If you talk to someone who handles regulatory compliance for a major power company, the requirements are ludicrous.
For example, you must document that electronic door access panels are not running antivirus software because they don't have the capability to do so. Otherwise your company is fined. The former example is absolutely not a joke, it is an actual Federal regulatory compliance requirement. This is how US dollars are spent on critical infrastructure security.
I'm not sure why people are enamored with Malwarebytes. I honestly have not seen it fix or prevent anything, and I've tried it a number of times because of the praise it receives. I've fixed a lot of machines that had it installed, and have never seen it do anything useful.
Due to the ambiguity of the English language, it could be construed to be either plural or singular, and your comment could easily be read as a general statement. Neither did your statement clearly indicate you meant innocent and unrelated people.
Many politically-motivated murders have been committed by very arguably sane people.
There is one notable difference. You still have enforcement time and money spent on meth if it remains illegal.
I'm fine with banning the manufacture of it, but banning the use only marginalizes addicts, and doesn't provide anything for rehabilitation. Illegal almost always means prison, which has been clearly shown to provide no good outcomes.
The search box allows use of the option to disable reuse of the same window, which allows searches to open in a new window. So it does provide extra functionality, and I have found nothing useful to take up the space that would be freed by the search bar. Always open to ideas for such though.
If both were legalized, it would put amateur lab producers out of business. Since it is fairly well established that meth and crack are the result of cost for true addicts, the legalization of coke would almost certainly kill the markets for both of the more harmful (but cheaper due to the drug war) substitutes.
I've known a number of meth users, and the general consensus has been that they use because of cost and availability. If cocaine was legalized, it really wouldn't matter if meth was legal or illegal. There's basically no chance that legalization of them both would result in anything but the implosion of the meth market.
As a bonus, we could start getting OTC medications without presenting proof of residence again.
It's lacking what, exactly? In many instances, it has more functionality by default, since it doesn't require plugins for things that should be standard.
Sucks to be where you work then. Any company interested in not being hit with a huge liability lawsuit (and I've personally seen a number of companies nailed to the wall for allowing that sort of behavior) would drop the entire subcontractor's company for allowing such behavior if they weren't willing to fire such an employee.
Though, you mentioned Canada, so maybe you're referencing the laws as they exist there. Of the places I'm familiar with in the US, operating heavy machinery in an impaired state will get you terminated the second it's noticed.
Which brings me right back to my initial point of the larger part of the voting pool is all for absolving themselves of any responsibility regarding anything.
Those juries are doing exactly that. They are absolving themselves, and anyone like them, of responsibility.
Meth is dangerous to manufacture. If cocaine were legal, it's unlikely anyone but the current meth addicts would use it, and those who manufacture wouldn't be able to compete. You could put every meth lab in the country out of business with a single controlled-lab manufacturer operating legally. That alone justifies legalization of meth.
Slashdot Mirror
Welcome to the world of student loan inflation.
That won't happen as long as the Federal government is throwing money at power companies to implement Smart Grid.
If you talk to someone who handles regulatory compliance for a major power company, the requirements are ludicrous.
For example, you must document that electronic door access panels are not running antivirus software because they don't have the capability to do so. Otherwise your company is fined. The former example is absolutely not a joke, it is an actual Federal regulatory compliance requirement. This is how US dollars are spent on critical infrastructure security.
There have already been experiments done where individual US states have enacted tougher gun control laws. They have less gun violence.
Name one that has exceeded the overall trend toward lower violent crime rates in the US.
I'm not sure why people are enamored with Malwarebytes. I honestly have not seen it fix or prevent anything, and I've tried it a number of times because of the praise it receives. I've fixed a lot of machines that had it installed, and have never seen it do anything useful.
Due to the ambiguity of the English language, it could be construed to be either plural or singular, and your comment could easily be read as a general statement. Neither did your statement clearly indicate you meant innocent and unrelated people.
Many politically-motivated murders have been committed by very arguably sane people.
It wasn't a misquote. I was not attempting to quote it.
And nobody has actually done controls on those statistics to eliminate the very real differences, so they mean nothing.
Because they're like abusive DRM: they only affect legitimate users. They don't really affect those people they target.
In order that a well-regulated militia might exist, the general right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Calling everyone who disagrees with you a gun nut does not help your credibility.
Much like Congress can pass laws prohibiting any speech in public. It's still a right when you can speak freely only in private.
Premeditated murder does not mean one is insane.
NO guys - it is NOT me doing it, as I wouldn't waste that much time on such trivial b.s. like a kid might...
Oh, the irony.
There is one notable difference. You still have enforcement time and money spent on meth if it remains illegal.
I'm fine with banning the manufacture of it, but banning the use only marginalizes addicts, and doesn't provide anything for rehabilitation. Illegal almost always means prison, which has been clearly shown to provide no good outcomes.
Ah, that's too bad. I had never used the option.
The search box allows use of the option to disable reuse of the same window, which allows searches to open in a new window. So it does provide extra functionality, and I have found nothing useful to take up the space that would be freed by the search bar. Always open to ideas for such though.
If both were legalized, it would put amateur lab producers out of business. Since it is fairly well established that meth and crack are the result of cost for true addicts, the legalization of coke would almost certainly kill the markets for both of the more harmful (but cheaper due to the drug war) substitutes.
I've known a number of meth users, and the general consensus has been that they use because of cost and availability. If cocaine was legalized, it really wouldn't matter if meth was legal or illegal. There's basically no chance that legalization of them both would result in anything but the implosion of the meth market.
As a bonus, we could start getting OTC medications without presenting proof of residence again.
Ctrl+F12 > Search > Untick "enable search suggestions."
It's lacking what, exactly? In many instances, it has more functionality by default, since it doesn't require plugins for things that should be standard.
Sucks to be where you work then. Any company interested in not being hit with a huge liability lawsuit (and I've personally seen a number of companies nailed to the wall for allowing that sort of behavior) would drop the entire subcontractor's company for allowing such behavior if they weren't willing to fire such an employee.
Though, you mentioned Canada, so maybe you're referencing the laws as they exist there. Of the places I'm familiar with in the US, operating heavy machinery in an impaired state will get you terminated the second it's noticed.
Which brings me right back to my initial point of the larger part of the voting pool is all for absolving themselves of any responsibility regarding anything.
Those juries are doing exactly that. They are absolving themselves, and anyone like them, of responsibility.
To be fair (and I've used Win8 and thoroughly dislike it), TrancePhreak said people they've seen, not people in general.
Personal anecdotes don't need citations.
The transfer of the thinking in #3 to #4 only occurs if the government subsidizes drugs.
Why are you working at a company that allows someone who's high to operate dangerous machinery?
Meth is dangerous to manufacture. If cocaine were legal, it's unlikely anyone but the current meth addicts would use it, and those who manufacture wouldn't be able to compete. You could put every meth lab in the country out of business with a single controlled-lab manufacturer operating legally. That alone justifies legalization of meth.