I'm not much of a scholar but our constitution is pretty explicit:
(Art I, Sec 8)
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
I read your post a couple of times and I can't figure out why exactly would someone market $1/day drugs exclusively to wealthy people? If the low hanging fruit gives the most people the most relief then that's where the money should go. I don't accept the premise that non-wealthy don't get allergies, pregnant, or high cholesterol.
There is nothing in the US Constitution about funding research. Research should be done by private entities that will seek the most likely routes to solve the biggest problems instead of the mostly likely to buy votes.
If the guns laws are an effective response to rising crime then the the violent crime rates should fall where such laws were passed. That doesn't really happen. GOOD schools would probably help reduce violence, but current Chicago public schools probably increase it. I agree with you about crime and vice laws but it's only going to get worse. Pretty soon, soft drinks, cigarettes, and beef are going to be black market items.
Forgive me for not realizing that something half of my friends do is impossible. The Chicago handgun ban stinks. Are you telling me that they would arrest a woman for carrying a handgun while walking through a area that is known for rapes?
Everything in your post is wrong. The simple knowledge that someone is armed is enough to prevent the attempt to rape or rob or whatever. Will it stop everyone? No. Will it stop most of them? Yes. Just like the victim in your example who would rather give up his wallet than get shot, a robber will not take the chance of robbing an armed man. Perhaps you should research why North Dakota has very few firearm restrictions and only had two homicides last year? (Both stabbings.)
Wouldn't it be better if she prevented the rape instead catching the guy after it happens? The police are not your personal security service. Their function is to investigate crimes after they happen. Chicago is still the murder capital of the US, right?
I've been configuring PC's for senior citizens and it's just not working out. I've got a whole basement full of senior citizens that I really have no use for. Sure, I've got some of the better ones making quilts and stuff, but really the next time someone offers me a senior citizen to configure their computer I'm just going to pass.
Legal drugs are quite a bit cheaper than illegal ones so less money would go out. Compare current aspirin prices vs. cocaine. Which is cheaper to produce if they both legal? Legalization would also allow domestic production to compete against the imports, further reducing the outflow.
Rational people like Bjorn Lomborg have done the math and concluded that the money that would be spent reducing carbon dioxide emissions would be better spent elsewhere.
There is a commerce clause in the US constitution that's broad enough to include technology but education is a state issue. (Well it would be if people would read follow the constitution.)
Oh, starting out with a lie again. I'm not a hippie. I'm a real person that wants to solve a real problem. You are a lying scumbag that want's to kill people for greater profit.
Are you SURE you're not a hippie? Are you SURE you want to solve a REAL problem? Well, I better get off here and go kill people for greater profit before you hippies starve them all.
Trucks and tractors already run on diesel. Isn't that what all you hippies are upset about? Oh, wait. I read more and you said not to eliminate. The farmer will just use a quarter of the diesel he needs to plant and harvest and magically he will get the same crop and nobody has to starve. Bravo!
The Soviets and the Chinese managed to starve millions of people just with central planning alone. They weren't even worried about pollution. Imagine the combination of the two.
We had 3.3% (annual rate) growth last quarter. After 9/11, two wars, Katrina, subprime meltdown, housing slump, and rising petroleum prices that's better than Jimmy Carter could have done!
Of course the CO2 emissions have been almost flat under the environment friendly Bush administration versus the vicious Earth-rapers Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Look at this speadsheat.
We have semi-accurate temperature data for a short time and the warmest year in the US was 1934 based on that. Yawn. Wake me up for the next groupthink scare.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm not much of a scholar but our constitution is pretty explicit:
(Art I, Sec 8)
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;
I read your post a couple of times and I can't figure out why exactly would someone market $1/day drugs exclusively to wealthy people? If the low hanging fruit gives the most people the most relief then that's where the money should go. I don't accept the premise that non-wealthy don't get allergies, pregnant, or high cholesterol.
There is nothing in the US Constitution about funding research. Research should be done by private entities that will seek the most likely routes to solve the biggest problems instead of the mostly likely to buy votes.
If the guns laws are an effective response to rising crime then the the violent crime rates should fall where such laws were passed. That doesn't really happen. GOOD schools would probably help reduce violence, but current Chicago public schools probably increase it. I agree with you about crime and vice laws but it's only going to get worse. Pretty soon, soft drinks, cigarettes, and beef are going to be black market items.
We don't have the highest violent crime in the world and areas of high crime like Chicago and DC are the areas with the most restrictive gun laws.
Forgive me for not realizing that something half of my friends do is impossible. The Chicago handgun ban stinks. Are you telling me that they would arrest a woman for carrying a handgun while walking through a area that is known for rapes?
Everything in your post is wrong. The simple knowledge that someone is armed is enough to prevent the attempt to rape or rob or whatever. Will it stop everyone? No. Will it stop most of them? Yes. Just like the victim in your example who would rather give up his wallet than get shot, a robber will not take the chance of robbing an armed man. Perhaps you should research why North Dakota has very few firearm restrictions and only had two homicides last year? (Both stabbings.)
Do they not notice the crime rates?
Wouldn't it be better if she prevented the rape instead catching the guy after it happens? The police are not your personal security service. Their function is to investigate crimes after they happen. Chicago is still the murder capital of the US, right?
Did you wife start carrying a gun?
Here's an article: http://healthcare-economist.com/2007/10/02/health-care-system-grudge-match-canada-vs-us/ There are others if you go searching.
Life expectancy is shortened by violence and auto accidents.
US mortality compares favorably when age and diagnosis match.
I've been configuring PC's for senior citizens and it's just not working out. I've got a whole basement full of senior citizens that I really have no use for. Sure, I've got some of the better ones making quilts and stuff, but really the next time someone offers me a senior citizen to configure their computer I'm just going to pass.
TFA didn't say they were GOOD geologists... (I really wonder if they were really Virtucon employees.)
Legal drugs are quite a bit cheaper than illegal ones so less money would go out. Compare current aspirin prices vs. cocaine. Which is cheaper to produce if they both legal? Legalization would also allow domestic production to compete against the imports, further reducing the outflow.
Rational people like Bjorn Lomborg have done the math and concluded that the money that would be spent reducing carbon dioxide emissions would be better spent elsewhere.
There is a commerce clause in the US constitution that's broad enough to include technology but education is a state issue. (Well it would be if people would read follow the constitution.)
Are you SURE you're not a hippie? Are you SURE you want to solve a REAL problem? Well, I better get off here and go kill people for greater profit before you hippies starve them all.
The Soviets and the Chinese managed to starve millions of people just with central planning alone. They weren't even worried about pollution. Imagine the combination of the two.
I'll continue this discussion with you after you grow a crop that feeds a thousand people with a solar powered tractor.
We had 3.3% (annual rate) growth last quarter. After 9/11, two wars, Katrina, subprime meltdown, housing slump, and rising petroleum prices that's better than Jimmy Carter could have done!
There's no malice on the part of one willing to wreck the world economy to fight global warming and starving millions of people to do it??
Of course the CO2 emissions have been almost flat under the environment friendly Bush administration versus the vicious Earth-rapers Bill Clinton and Al Gore. Look at this speadsheat.
We have semi-accurate temperature data for a short time and the warmest year in the US was 1934 based on that. Yawn. Wake me up for the next groupthink scare.
And isn't President Bush the only leader of an industrialized nation which actually cut carbon dioxide emissions, Kyoto or not?