Perhaps I should have been more clear? Your interests may align for the commission of a crime, but you have a non-zero chance of getting caught and they will not align if that should come to pass. The modern criminal justice system is very adept at convincing people to roll on one another.
If you're engaged in a criminal conspiracy (any crime with more than one participant) and the authorities get involved it's essentially a game of musical chairs. Are you going to be the last one standing?
If the media companies had any say in the matter, buying a CD to rip the songs to MP3 to play on your portable device would be illegal.
If the public had any stones, they would stop buying this shit. Your life will not come to an end if you miss the latest season of Game of Thrones. The right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness does not encompass DVDs without region encoding. If you don't like the way they're selling their products don't consume them.
I think the media is largely a bunch of obnoxious asshats and I've largely removed myself from their ecosystem. I don't subscribe to Netflix, own less than ten movies, and all of my television comes from an antenna. Pandora meets my music needs at a minimal cost.
Neutralizing sexual discrimination is a multi-generation endeavor, and one of the most important steps is to eliminate the gender bias in positions of power - which unfortunately requires either a period of systematic discrimination in the opposite direction, or a willingness to wait several more generations until everyone currently in the queue retires.
I really fucking hate social engineering. So until we reach this fantasy utopia of yours those of us that you are discriminating against just have to roll over? Because previous generations discriminated in the opposite direction? I'm to be disadvantaged because of my gender based on the actions of my parents and grandparents?
There's a reason why corruption of blood is proscribed in our political system. I fail to see why corruption of gender or race is justifiable. You're punishing me for the actions of third parties, many of whom died years before I was born, and you really think this is sound public policy?
I would say sexism is a prejudice, or belief that women (or men) should not be in—or will not be as good in—certain fields.
What would you call willful ignorance of the difference between the sexes? Do you think females, on average, can excel as much as males in a job that requires physical strength and endurance? Someone pointed out that there's no significant push to get females into garbage collection. Is it sexist to acknowledge the fact that males out-compete females in the lion's share of physical sports? How about the fact that females have a higher average than males on language testing? Or that males beat females on spatial acuity tests?
It would make more sense, IMHO, to acknowledge the obvious differences between the sexes and allow them to complement one another in society.
You didn't bother to click on the link, did you? The electrical requirement for aluminum smelting is measured in gigawatts. Have fun buying up enough land to produce that with solar panels.
Don't interject reality into his partisan rant. It's clearly the Republican's fault. Because, OMGZ, the 1%!!!! GWB!!! Iraq War!!!! Dick Cheney!!! Big oil!!!
My MD is part of the first practice in our area to get an EMR. It completely ruined the Doctor-Patient experience; now he spends our entire visit doing this: click, click, click, type, click, click, click. Previously he was actually able to make eye contact and interact with his patients, he didn't spend the entire fucking visit doing data entry. Frankly I think it's absurd that an MD would even touch a keyboard and mouse. Give the guy a paper chart, have him write down the visit like he always would, and pay a medical transcriptionist $15/hr to do the data entry. The MDs time is too valuable to be spent doing it.
Of course, hiring more medical transcriptionists would cost money, which is the last thing both the Government (thanks ACA and Medicare) and health insurance providers want. Providers are being squeezed dry, especially primary care providers, and EMRs are not going to do a damned thing to solve this problem or further the cause of cost containment.
No, it would not be "A-OK" (thanks for putting words in my mouth) but it would not be genocide. The word loses its meaning when it's overused. It's like using the word "rape" to describe a subway groping. Groping someone in a crowded subway car is not acceptable in a civilized society, but it's not rape, and you do the lexicon a disservice when you equate the two.
And....uh... why should you be granted the right to make those decisions for me?
Because when your dumbass overdoses on heroin you expect me to both save it and pick up the bill for doing so. You want to live in a Libertarian paradise? Can we start by letting OD victims die without wasting public resources on them? As in, the EMTs show up, see the heroin kit, and leave? Somehow I doubt you'd be willing to get behind that notion.
Some drugs are regulated for the public good. Should antibiotics be freely available to any idiot who wants them?
So what's your alternative? The substances that I mentioned are the ones that turn a large majority of their users into slobbering idiots that are complete drains on society. The social compact doesn't allow us to throw them under the bus, so the rest of us are forced to subsidize them, at least until their bad life choices finally catch up to them. My State is spending millions of dollars right now to equip all first responders with naloxone, an anecdote to opiate poisoning, because of our ongoing heroin epidemic. Few people seem to get behind my flippant "Let the idiots die, we need that money for other things" approach.
I agree with you in principle, that if you give Government an inch they'll make a mile. Of course, that's the same argument made against the FCC's recent network neutrality decision. It's interesting how making it in the context of drug prohibition earns approval from the group-think here but making it against network neutrality invariably earns scorn and downmods. I guess it's all about knowing your audience.:)
Actually my MD saved my life, with a single verbal statement that was far more effective than any of the drugs that him or his predecessors tried, "Suicide is the most selfish decision you'll make and your friends will never forgive you for it."
I concur with you in principle, there are some people who need meds, but my gut feeling (reinforced by seven years of working for a mental healthcare agency, incidentally) is that we reach for them too quickly.
There's a difference between conquering and/or outcompeting a people and lining them up for systematic mass slaughter. The Romans didn't commit genocide against the Gauls, they conquered them. I would be interested to know which part of Native American history you think remotely equates to the Armenian genocide.
He said it is impossible for renewables to power current tech.
And it is. Do you think you can smelt aluminum with solar panels? That's an extreme example, but a legitimate one. Want something easier to relate to? I could cover my roof with solar panels and not have enough juice to run my air conditioning or clothes dryer. Of course, I could easily have a solar rig that uses the power grid to make up that deficit, and to absorb my surplus when I'm not running such appliances, but that's not exactly using renewables to power current tech.
Renewables can be used to supplement carbon based energy sources but they can not replace them. There is a technology that could, but the usage of it is politically controversial.
Within reasonable (cannabis, alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, peyote) limits I don't view it as the job of the Government to regulate pleasure inducing substances. If you want to talk about the extremes (heroin and other opiates, cocaine, barbiturates), then yes, I think the use thereof should be regulated.
My preference is ibuprofen for head or muscle aches, followed by naproxen, and then aspirin. I'd concur with you about the liver impact of acetaminophen, I had my MD tell me once upon a time that I needed to cut back on the drinking, because of my liver results; I hadn't had a drink in over a month but had been on a regime of acetaminophen + codine following wisdom tooth surgery. That was a wake up call.:)
The best anti-depressant I have found is distance running. The second best is other forms of cardio exercise. SSRIs or SNRIs? Been there, done that, they did very little to help me with depression. I don't even think they took the edge off, although it's hard to prove that negative. Tried Celexa, Zoloft, Effexor, Prozac, and a few other ones. Not only did they fail to address (or even make manageable) the depression, they all came with a lovely side effect and then six months of the other extreme when I discontinued them.
That kind of shit has always happened during wartime. I fail to see how some non-combatant dying in a drone strike is any worse than the non-combatants that died in Tokyo and Dresden. We aren't deliberately trying to kill them, sometimes they're too close to legitimate targets, other times we misidentify them.
Newsflash: War is a messy business. I'd just as soon prefer we didn't have to engage in it at all, but I'm not the one refusing to live by the rules of the civilized world. Why don't you save some of your condemnation for the people that refuse to fight in uniform and hide behind civilians? Both of those actions are war crimes, just so you know.
No, certain people think we've lost control of our Government. I am a member of the American electorate, more informed than most, and I'm content with the oversight that exists. I don't particularly care for our current President, or the one that preceded him, but on this particular issue I'm satisfied with the decisions they've made.
We could talk about the oversight mechanisms that exist, if you'd like, though I'm skeptical that you would approach the issue with an open mind based on your comments to date.
Based on what you've said, it appears you believe that sugar is at most a minor contributor to tooth decay or any other chronic disease.
It appears you're more adept at putting words into my mouth than you are at parsing the ones I've actually written. Perhaps English is not your native language? Perhaps I'm a shitty writer? Perhaps both?
or that the arguments that modern sugar consumption is detrimental to health are unfounded
I never claimed that they were unfounded. If you believe that I said that I suggest you read what I've actually written. I simply take exception to the notion that sugar is the problem we most need to concern ourselves with. I even gave you a particularly outlandish example of what I regard as the obsession with sugar intake -- apparently fruit juice is bad now -- but you declined to acknowledge or respond to it. *shrug*
Slashdot Mirror
Non-zero yes but, there are many many more investigations than arrests.
I'm sure that fact is comforting to the people that lost the dice roll. :)
Perhaps I should have been more clear? Your interests may align for the commission of a crime, but you have a non-zero chance of getting caught and they will not align if that should come to pass. The modern criminal justice system is very adept at convincing people to roll on one another.
If you're engaged in a criminal conspiracy (any crime with more than one participant) and the authorities get involved it's essentially a game of musical chairs. Are you going to be the last one standing?
Not entirely, if you can trust that his interests and yours are aligned then you can generally trust him.
Which is impossible when you're engaged in the commission of a crime. Your interests will never align. See prisoner's dilemma.
I was replying to a comment, so you can take your purity test and shove it up your ass.
If the media companies had any say in the matter, buying a CD to rip the songs to MP3 to play on your portable device would be illegal.
If the public had any stones, they would stop buying this shit. Your life will not come to an end if you miss the latest season of Game of Thrones. The right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness does not encompass DVDs without region encoding. If you don't like the way they're selling their products don't consume them.
I think the media is largely a bunch of obnoxious asshats and I've largely removed myself from their ecosystem. I don't subscribe to Netflix, own less than ten movies, and all of my television comes from an antenna. Pandora meets my music needs at a minimal cost.
Neutralizing sexual discrimination is a multi-generation endeavor, and one of the most important steps is to eliminate the gender bias in positions of power - which unfortunately requires either a period of systematic discrimination in the opposite direction, or a willingness to wait several more generations until everyone currently in the queue retires.
I really fucking hate social engineering. So until we reach this fantasy utopia of yours those of us that you are discriminating against just have to roll over? Because previous generations discriminated in the opposite direction? I'm to be disadvantaged because of my gender based on the actions of my parents and grandparents?
There's a reason why corruption of blood is proscribed in our political system. I fail to see why corruption of gender or race is justifiable. You're punishing me for the actions of third parties, many of whom died years before I was born, and you really think this is sound public policy?
I would say sexism is a prejudice, or belief that women (or men) should not be in—or will not be as good in—certain fields.
What would you call willful ignorance of the difference between the sexes? Do you think females, on average, can excel as much as males in a job that requires physical strength and endurance? Someone pointed out that there's no significant push to get females into garbage collection. Is it sexist to acknowledge the fact that males out-compete females in the lion's share of physical sports? How about the fact that females have a higher average than males on language testing? Or that males beat females on spatial acuity tests?
It would make more sense, IMHO, to acknowledge the obvious differences between the sexes and allow them to complement one another in society.
You didn't bother to click on the link, did you? The electrical requirement for aluminum smelting is measured in gigawatts. Have fun buying up enough land to produce that with solar panels.
Don't interject reality into his partisan rant. It's clearly the Republican's fault. Because, OMGZ, the 1%!!!! GWB!!! Iraq War!!!! Dick Cheney!!! Big oil!!!
My MD is part of the first practice in our area to get an EMR. It completely ruined the Doctor-Patient experience; now he spends our entire visit doing this: click, click, click, type, click, click, click. Previously he was actually able to make eye contact and interact with his patients, he didn't spend the entire fucking visit doing data entry. Frankly I think it's absurd that an MD would even touch a keyboard and mouse. Give the guy a paper chart, have him write down the visit like he always would, and pay a medical transcriptionist $15/hr to do the data entry. The MDs time is too valuable to be spent doing it.
Of course, hiring more medical transcriptionists would cost money, which is the last thing both the Government (thanks ACA and Medicare) and health insurance providers want. Providers are being squeezed dry, especially primary care providers, and EMRs are not going to do a damned thing to solve this problem or further the cause of cost containment.
No, it would not be "A-OK" (thanks for putting words in my mouth) but it would not be genocide. The word loses its meaning when it's overused. It's like using the word "rape" to describe a subway groping. Groping someone in a crowded subway car is not acceptable in a civilized society, but it's not rape, and you do the lexicon a disservice when you equate the two.
And....uh... why should you be granted the right to make those decisions for me?
Because when your dumbass overdoses on heroin you expect me to both save it and pick up the bill for doing so. You want to live in a Libertarian paradise? Can we start by letting OD victims die without wasting public resources on them? As in, the EMTs show up, see the heroin kit, and leave? Somehow I doubt you'd be willing to get behind that notion.
Some drugs are regulated for the public good. Should antibiotics be freely available to any idiot who wants them?
You need a trusted co-conspirator.
Those words are mutually exclusive. :)
they injected paint into the ping-pong balls used for the live drawing.
My State still uses ping-pong balls and a live drawing, at least for the non "quickdraw" games. I'm not sure if that's admirable or pathetic. :)
So what's your alternative? The substances that I mentioned are the ones that turn a large majority of their users into slobbering idiots that are complete drains on society. The social compact doesn't allow us to throw them under the bus, so the rest of us are forced to subsidize them, at least until their bad life choices finally catch up to them. My State is spending millions of dollars right now to equip all first responders with naloxone, an anecdote to opiate poisoning, because of our ongoing heroin epidemic. Few people seem to get behind my flippant "Let the idiots die, we need that money for other things" approach.
I agree with you in principle, that if you give Government an inch they'll make a mile. Of course, that's the same argument made against the FCC's recent network neutrality decision. It's interesting how making it in the context of drug prohibition earns approval from the group-think here but making it against network neutrality invariably earns scorn and downmods. I guess it's all about knowing your audience. :)
Actually my MD saved my life, with a single verbal statement that was far more effective than any of the drugs that him or his predecessors tried, "Suicide is the most selfish decision you'll make and your friends will never forgive you for it."
I concur with you in principle, there are some people who need meds, but my gut feeling (reinforced by seven years of working for a mental healthcare agency, incidentally) is that we reach for them too quickly.
There's a difference between conquering and/or outcompeting a people and lining them up for systematic mass slaughter. The Romans didn't commit genocide against the Gauls, they conquered them. I would be interested to know which part of Native American history you think remotely equates to the Armenian genocide.
He said it is impossible for renewables to power current tech.
And it is. Do you think you can smelt aluminum with solar panels? That's an extreme example, but a legitimate one. Want something easier to relate to? I could cover my roof with solar panels and not have enough juice to run my air conditioning or clothes dryer. Of course, I could easily have a solar rig that uses the power grid to make up that deficit, and to absorb my surplus when I'm not running such appliances, but that's not exactly using renewables to power current tech.
Renewables can be used to supplement carbon based energy sources but they can not replace them. There is a technology that could, but the usage of it is politically controversial.
Within reasonable (cannabis, alcohol, tobacco, caffeine, peyote) limits I don't view it as the job of the Government to regulate pleasure inducing substances. If you want to talk about the extremes (heroin and other opiates, cocaine, barbiturates), then yes, I think the use thereof should be regulated.
When you think you're happy, it just means you're not miserable.
Sounds like someone has never had sex or a reasonably tough workout. :P
Aspirin isn't a sliver bullet either....
My preference is ibuprofen for head or muscle aches, followed by naproxen, and then aspirin. I'd concur with you about the liver impact of acetaminophen, I had my MD tell me once upon a time that I needed to cut back on the drinking, because of my liver results; I hadn't had a drink in over a month but had been on a regime of acetaminophen + codine following wisdom tooth surgery. That was a wake up call. :)
The best anti-depressant I have found is distance running. The second best is other forms of cardio exercise. SSRIs or SNRIs? Been there, done that, they did very little to help me with depression. I don't even think they took the edge off, although it's hard to prove that negative. Tried Celexa, Zoloft, Effexor, Prozac, and a few other ones. Not only did they fail to address (or even make manageable) the depression, they all came with a lovely side effect and then six months of the other extreme when I discontinued them.
Yep, because feeling good via any other means than mass consumption is bad.
So in your world there's no way to feel good besides using drugs or mass consumption?
That kind of shit has always happened during wartime. I fail to see how some non-combatant dying in a drone strike is any worse than the non-combatants that died in Tokyo and Dresden. We aren't deliberately trying to kill them, sometimes they're too close to legitimate targets, other times we misidentify them.
Newsflash: War is a messy business. I'd just as soon prefer we didn't have to engage in it at all, but I'm not the one refusing to live by the rules of the civilized world. Why don't you save some of your condemnation for the people that refuse to fight in uniform and hide behind civilians? Both of those actions are war crimes, just so you know.
No, certain people think we've lost control of our Government. I am a member of the American electorate, more informed than most, and I'm content with the oversight that exists. I don't particularly care for our current President, or the one that preceded him, but on this particular issue I'm satisfied with the decisions they've made.
We could talk about the oversight mechanisms that exist, if you'd like, though I'm skeptical that you would approach the issue with an open mind based on your comments to date.
Based on what you've said, it appears you believe that sugar is at most a minor contributor to tooth decay or any other chronic disease.
It appears you're more adept at putting words into my mouth than you are at parsing the ones I've actually written. Perhaps English is not your native language? Perhaps I'm a shitty writer? Perhaps both?
or that the arguments that modern sugar consumption is detrimental to health are unfounded
I never claimed that they were unfounded. If you believe that I said that I suggest you read what I've actually written. I simply take exception to the notion that sugar is the problem we most need to concern ourselves with. I even gave you a particularly outlandish example of what I regard as the obsession with sugar intake -- apparently fruit juice is bad now -- but you declined to acknowledge or respond to it. *shrug*