In the United States, individual liberty is of the utmost value. Freedom of speech isn't based on the idea that a community can speak freely, it's for each PERSON in that community. In a society where the entire society can determine the rights of an individual, you have a system totally alien to the Constitution.
"Medicine" not medicine. Think back to that time, people were peddling snake oil all the time back then, and Coca-Cola was no different. "Drink this, it'll pep you up, and make you less drowsy!" You didn't need a medical degree or anything to sell it.
Not quite. You don't need to raid people's homes just to maintain profits for companies, just require them to have a license to sell it. I could make moonshine for my home without worry. If I tried selling that moonshine, I'd run afoul, not for infringing on the profits of Budweiser, but for not taxing the moonshine and sending the money to the government.
Also, as easy as alcohol is to produce, most people would still buy it, simply because it's cheaper for them to buy it than they envision making it would. It's kind of time consuming.
The problem with that analogy is that IBM was never a black market company. The moonshiners and organized crime types who prospered during prohibition could used violence to solve their disputes, but when McDonald's and Burger King have a dispute, they don't shoot at each other, they use legal methods.
Drug dealers of today won't be able to compete with pharmacies.
Don't think of it as a see-saw, think of it as some sort of three-person see-saw. I had an uncle tell me about an interesting sight he saw in New Jersey several years ago. In the city he was in, the cops had a very large SWAT-style van that they would throw confiscated drugs into. The drug dealers used children, aged around 9 to 10 or so, to actually sell the drugs. The cops wouldn't arrest a kid of course, so they'd capture the kid, toss the drugs into the van, and when the van was full they turned around and sold the drugs in the van back to the drug dealers.
The dealers would sell the drugs, buy them back from the cops, and sell them again. Sort of perpetual motion, except there's a third party involved: the people who are neither cops nor drug dealers. Tax payers are paying for the cops to actually be there and have the authority to take those kinds of bribes and so on, and the drug addicts are paying to keep the drug dealers in business.
Alcohol prohibition showed us that you can't stop people from doing something, even when it gets into the fucking Constitution, so we shouldn't work on stopping the addicts, we should focus on stopping the tax-money. Make the police handle drug raids as volunteers, not on the dime of the tax payers, and you'd see them not give a fuck.
Wouldn't it be more correct to say that the theories will be ADJUSTED as new evidence comes in?
It's *possible* for a theory to be wrong, but if an idea has reached the level of "theory" it's usually just appended to, or slightly modified, not thrown out the window completely.
It's not so much the law that people follow, but the enforcement of that law. I've seen many people fly past me on the road, I usually go about 5 over the limit, but people fly past me going at least 15 over. If a cop is ahead, those people who pass will instantly hit the speed limit until they turn onto a different road, or the cop does.
The same can be seen in situations where law enforcement takes a nap, such as the looting that tends to occur with natural disasters flooding cities, or serious power outages.
Professional criminals don't abide by gun control laws because they're already murdering people for fun and profit, so they've got bigger things to worry about than possessing an automatic weapon when a cop sees them.
Firstly, I think you mean EMP not EMF. Secondly, EMP would have absolutely no impact on the bits that are stored on a hard drive platter, or a CD or DVD. Granted, those two forms of media won't last for thousand of years without severely degrading, but that property holds for paper also.
Our historic records are a scant fragment of what actually existed at one point, and imagine if the only pieces of entertainment we have today that can survive an archeologist digging them up in 50000 years would be a copy of ET for the Atari 2600 from the landfill out in the desert.
They didn't take objection to HIS work because his work was published posthumously. The unfortunate bastard who came after Copernicus, Galileo, was the one who received the ire of the church. Not just because he was contradicting church doctrine, but because he was also using evidence to support his claims.
Assuming you're talking about burning Hydrogen with Oxygen to make water, containment is a non-issue. The biggest issue with the Hydrogen economy is actually getting the Hydrogen, it's not easy.
Now, if you're talking about containment for fusion, well that's a totally different thing.
That chart is either out of date, or poorly researched. Several Presidents have been non-Christian. Washington and Jefferson were Deist, Jefferson going so far as to rewrite the Bible without any miracles in it. In fact, for a long time that Bible was required reading for both houses of Congress.
Recently I stumbled across a few quotes from Lincoln, which seemed to show that he was also a Deist, but they could be fakes.
In the United States, we still have a system for involuntary service in place. It's called the 'draft', and even though it hasn't been used since the 70s, all the laws still require it to maintain a list of people. The only way to be allowed to vote is to agree to be added to the list of potential draftees.
Governments have NO rights EVER. Governments have force, and only force. People don't give governments tax money because the government has the right to collect taxes, people give money to the government because the government has lots and lots of guns.
Read the fucking Constitution, and show me where it says that the government is allowed to silence "vulgar" speech in a public square. Show me where it has the authority to restrict ANY speech in a public square.
That's what science would call "anecdotal evidence". Just like if you said "I played Grand Theft Auto and murdered a hooker in real life" would also be anecdotal evidence.
However, if there's a clear correlation between crime rates caused by the major video game playing demographic, and the rise in video game sales, then perhaps the argument is valid. Except there seems to be an inverse relationship. Either the video games have no impact, or video games decrease violent crime, or video games can somehow cause violence but so many other things have caused the violence rates to plummet so dramatically as to make the contribution from video games seem non-existant.
Logically, the first of video games not having any impact on violence seems the way to go. People made the same claims about rap music, and violent movies and violent comic books in decades past, and nobody seemed to offer any credible evidence that these things would actually incite people to violence, unless those people were crazy to begin with, then it just takes ANY kind of trigger, not a specific one.
Re:You do realize the other hobbies are the same?
on
How Do Games Grow Up?
·
· Score: 1
I'd have to disagree about your car fixing situation. My father has only owned one new car in his whole life, and he sold it years ago. The only reason he performs maintenance on his cars is to keep them running, not because he enjoys it. It was a hobby for him when he was a teenager, but it's not a hobby for him anymore. He does it now to save money, not to have a good time.
Fixing up a junker into a cherry newish car would definitely be a hobby, and it would probably be more expensive than buying a new car if you factored in the time involved, but regular car maintenance isn't a wasted skill. Nevermind simple tasks like changing your own oil instead of paying through the nose for it, or the basic tune up. If you have to replace your car's starter, it's a pain in the ass to do it yourself, but it's also immensely cheaper.
The other odd thing about the protect the children mantra, is that if a child hears a bad word there are two consequences.
Either the kid has never been exposed to the word before, and doesn't even know what "fucking" means, then goes to the nearest adult and asks.
Or, the kid knows what the word means, and it's totally meaningless. If the kid knows that when the cop on the tv show said "fuck that guy", and interpreted it to mean "have sex with that guy", he'd be confused when the cop just turns around and gets back in his car.
Every right carries an inherit responsibility. In your example of a riot in a crowded theatre, he WOULD be held responsible, but his rights wouldn't be infringed.
In much the same way as I have a right to carry and operate a firearm, if I use that firearm on another person, I have to accept the consequences of that action.
You don't own the airwaves. If you hear something you don't like on the FUCKING radio or television CHANGE THE FUCKING CHANNEL.
By your laziness to reach for a GOD DAMN button, you're infringing upon the rights of other people.
Should books not have naught titles, because if a shopkeeper displays his books facing out in the street, a kid could see the naughty book title and be forever scarred for life. We should ban books that have naught language in the title, and on the off chance that the book contains a bad word, somebody could leave their copy on a bench in a park somewhere, with a page open to one of those bad words, and you could stumble across it. Instead of just turning away from it, or bitching about it, you find a cop, and get the cop to go arrest the guy who printed the book.
Slashdot Mirror
In the United States, individual liberty is of the utmost value. Freedom of speech isn't based on the idea that a community can speak freely, it's for each PERSON in that community. In a society where the entire society can determine the rights of an individual, you have a system totally alien to the Constitution.
Sodas were considered a form of medicine
"Medicine" not medicine. Think back to that time, people were peddling snake oil all the time back then, and Coca-Cola was no different. "Drink this, it'll pep you up, and make you less drowsy!" You didn't need a medical degree or anything to sell it.
Not quite. You don't need to raid people's homes just to maintain profits for companies, just require them to have a license to sell it. I could make moonshine for my home without worry. If I tried selling that moonshine, I'd run afoul, not for infringing on the profits of Budweiser, but for not taxing the moonshine and sending the money to the government.
Also, as easy as alcohol is to produce, most people would still buy it, simply because it's cheaper for them to buy it than they envision making it would. It's kind of time consuming.
The problem with that analogy is that IBM was never a black market company. The moonshiners and organized crime types who prospered during prohibition could used violence to solve their disputes, but when McDonald's and Burger King have a dispute, they don't shoot at each other, they use legal methods.
Drug dealers of today won't be able to compete with pharmacies.
Why is it that it took an amendment to the Constitution to ban alcohol, but no such amendment has been made for marijuana, cocaine, heroin, etc?
Don't think of it as a see-saw, think of it as some sort of three-person see-saw. I had an uncle tell me about an interesting sight he saw in New Jersey several years ago. In the city he was in, the cops had a very large SWAT-style van that they would throw confiscated drugs into. The drug dealers used children, aged around 9 to 10 or so, to actually sell the drugs. The cops wouldn't arrest a kid of course, so they'd capture the kid, toss the drugs into the van, and when the van was full they turned around and sold the drugs in the van back to the drug dealers.
The dealers would sell the drugs, buy them back from the cops, and sell them again. Sort of perpetual motion, except there's a third party involved: the people who are neither cops nor drug dealers. Tax payers are paying for the cops to actually be there and have the authority to take those kinds of bribes and so on, and the drug addicts are paying to keep the drug dealers in business.
Alcohol prohibition showed us that you can't stop people from doing something, even when it gets into the fucking Constitution, so we shouldn't work on stopping the addicts, we should focus on stopping the tax-money. Make the police handle drug raids as volunteers, not on the dime of the tax payers, and you'd see them not give a fuck.
Wouldn't it be more correct to say that the theories will be ADJUSTED as new evidence comes in?
It's *possible* for a theory to be wrong, but if an idea has reached the level of "theory" it's usually just appended to, or slightly modified, not thrown out the window completely.
It's not so much the law that people follow, but the enforcement of that law. I've seen many people fly past me on the road, I usually go about 5 over the limit, but people fly past me going at least 15 over. If a cop is ahead, those people who pass will instantly hit the speed limit until they turn onto a different road, or the cop does.
The same can be seen in situations where law enforcement takes a nap, such as the looting that tends to occur with natural disasters flooding cities, or serious power outages.
Professional criminals don't abide by gun control laws because they're already murdering people for fun and profit, so they've got bigger things to worry about than possessing an automatic weapon when a cop sees them.
Firstly, I think you mean EMP not EMF. Secondly, EMP would have absolutely no impact on the bits that are stored on a hard drive platter, or a CD or DVD. Granted, those two forms of media won't last for thousand of years without severely degrading, but that property holds for paper also.
Our historic records are a scant fragment of what actually existed at one point, and imagine if the only pieces of entertainment we have today that can survive an archeologist digging them up in 50000 years would be a copy of ET for the Atari 2600 from the landfill out in the desert.
They didn't take objection to HIS work because his work was published posthumously. The unfortunate bastard who came after Copernicus, Galileo, was the one who received the ire of the church. Not just because he was contradicting church doctrine, but because he was also using evidence to support his claims.
The Air Force has expressed interest in antimatter weapons for years, but if they've made any progress in the field, they're being quiet about it.
Assuming you're talking about burning Hydrogen with Oxygen to make water, containment is a non-issue. The biggest issue with the Hydrogen economy is actually getting the Hydrogen, it's not easy.
Now, if you're talking about containment for fusion, well that's a totally different thing.
That chart is either out of date, or poorly researched. Several Presidents have been non-Christian. Washington and Jefferson were Deist, Jefferson going so far as to rewrite the Bible without any miracles in it. In fact, for a long time that Bible was required reading for both houses of Congress.
Recently I stumbled across a few quotes from Lincoln, which seemed to show that he was also a Deist, but they could be fakes.
Hepatitis B might not have a cure, but it does have a vaccination. I got it back when I was in 7th grade.
In the United States, we still have a system for involuntary service in place. It's called the 'draft', and even though it hasn't been used since the 70s, all the laws still require it to maintain a list of people. The only way to be allowed to vote is to agree to be added to the list of potential draftees.
Governments have NO rights EVER. Governments have force, and only force. People don't give governments tax money because the government has the right to collect taxes, people give money to the government because the government has lots and lots of guns.
Read the fucking Constitution, and show me where it says that the government is allowed to silence "vulgar" speech in a public square. Show me where it has the authority to restrict ANY speech in a public square.
That's what science would call "anecdotal evidence". Just like if you said "I played Grand Theft Auto and murdered a hooker in real life" would also be anecdotal evidence.
However, if there's a clear correlation between crime rates caused by the major video game playing demographic, and the rise in video game sales, then perhaps the argument is valid. Except there seems to be an inverse relationship. Either the video games have no impact, or video games decrease violent crime, or video games can somehow cause violence but so many other things have caused the violence rates to plummet so dramatically as to make the contribution from video games seem non-existant.
Logically, the first of video games not having any impact on violence seems the way to go. People made the same claims about rap music, and violent movies and violent comic books in decades past, and nobody seemed to offer any credible evidence that these things would actually incite people to violence, unless those people were crazy to begin with, then it just takes ANY kind of trigger, not a specific one.
I'd have to disagree about your car fixing situation. My father has only owned one new car in his whole life, and he sold it years ago. The only reason he performs maintenance on his cars is to keep them running, not because he enjoys it. It was a hobby for him when he was a teenager, but it's not a hobby for him anymore. He does it now to save money, not to have a good time.
Fixing up a junker into a cherry newish car would definitely be a hobby, and it would probably be more expensive than buying a new car if you factored in the time involved, but regular car maintenance isn't a wasted skill. Nevermind simple tasks like changing your own oil instead of paying through the nose for it, or the basic tune up. If you have to replace your car's starter, it's a pain in the ass to do it yourself, but it's also immensely cheaper.
If the 1st Amendment has an exemption for "vulgarity", please show me where it says it.
If I mentioned that I enjoy "breast meat" when talking about chickens, back in 19th century, that would have been considered vulgar.
I can say breast with impunity on the radio.
Don't forget that slavery thing.
Quite so, in the words of Lenny Bruce:
"If you take away the right to say 'fuck', you take away the right to say 'fuck the government'."
The other odd thing about the protect the children mantra, is that if a child hears a bad word there are two consequences.
Either the kid has never been exposed to the word before, and doesn't even know what "fucking" means, then goes to the nearest adult and asks.
Or, the kid knows what the word means, and it's totally meaningless. If the kid knows that when the cop on the tv show said "fuck that guy", and interpreted it to mean "have sex with that guy", he'd be confused when the cop just turns around and gets back in his car.
Every right carries an inherit responsibility. In your example of a riot in a crowded theatre, he WOULD be held responsible, but his rights wouldn't be infringed.
In much the same way as I have a right to carry and operate a firearm, if I use that firearm on another person, I have to accept the consequences of that action.
You don't own the airwaves. If you hear something you don't like on the FUCKING radio or television CHANGE THE FUCKING CHANNEL.
By your laziness to reach for a GOD DAMN button, you're infringing upon the rights of other people.
Should books not have naught titles, because if a shopkeeper displays his books facing out in the street, a kid could see the naughty book title and be forever scarred for life. We should ban books that have naught language in the title, and on the off chance that the book contains a bad word, somebody could leave their copy on a bench in a park somewhere, with a page open to one of those bad words, and you could stumble across it. Instead of just turning away from it, or bitching about it, you find a cop, and get the cop to go arrest the guy who printed the book.
Brilliant.
You, are a cunt.
Access to the Internet has risen with those teen pregnancy rates. Therefore, if we want to eradicate teen pregnancy, we need to ban the Internet!