attention to those people that didn't bother.
Maybe she can install anything. However, that doesn't mean she can use it to tap into otherwise private conversation. I'll have to duck and run after I type this, but it would be similar to installing LimeWire on your pc. LimeWire, by itself, isn't illegal. However, using it to download copyrighted material might be.
I really don't need to think about it at all. The difference in savins people would realize if it were cheaper would be offset by the number of people unable to do/show up to their jobs. Either way, taxpayers would still be taking care of them... wether that be because they're in jail, or on welfare.
an addict will always do enough work to get themselves their next fix
While it's possible that your statement is sometimes true, it's impossible to use the word always. In my earlier career years, I witnessed, firsthand, an addiction take control of a friend. I tried many times to help, but eventually she not only lost her job because she just stopped showing up, she wound up in jail as well.
In regards to your comment on pot... I never once mentioned pot. I did, however, mention PCP, cocaine, and meth.
Regarding laws that don't affect others, I couldn't agree with you more. I did some research into the seatbelt law in Texas, just because it annoys me. I do wear mine, but don't think it should be by law. As it turns out, the law isn't in effect to protect the good citizens of Texas. Rather, it's was lobbied for by insurance companies. Once again, big business wins out.
Personally, if someone wants to do something stupid and get themselves killed, more power to them. All of these laws are reversing the effects of Darwinism;)
I didn't say it's exactly the same thing... just similar. Frankly, I don't know enough about both to be considered an expert. And, unless you are a doctor or a psychiatrist, I would doubt that you do either.
My point has not been to say drugs and alcohol are the same thing. My point has been to point out that legalizing drugs is not the cure for keeping drug addicts from stealing. However, someone saw fit to mod the original post as offtopic.
That's a solution? You're also ignoring one of the fundamental problems of an addiction. When you have an addiction to a mood/mind altering drug/alcohol, you come down from them. Your next fix isn't as good, and you need to take more to hit that high again. You then come down harder. Eventually, this cycle starts causing other problems with things like your health, your ability to decide what's right from wrong (meaning trying to get up to go to work in the morning... I'm not talking about murder here), etc... Those things can potentially cause someone to lose their job. No job, no income. No income.... well, you see where this is going.
A portion of that moeny can be funneled immideatley into social "safety-net" programs to treat those who have addiction problems
What portion would you suggest that would make everyone happy? The problem is, you can't make everyone happy. I personally don't think any of my hard earned tax dollars should be spent on someone who obviously made some bad choices. I didn't make those bad choices.. why can't I get some free gubment money? I really think rerouting the money spent isn't a great idea at all.
Add to that, legalizing drugs would give some people the perception that there's nothing wrong with doing them (much like cigarettes). With that in mind, you run the risk of even more people becoming addicted, and having to spend more of "my" tax dollars helping these people out.
Filling the jails with them, however, is not a great solution. Drugs are the great conundrum of our time... you're really danged if you do and danged if you don't.
I've got some news for you. PCP, meth, and cocaine users don't get violent because cops are chasing them, they get violent because of a reaction to the drugs. That may be true, however, for other drugs.
can get free doses of methadon
Methadone is also addictive... not a great trade there, one addiction for another.
isn't officially legal but it's "tolerated". That's because they are really no problem
There really is a problem with that... the lack of regulation of them means anyone can put anything in them with no label. People die from reactions to bad drugs being sold on the black market.
That being said, I really don't know anything about how The Netherlands deals with drugs, just the US. I do know this... legalizing them here would not make people any less addicted, nor would it make them stop spending money on them that they should be spending on things like rent, food, maybe savings. People who can't pay their rent are much more likely to steal than people who can.
Try rereading my earlier post. What I said was an addiction to alcohol or drugs can cause you to lose your job. In a few cases, nicotene can, but because there are a few companies now (UCS is one) that make not smoking a company policy.
The reasons alcohol and drug addiction can cause you to lose your job are really twofold. First, random testing. People who actually become addicted need a fix more frequently, and will sometimes risk getting their fix during working hours. Of course, with drugs, the residuals last much longer, so it wouldn't matter if someone were doing them during working hours or not. The second is people who are actually addicted typically begin to do/drink drugs/alcohol in larger quantities, and eventually begin either missing work, or underperforming during work.
I never said an addiction to tobacco products in and of itself could cause one to lose their job for the same reasons that drug/alcohol addictions can.
Here's a newsflash. If drugs were legalized, they would still be potentially addictive, and still cost money. Sugar, coffee, and tobacco don't usually lead to behavior that causes one to lose their job. Alcohol, on the other hand, sometimes does, especially when the person becomes addicted.
I really can't see how legalizing drugs would keep people from 1) becoming addicted, 2) losing jobs because of their addiction, and 3) resorting to stealing because they can't find work.
First, granting drivers licenses means fewer people out on the road driving without good knowledge of local laws and regulations.
In that case, the government is saying it's ok to break the law (by proxy).
While I agree with the notion that the gray economy is fairly important, I do not at all agree that we should simply ignore laws that really aren't working well. Rather, we should be working to change them. While I'm not a staunch Bush fan, I do recall him getting blasted for making such a preposterous statement as to allow seasonal immigration. I also agree that it's a good idea.
Giving a driver's licence to someone who, by law, isn't even supposed to be here sends a clear message. Breaking the law is ok, as long as you'll do work that other people don't want to do. What kind of message is that?
I don't think I understand the problem here. Do you feel people with a suspended license in one state, and driving in another, should be able to? Driving on public roads is not a right, it's a privelege... remember that.
Please, look at the law and understand what is happening
What exacly is happening? Is this something Hitler did right before he set up concentration camps? Is this another in a long line of personal freedoms being removed? No, not really. Currently it is possible for a police officer in Texas to get your record in other states. This law does nothing more than make that easier.
Am I comfortable with that? Sure I am. Not because I never do anything wrong, but because it won't change what could possibly happen to me if I get pulled over. As a matter of fact, it could speed the process up. Right now, police officers (might) check 2-3 different databases for your information. If you have a warrant for an unpaid speeding ticket in another state, chances are you'll be on your merry way in a few minutes anyway. Nobody wants to spend the money on extradition for a
So please, and without charging me with any political affiliation (because I hate the two party system we have) or calling me neo-anything, explain to me what is happening.
And, those people happen to populate the West Wing of the White House
I didn't realize that members of Congress now populated the west wing. In case your longer term memory fails you, have a look here and remind yourself of all the people (including Kerry) who said Saddam had WMD's.
The fact remains that everyone's decision was based on faulty intelligence. Congress voted yes on on Iraqi invasion. Quit blaming Bush, as he was only the most visible proponent of invasion.
It's so much easier to point a finger and pass the blame. This is a bit offtiopic, but does North Korea actually wonder why South Korea has all the creature comforts, while North Korea doesn't?
A small part of the reason may be that South Korea is a bit more temperate, but the reality is North Korea has suffered decades of mismanagement. Is the correct solution to the problem a) take over another sovereign nation and exploit their resources, or b) realize the err of your ways and begin an economic overhaul (with China as a possible example)?
The reason the US has troops still stationed in Korea is the very same reason there are US troops in Taiwan. The minute we leave, a new war begins... see Viet Nam if you need an example. Does anyone think (formerly) South Viet Nam is better off with a dictatorial communism these days?
Lets remember why the root cause of any of this.
You can't possibly be suggesting that this is South Korea's fault, can you?
IPalindromeI replied to a journal entry I made about this topic, and pointed out that it's 2 bytes per axis, which I should have realized given the values of 255 mentioned before. So it's bytes 7-10 that become FF. I tested it and it worked... the images is HUGE, but the filesize is 43 bytes.
You're also right about being disruptive and non-offensive, and keeps your bandwidth usage pretty low.
So do I have to pay you some royalties if I use this in the future?
Not knowing much at all about images, I experimented a bit with what you said. I created a 1px x 1px transparent gif. I opened it with UltraEdit and changed they 7th and 9th bytes from 01 to FF (these were the only 01's I found in the initial bytes of the file).
It did enlarge the image, but kept the file at 1k in size. However, it didn't make it huge... just 255px x 255px.
Can you remember any more about it? I couldn't find a link anywhere, but it sounds like a great way to prevent deep linking without offending anyone.
Slashdot Mirror
Not that irrelevant, in that there are several people who did use cell phones for extended periods of time dating back to before 1977.
Because cell phones are new.
While not popular at the time, cell phones were around in the 50s. They took up the better portion of a typical car trunk/boot at the time. In 1968 increased the frequency range allocation for cell phones, and in 1977, after some more research/prototypes, cell phone use by the average Joe became possible. 1977 was almost 30 years ago.
So, what you're saying is people should ignore the rules of grammar they are taught in school, right? We shouldn't have to worry about being able to correctly communicate our ideas to others. Rather, they should have to infer them through whatever word or phrase of the week is cool on the streets?
No thank you. I would much rather be understood by the 90% of English speakers that actually took the time to learn the language. I would also much rather not pay any attention to those people that didn't bother.
Maybe she can install anything. However, that doesn't mean she can use it to tap into otherwise private conversation. I'll have to duck and run after I type this, but it would be similar to installing LimeWire on your pc. LimeWire, by itself, isn't illegal. However, using it to download copyrighted material might be.
I really don't need to think about it at all. The difference in savins people would realize if it were cheaper would be offset by the number of people unable to do/show up to their jobs. Either way, taxpayers would still be taking care of them... wether that be because they're in jail, or on welfare.
an addict will always do enough work to get themselves their next fix
While it's possible that your statement is sometimes true, it's impossible to use the word always. In my earlier career years, I witnessed, firsthand, an addiction take control of a friend. I tried many times to help, but eventually she not only lost her job because she just stopped showing up, she wound up in jail as well.
In regards to your comment on pot... I never once mentioned pot. I did, however, mention PCP, cocaine, and meth.
Regarding laws that don't affect others, I couldn't agree with you more. I did some research into the seatbelt law in Texas, just because it annoys me. I do wear mine, but don't think it should be by law. As it turns out, the law isn't in effect to protect the good citizens of Texas. Rather, it's was lobbied for by insurance companies. Once again, big business wins out.
;)
Personally, if someone wants to do something stupid and get themselves killed, more power to them. All of these laws are reversing the effects of Darwinism
I didn't say it's exactly the same thing... just similar. Frankly, I don't know enough about both to be considered an expert. And, unless you are a doctor or a psychiatrist, I would doubt that you do either.
My point has not been to say drugs and alcohol are the same thing. My point has been to point out that legalizing drugs is not the cure for keeping drug addicts from stealing. However, someone saw fit to mod the original post as offtopic.
addicts wouldn't have to steal as much
That's a solution? You're also ignoring one of the fundamental problems of an addiction. When you have an addiction to a mood/mind altering drug/alcohol, you come down from them. Your next fix isn't as good, and you need to take more to hit that high again. You then come down harder. Eventually, this cycle starts causing other problems with things like your health, your ability to decide what's right from wrong (meaning trying to get up to go to work in the morning... I'm not talking about murder here), etc... Those things can potentially cause someone to lose their job. No job, no income. No income.... well, you see where this is going.
A portion of that moeny can be funneled immideatley into social "safety-net" programs to treat those who have addiction problems
What portion would you suggest that would make everyone happy? The problem is, you can't make everyone happy. I personally don't think any of my hard earned tax dollars should be spent on someone who obviously made some bad choices. I didn't make those bad choices.. why can't I get some free gubment money? I really think rerouting the money spent isn't a great idea at all.
Add to that, legalizing drugs would give some people the perception that there's nothing wrong with doing them (much like cigarettes). With that in mind, you run the risk of even more people becoming addicted, and having to spend more of "my" tax dollars helping these people out.
Filling the jails with them, however, is not a great solution. Drugs are the great conundrum of our time... you're really danged if you do and danged if you don't.
since they have cops hunting them
I've got some news for you. PCP, meth, and cocaine users don't get violent because cops are chasing them, they get violent because of a reaction to the drugs. That may be true, however, for other drugs.
can get free doses of methadon
Methadone is also addictive... not a great trade there, one addiction for another.
isn't officially legal but it's "tolerated". That's because they are really no problem
There really is a problem with that... the lack of regulation of them means anyone can put anything in them with no label. People die from reactions to bad drugs being sold on the black market.
That being said, I really don't know anything about how The Netherlands deals with drugs, just the US. I do know this... legalizing them here would not make people any less addicted, nor would it make them stop spending money on them that they should be spending on things like rent, food, maybe savings. People who can't pay their rent are much more likely to steal than people who can.
Try rereading my earlier post. What I said was an addiction to alcohol or drugs can cause you to lose your job. In a few cases, nicotene can, but because there are a few companies now (UCS is one) that make not smoking a company policy.
The reasons alcohol and drug addiction can cause you to lose your job are really twofold. First, random testing. People who actually become addicted need a fix more frequently, and will sometimes risk getting their fix during working hours. Of course, with drugs, the residuals last much longer, so it wouldn't matter if someone were doing them during working hours or not. The second is people who are actually addicted typically begin to do/drink drugs/alcohol in larger quantities, and eventually begin either missing work, or underperforming during work.
I never said an addiction to tobacco products in and of itself could cause one to lose their job for the same reasons that drug/alcohol addictions can.
DO I get prior art if I wrote a cheesy MDI browser app in 1998? I'm going to be rich!!!!!
Here's a newsflash. If drugs were legalized, they would still be potentially addictive, and still cost money. Sugar, coffee, and tobacco don't usually lead to behavior that causes one to lose their job. Alcohol, on the other hand, sometimes does, especially when the person becomes addicted.
I really can't see how legalizing drugs would keep people from 1) becoming addicted, 2) losing jobs because of their addiction, and 3) resorting to stealing because they can't find work.
And one already exists at Southern Methodist University in Dallas, TX.
First, granting drivers licenses means fewer people out on the road driving without good knowledge of local laws and regulations.
In that case, the government is saying it's ok to break the law (by proxy).
While I agree with the notion that the gray economy is fairly important, I do not at all agree that we should simply ignore laws that really aren't working well. Rather, we should be working to change them. While I'm not a staunch Bush fan, I do recall him getting blasted for making such a preposterous statement as to allow seasonal immigration. I also agree that it's a good idea.
Giving a driver's licence to someone who, by law, isn't even supposed to be here sends a clear message. Breaking the law is ok, as long as you'll do work that other people don't want to do. What kind of message is that?
Your personal rights, freedoms are being violated
How?!?!?!?
Am I any less free to drive on public roads? No
Have I lost any rights under current law with this bill? No
Quoting Benjamin Franklin doesn't make your comment any more truthful.
I don't think I understand the problem here. Do you feel people with a suspended license in one state, and driving in another, should be able to? Driving on public roads is not a right, it's a privelege... remember that.
Please, look at the law and understand what is happening
What exacly is happening? Is this something Hitler did right before he set up concentration camps? Is this another in a long line of personal freedoms being removed? No, not really. Currently it is possible for a police officer in Texas to get your record in other states. This law does nothing more than make that easier.
Am I comfortable with that? Sure I am. Not because I never do anything wrong, but because it won't change what could possibly happen to me if I get pulled over. As a matter of fact, it could speed the process up. Right now, police officers (might) check 2-3 different databases for your information. If you have a warrant for an unpaid speeding ticket in another state, chances are you'll be on your merry way in a few minutes anyway. Nobody wants to spend the money on extradition for a
So please, and without charging me with any political affiliation (because I hate the two party system we have) or calling me neo-anything, explain to me what is happening.
Yeah! It was deja vu all over again!
And, those people happen to populate the West Wing of the White House
I didn't realize that members of Congress now populated the west wing. In case your longer term memory fails you, have a look here and remind yourself of all the people (including Kerry) who said Saddam had WMD's.
The fact remains that everyone's decision was based on faulty intelligence. Congress voted yes on on Iraqi invasion. Quit blaming Bush, as he was only the most visible proponent of invasion.
I sure am glad that worked out!
It's so much easier to point a finger and pass the blame. This is a bit offtiopic, but does North Korea actually wonder why South Korea has all the creature comforts, while North Korea doesn't?
A small part of the reason may be that South Korea is a bit more temperate, but the reality is North Korea has suffered decades of mismanagement. Is the correct solution to the problem a) take over another sovereign nation and exploit their resources, or b) realize the err of your ways and begin an economic overhaul (with China as a possible example)?
The reason the US has troops still stationed in Korea is the very same reason there are US troops in Taiwan. The minute we leave, a new war begins... see Viet Nam if you need an example. Does anyone think (formerly) South Viet Nam is better off with a dictatorial communism these days?
Lets remember why the root cause of any of this.
You can't possibly be suggesting that this is South Korea's fault, can you?
Elektro also had a dog named Sparky, and they were introduced at the 1929 World's Fair. Here's another link for your viewing pleasure.
IPalindromeI replied to a journal entry I made about this topic, and pointed out that it's 2 bytes per axis, which I should have realized given the values of 255 mentioned before. So it's bytes 7-10 that become FF. I tested it and it worked... the images is HUGE, but the filesize is 43 bytes.
You're also right about being disruptive and non-offensive, and keeps your bandwidth usage pretty low.
So do I have to pay you some royalties if I use this in the future?
Not knowing much at all about images, I experimented a bit with what you said. I created a 1px x 1px transparent gif. I opened it with UltraEdit and changed they 7th and 9th bytes from 01 to FF (these were the only 01's I found in the initial bytes of the file).
It did enlarge the image, but kept the file at 1k in size. However, it didn't make it huge... just 255px x 255px.
Can you remember any more about it? I couldn't find a link anywhere, but it sounds like a great way to prevent deep linking without offending anyone.