If it rains and your cat dies, that is not a correlation. At least not a correlation that's strong enough that anyone would call the two correlated. If you record the weather for five years and every time it rains your cat dies, and your cats never die when it doesn't rain, THEN you have a correlation. Think the two might be connected somehow then?
Nope, I wouldn't. See, correlation means that two events happened around the same time. The fact that two events may happen around the same time, multiple times, doesn't suggest anything. In order for what you say to make sense, well, it can't. One cat may have died from kidney failure, another might have been run over. The fact that it was raining each time doesn't mean anything.
Correlation is an exteremly poor method to determine the relationship between two objects or events.
Does anyone seriously treat any wireless transmission as if it was secure? If anyone who cares to listen can easily pick up everything being sent from your computer it's only a matter of time and CPU power before they can read it.
Well, secure enough. I have WPA2 and AES with RADIUS setup... but as far as recording the transmitted data and decrypting it later, you can use tempest to snoop on Cat5 packets too.. so, I'm not sure wired vs. wireless is that relevent.
Take two identical twin females. They dress identically, except that one is wearing a miniskirt and one is wearing an ankle length skirt.
Is it your contention that there is nothing whatsoever different about the appearance of those two persons?
No, my contention is that the one wearing the miniskirt has just as much of a right to walk down the street without being raped as the other woman.
If it isn't, then is it not true that one of those outfits is more appealing to men, in a sexual way, than the other?
Which has nothing to do with nature, and simply a cultural idea of sexual. And just because one wants to be appealing to men, doesn't mean she wants to be raped.
Is it reasonable to suggest that there are women who might choose one of those outfits over the other who are not aware of that?
That being the case, are the not, in fact, "asking for it?"
This is the rational behind Muslims forcing women to cover up; basically the idea is that men can't be expected to have any self control, and it's the woman's fault if a man rapes her. You may be comfortable with that though, I'm not.
Now understand: I am not in any way suggesting that dressing more provocatively should subject any person to sexual assault. But at the same time, anyone who dresses more provocatively really can't credibly claim to be upset when their provocative appearance, well, provokes people.
That's exactly what you're suggesting. Again, this is a culture problem; apparently many people have a problem with women trying to be appealing to men. To think that this justifies rape or even nasty names is parallel to the thinking that racism is ok. You're looking at someone, or the words they use, and judging them on that, instead of judging them based on their character or meaning. It's entirely possible to make a compelling or deep point even though the wording is littered with what some consider profanity.
Used to be, every new game I obtained, legally or not, I used a no-CD crack. I was removing protection that should not have been there anyway.
Equating it to cracking is silly, yet it's also illegal (DMCA) and obviously discouraged by the publishers (or the CD check wouldn't be there in the first place).
Except we're not talking about a no-cd crack, so this entire thing is irrelevent.
So I should pay to be inconvenienced? No thanks.
If I buy a car, you should give me the keys. I should not have to break a window and hotwire it just to drive it off the lot.
So no, I'm not buying it.
Which leaves two options: Don't play it at all, or pirate it. If I don't play it at all, the developers' work truly goes to waste, I can't recommend it to friends -- and when they ask, all I can do is that I refused to buy it because of DRM, which means more lost sales.
No, the developer's work doesn't go to waste. I've paid for it, and will play it. You're rationalizing theft. Whether you and your friends buy the game is largely irrelevent. Your friends may buy it anyway; they may not. It doesn't matter, EA only "lost" the sale of $300 worth of product. (Lost being you could have been a customer, but aren't).
But usually, I can't be bothered. A game has to be damned good before I'm willing to pirate it, and I'm much more willing to simply buy a game that just works, with or without DRM.
Well, I have the game, and it works. Of course if you chose to pirate a game, you're just stealing. Yes, it is stealing; you've taken someone else's time and effort and gained from it, but did not pay, when they expected to be paid. That's theft.
Well, perhaps because in a fundamently biological sense, they're still clothed, which isn't quite our natural state. From a human sense, I think we also expect people to exercise self restraint, and not attack one another. Unless you'd rather we go back to roaming clans that do little but eat, sleep and kill each other.
Absolutely. If you're interviewing for a job and you're saying something along the lines of, "Yeah, my fucking last employer was a fucking moron. He didn't let me fucking surf to Slashdot whenever I wanted even though I got my fucking work done. What a fucking moron." You think you'll get hired because of your shining use of the English language?
Quite a bit different than your previous example, don't you think? Because in the previous example, you pretty much said the woman deserved to be treated like crap, presumably beaten, because in casual conversation she cursed a lot? Certainly when someone is in a professional setting they should act professional, but your first example was a casual setting with someone of unknown relation, and pretty much stating she deserved whatever abuse she got. A more extereme consequence, I'd also point out.
One of the funniest examples of this was, and I'm ashamed to say I watched a minute or two, was that show where guys are taught how to pick up girls by an "expert" (don't know the name of the show). There was one guy who was classified as socially unaware, meaning he had no idea his language offended pretty much everyone around him, including the women he was hitting on.
They showed a tape of him trying to talk to women at the bar and yup, there it was. Pretty much every third word. To say he got the cold shoulder from every woman he talked to would be an understatement. The "expert" showed the tape and called him out on it.
And yet I'm sure in other instances his language was just fine. Of course the problem I have is your leap that someone should be abused because they use language you don't like.
As far as the woman is concerned, thanks for playing now run along. Mixing plaid and stripes is a no-no.
It seems when you're called out you avoid the answer and act dismissively. At least I know your answer at least.
Oh, I'd like to add... anyone that feels the need to say "I'm not a prude," is a prude, to an exterme degree.
No, if the story is true, I shouldn't buy them because of the cavalier attitude towards dealing with customers.
Alright, yes, trying 36 combinations isn't the end of the world. But I'm still basically having to crack my own game -- and this time, it's what they're telling me to do.
Sorry, guessing a single missing character from a misprinted key isn't "cracking." As far as the cavilear attitude, their initial suggestion gets you playing the game with the least amount of effort. Hardly a reason to condem them.
Any game I have to crack to play properly, I either pirate or don't play at all.
You're just guessing a letter that should have been printed anyway. Equating it to cracking is silly, and using it as an excuse to not pay for the game at all is wrong.
Ya, because choice of words is a good indicator of how you should treat someone. I guess girls in skirts higher than the knee are "asking for it" as well. Get a clue.
These are public airwaves, and the public (through our representative government) has every right to restrict how they can be used. Saying you can't broadcast porno over the public airwaves doesn't limit free speech, it just means you have to find somewhere else to do it.
Actually it does. See, there are a minority of people that believe it should be allowed. Our "represitive government" wasn't put in place to protect the majority; they don't need protect. It was intended to protect the minority. So saying the "public" has the right to restrict whatever it wants is nonsense, because the "public" doesn't have one view on the matter. There's no concensis.. which is why this case is here. By the way, representivie government is explicitly NOT allowed to limit free speech.. the choice was made 200 years ago. We can't tell our government to regulate it, for the reason that it turns out to be a really bad idea.
Oh, there are frequencies you can use to broadcast your speech in as well. You might want to read up on it.. fortunately there's a lot of bandwidth out there, and we've chosen to chop it up into blocks for various reasons.
People that enjoy sex like sexual content? Color me not suprised.
FWIW, pretty much my entire class grew up watching porn, stuff we found in our parents room. If TV "caused" teen pregnancy, you'd expect most (well, almost half) of my class to have been knocked up.. yet it wasn't. I strongly suspect this is the norm in many places... and teen pregnancy has been dropping steadly until recently. Oh.. and recently they also started to focus more on abstence than birth control. Hmm... I wonder...
Well, it depends. I think the norm for black people is to vote Democratic, and with those percentages. If that's the case, it's not racism them.. it's just the norm.
That is odd. Generally if you don't live within a city, you don't pay property taxes to that city. I dunno.
Indeed, but that's how it was.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that all of their behavior here was justified, only that it's reasonable for them to ask you questions. Obviously once it became clear that you weren't the guy they thought you were, they should have left you alone - and it should have become clear pretty quickly.
They never actually questioned me; my parents fortunately prevented from my having to deal with that. The problem is, like many cops, once they get an idea in their head, they refuse to let it go. They seem to know that if the wife goes missing, it's usually the husband, but then take that to mean it's ALWAYS the husband, and let it bias their investigation. That seems to be a pretty starndard MO from the cases I've watched.
Ah, well of course there's nothing you can do about it now. But if something like this should happen in the future, yes, you should complain. I know the government probably isn't going to listen to you, but that's only the first step. The next step is to go to the media. If they're not interested, then you've lost, but if you can convince a TV station or newspaper to run your story, you have a chance. The government won't listen to you, but they WILL listen to the media.
That's a possiblity, but the media might not care either. At any rate, no one should have to go to the media to resolve problems. Police are given a lot of power (way too much, if you ask me), and having to embarass them into "doing the right thing" doesn't seem it should be the recommded response.
If you're outside the city limits, they don't have jurisdiction, and you're out of luck. If you don't like it, your options are annexation (get the city to extend their border so you are included), incorporation (get together with your neighbors and form your own city, and either form your own police department or pay the other city to let you use theirs), or moving.
Which was really odd, because my parents paid property tax to the town, and I was allowed to use the town's public schools as well. I even rode on the same bus other kids did. The reality is that the police were just lazy asses.
This sucks, and you have every right to complain. Most cops are not assholes and it's wrong to generalize, but if there's an institutional policy against apologizing for mistakes, that's a pretty serious problem that needs to be addressed at the institutional level; you should talk to your mayor about it (or whichever politician is responsible for the relevant police department). If they're dismissive, see if a TV station or newspaper is interested in the story.
This was a combination of state and local police. Most care ARE complete assholes, and I even know some personally. They're little more than traffic patrol. I will say though there is an exception; ONE of the local cops did come by to appologize, and risked his job doing so. Unfortunately I've never encountered another like him.
Cops are people too, and people make mistakes. It is not unreasonable for them to question you, when they thought they were given your name by another suspect.
Sorry, but when thier mistake can adversly impact the rest of my life, including my freedom, well I'm not going to allow that to be written off as "well, people make mistakes." It is unreasonable for them not to double check their work, and it IS unreasonable when both my parents knew exactly where I was, and had proof; I was with my aunt, uncle and cousin. Of course they weren't interested in talking to any of them. And on the advice of my dad's laywer, my parents had me stay at another relative's house. A lawyer didn't think it was reasonable for them to demand I come down to the station.
Limit your complaint to their policy about not apologizing, and you might be able to make some changes.
I see little point in doing that now; this was 16 years ago. Of course what good would complaining do.. have you ever delt with government on any level? They simply don't care. And given how many police apologiests like yourself there are out there, I doubt anything will ever change.
It depends. If you have an experience like me, where a cop shows up accusing you of stealing & B&E, when you clearly were a 30 minute drive away in another city, doesn't let up, then finally figures out that they mis-spelt the name they got from one of the other kids they caught.. and then are told "it's our policy not to applogize." Well, lets just say I don't have any great respect for cops... espcially since I was told these same cops wouldn't respond to a break in (or worse) at my house, because we were "just outside town lines," and would have to get the state police to respond.. which would take an hour..
If you have health insurance, you're already paying for the fat slobs health care costs. Insurance companies just raises everybody's rates.
Which is affected by the health of the employees. If you have mostly young, healthy employees your rates are lower than a company of the same size with unhealthy people.
The flat slobs can't afford extremely high premiums and they can't deny their claim, not ethically anyway (after all they paid for insurance too).
Their claims should be denied. If you can't be bothered to take reasonable care of your own body, why should insurance pay? Do you know that if you have faulty wiring that you know about, and don't take reasonable measures to get it repaired, your home owners insurance won't pay? Or do you think that's unethical too? I think it's perfectly acceptable; you need to take REASONABLE care of your possessions or your health, and your insurance is there in case you just get unlucky.
It's just easier to take an extra few dollars from everybody.
Ya, it'd be easier for me just to take TVs, food, money and applicances from everyone else too. Good job... you seem to have no ethical problems with theft.
Drugs are a physical thing, with no will of their own. They're neither good or evil.
But, no, I don't have a problem with people taking them. Making them illegal hasn't stopped anyone that wants to from getting them, and the cost is larger than just letting people take them freely to begin with. If you truely think drug use is a problem, rehab programs are far more effective than outlawing the drug.
Slashdot Mirror
If it rains and your cat dies, that is not a correlation. At least not a correlation that's strong enough that anyone would call the two correlated. If you record the weather for five years and every time it rains your cat dies, and your cats never die when it doesn't rain, THEN you have a correlation. Think the two might be connected somehow then?
Nope, I wouldn't. See, correlation means that two events happened around the same time. The fact that two events may happen around the same time, multiple times, doesn't suggest anything. In order for what you say to make sense, well, it can't. One cat may have died from kidney failure, another might have been run over. The fact that it was raining each time doesn't mean anything.
Correlation is an exteremly poor method to determine the relationship between two objects or events.
Does anyone seriously treat any wireless transmission as if it was secure? If anyone who cares to listen can easily pick up everything being sent from your computer it's only a matter of time and CPU power before they can read it.
Well, secure enough. I have WPA2 and AES with RADIUS setup... but as far as recording the transmitted data and decrypting it later, you can use tempest to snoop on Cat5 packets too.. so, I'm not sure wired vs. wireless is that relevent.
You're missing the point.
Take two identical twin females. They dress identically, except that one is wearing a miniskirt and one is wearing an ankle length skirt.
Is it your contention that there is nothing whatsoever different about the appearance of those two persons?
No, my contention is that the one wearing the miniskirt has just as much of a right to walk down the street without being raped as the other woman.
If it isn't, then is it not true that one of those outfits is more appealing to men, in a sexual way, than the other?
Which has nothing to do with nature, and simply a cultural idea of sexual. And just because one wants to be appealing to men, doesn't mean she wants to be raped.
Is it reasonable to suggest that there are women who might choose one of those outfits over the other who are not aware of that?
That being the case, are the not, in fact, "asking for it?"
This is the rational behind Muslims forcing women to cover up; basically the idea is that men can't be expected to have any self control, and it's the woman's fault if a man rapes her. You may be comfortable with that though, I'm not.
Now understand: I am not in any way suggesting that dressing more provocatively should subject any person to sexual assault. But at the same time, anyone who dresses more provocatively really can't credibly claim to be upset when their provocative appearance, well, provokes people.
That's exactly what you're suggesting. Again, this is a culture problem; apparently many people have a problem with women trying to be appealing to men. To think that this justifies rape or even nasty names is parallel to the thinking that racism is ok. You're looking at someone, or the words they use, and judging them on that, instead of judging them based on their character or meaning. It's entirely possible to make a compelling or deep point even though the wording is littered with what some consider profanity.
Probably for the same reason you don't believe that having everyone drive on the right side of the road is a restriction on your freedom to travel.
Oh?
Used to be, every new game I obtained, legally or not, I used a no-CD crack. I was removing protection that should not have been there anyway.
Equating it to cracking is silly, yet it's also illegal (DMCA) and obviously discouraged by the publishers (or the CD check wouldn't be there in the first place).
Except we're not talking about a no-cd crack, so this entire thing is irrelevent.
So I should pay to be inconvenienced? No thanks.
If I buy a car, you should give me the keys. I should not have to break a window and hotwire it just to drive it off the lot.
So no, I'm not buying it.
Which leaves two options: Don't play it at all, or pirate it. If I don't play it at all, the developers' work truly goes to waste, I can't recommend it to friends -- and when they ask, all I can do is that I refused to buy it because of DRM, which means more lost sales.
No, the developer's work doesn't go to waste. I've paid for it, and will play it. You're rationalizing theft. Whether you and your friends buy the game is largely irrelevent. Your friends may buy it anyway; they may not. It doesn't matter, EA only "lost" the sale of $300 worth of product. (Lost being you could have been a customer, but aren't).
But usually, I can't be bothered. A game has to be damned good before I'm willing to pirate it, and I'm much more willing to simply buy a game that just works, with or without DRM.
Well, I have the game, and it works. Of course if you chose to pirate a game, you're just stealing. Yes, it is stealing; you've taken someone else's time and effort and gained from it, but did not pay, when they expected to be paid. That's theft.
Correlation DOES mean there is a link, though it may not be direct.
No, it doesn't even mean that. If it rains, and my cat dies the same day, there's no link. Otherwise I'd have cats dying all the time.
Well, perhaps because in a fundamently biological sense, they're still clothed, which isn't quite our natural state. From a human sense, I think we also expect people to exercise self restraint, and not attack one another. Unless you'd rather we go back to roaming clans that do little but eat, sleep and kill each other.
Absolutely. If you're interviewing for a job and you're saying something along the lines of, "Yeah, my fucking last employer was a fucking moron. He didn't let me fucking surf to Slashdot whenever I wanted even though I got my fucking work done. What a fucking moron." You think you'll get hired because of your shining use of the English language?
Quite a bit different than your previous example, don't you think? Because in the previous example, you pretty much said the woman deserved to be treated like crap, presumably beaten, because in casual conversation she cursed a lot? Certainly when someone is in a professional setting they should act professional, but your first example was a casual setting with someone of unknown relation, and pretty much stating she deserved whatever abuse she got. A more extereme consequence, I'd also point out.
One of the funniest examples of this was, and I'm ashamed to say I watched a minute or two, was that show where guys are taught how to pick up girls by an "expert" (don't know the name of the show). There was one guy who was classified as socially unaware, meaning he had no idea his language offended pretty much everyone around him, including the women he was hitting on.
They showed a tape of him trying to talk to women at the bar and yup, there it was. Pretty much every third word. To say he got the cold shoulder from every woman he talked to would be an understatement. The "expert" showed the tape and called him out on it.
And yet I'm sure in other instances his language was just fine. Of course the problem I have is your leap that someone should be abused because they use language you don't like.
As far as the woman is concerned, thanks for playing now run along. Mixing plaid and stripes is a no-no.
It seems when you're called out you avoid the answer and act dismissively. At least I know your answer at least.
Oh, I'd like to add... anyone that feels the need to say "I'm not a prude," is a prude, to an exterme degree.
No, if the story is true, I shouldn't buy them because of the cavalier attitude towards dealing with customers.
Alright, yes, trying 36 combinations isn't the end of the world. But I'm still basically having to crack my own game -- and this time, it's what they're telling me to do.
Sorry, guessing a single missing character from a misprinted key isn't "cracking." As far as the cavilear attitude, their initial suggestion gets you playing the game with the least amount of effort. Hardly a reason to condem them.
Any game I have to crack to play properly, I either pirate or don't play at all.
You're just guessing a letter that should have been printed anyway. Equating it to cracking is silly, and using it as an excuse to not pay for the game at all is wrong.
Ya, because choice of words is a good indicator of how you should treat someone. I guess girls in skirts higher than the knee are "asking for it" as well. Get a clue.
These are public airwaves, and the public (through our representative government) has every right to restrict how they can be used. Saying you can't broadcast porno over the public airwaves doesn't limit free speech, it just means you have to find somewhere else to do it.
Actually it does. See, there are a minority of people that believe it should be allowed. Our "represitive government" wasn't put in place to protect the majority; they don't need protect. It was intended to protect the minority. So saying the "public" has the right to restrict whatever it wants is nonsense, because the "public" doesn't have one view on the matter. There's no concensis.. which is why this case is here. By the way, representivie government is explicitly NOT allowed to limit free speech.. the choice was made 200 years ago. We can't tell our government to regulate it, for the reason that it turns out to be a really bad idea.
Oh, there are frequencies you can use to broadcast your speech in as well. You might want to read up on it.. fortunately there's a lot of bandwidth out there, and we've chosen to chop it up into blocks for various reasons.
http://www.fcc.gov/lpfm/
People that enjoy sex like sexual content? Color me not suprised.
FWIW, pretty much my entire class grew up watching porn, stuff we found in our parents room. If TV "caused" teen pregnancy, you'd expect most (well, almost half) of my class to have been knocked up.. yet it wasn't. I strongly suspect this is the norm in many places... and teen pregnancy has been dropping steadly until recently. Oh.. and recently they also started to focus more on abstence than birth control. Hmm... I wonder...
IIRC, wasn't 2000 the year we got a republican controlleg leg. and exec.?
Highest paid sports star : "Black"
Highest paid TV person: "Black"
Highest paid Movie actor: "Black"
Who would those be?
Well, it depends. I think the norm for black people is to vote Democratic, and with those percentages. If that's the case, it's not racism them.. it's just the norm.
Well, to people that are racist, he's just black. Doesn't matter if he has a white ancestor somewhere, to them, that's all they see.
I don't think I ever heard anyone say "well, he's not too black, so I'll give him the benefit of the doubt." Stop.
That is odd. Generally if you don't live within a city, you don't pay property taxes to that city. I dunno.
Indeed, but that's how it was.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that all of their behavior here was justified, only that it's reasonable for them to ask you questions. Obviously once it became clear that you weren't the guy they thought you were, they should have left you alone - and it should have become clear pretty quickly.
They never actually questioned me; my parents fortunately prevented from my having to deal with that. The problem is, like many cops, once they get an idea in their head, they refuse to let it go. They seem to know that if the wife goes missing, it's usually the husband, but then take that to mean it's ALWAYS the husband, and let it bias their investigation. That seems to be a pretty starndard MO from the cases I've watched.
Ah, well of course there's nothing you can do about it now. But if something like this should happen in the future, yes, you should complain. I know the government probably isn't going to listen to you, but that's only the first step. The next step is to go to the media. If they're not interested, then you've lost, but if you can convince a TV station or newspaper to run your story, you have a chance. The government won't listen to you, but they WILL listen to the media.
That's a possiblity, but the media might not care either. At any rate, no one should have to go to the media to resolve problems. Police are given a lot of power (way too much, if you ask me), and having to embarass them into "doing the right thing" doesn't seem it should be the recommded response.
Well, make sure to give them all but the last digit.
Ya, you shouldn't buy from them because of a printing problem. Cuz you know, they own the presses to make the manuals too.
Please. I got my copy premier copy and I have all the characters for the key.
If you're outside the city limits, they don't have jurisdiction, and you're out of luck. If you don't like it, your options are annexation (get the city to extend their border so you are included), incorporation (get together with your neighbors and form your own city, and either form your own police department or pay the other city to let you use theirs), or moving.
Which was really odd, because my parents paid property tax to the town, and I was allowed to use the town's public schools as well. I even rode on the same bus other kids did. The reality is that the police were just lazy asses.
This sucks, and you have every right to complain. Most cops are not assholes and it's wrong to generalize, but if there's an institutional policy against apologizing for mistakes, that's a pretty serious problem that needs to be addressed at the institutional level; you should talk to your mayor about it (or whichever politician is responsible for the relevant police department). If they're dismissive, see if a TV station or newspaper is interested in the story.
This was a combination of state and local police. Most care ARE complete assholes, and I even know some personally. They're little more than traffic patrol. I will say though there is an exception; ONE of the local cops did come by to appologize, and risked his job doing so. Unfortunately I've never encountered another like him.
Cops are people too, and people make mistakes. It is not unreasonable for them to question you, when they thought they were given your name by another suspect.
Sorry, but when thier mistake can adversly impact the rest of my life, including my freedom, well I'm not going to allow that to be written off as "well, people make mistakes." It is unreasonable for them not to double check their work, and it IS unreasonable when both my parents knew exactly where I was, and had proof; I was with my aunt, uncle and cousin. Of course they weren't interested in talking to any of them. And on the advice of my dad's laywer, my parents had me stay at another relative's house. A lawyer didn't think it was reasonable for them to demand I come down to the station.
Limit your complaint to their policy about not apologizing, and you might be able to make some changes.
I see little point in doing that now; this was 16 years ago. Of course what good would complaining do.. have you ever delt with government on any level? They simply don't care. And given how many police apologiests like yourself there are out there, I doubt anything will ever change.
It depends. If you have an experience like me, where a cop shows up accusing you of stealing & B&E, when you clearly were a 30 minute drive away in another city, doesn't let up, then finally figures out that they mis-spelt the name they got from one of the other kids they caught.. and then are told "it's our policy not to applogize." Well, lets just say I don't have any great respect for cops... espcially since I was told these same cops wouldn't respond to a break in (or worse) at my house, because we were "just outside town lines," and would have to get the state police to respond.. which would take an hour..
If you have health insurance, you're already paying for the fat slobs health care costs. Insurance companies just raises everybody's rates.
Which is affected by the health of the employees. If you have mostly young, healthy employees your rates are lower than a company of the same size with unhealthy people.
The flat slobs can't afford extremely high premiums and they can't deny their claim, not ethically anyway (after all they paid for insurance too).
Their claims should be denied. If you can't be bothered to take reasonable care of your own body, why should insurance pay? Do you know that if you have faulty wiring that you know about, and don't take reasonable measures to get it repaired, your home owners insurance won't pay? Or do you think that's unethical too? I think it's perfectly acceptable; you need to take REASONABLE care of your possessions or your health, and your insurance is there in case you just get unlucky.
It's just easier to take an extra few dollars from everybody.
Ya, it'd be easier for me just to take TVs, food, money and applicances from everyone else too. Good job... you seem to have no ethical problems with theft.
Why then is "get into shape or no health care" a good idea?
Drugs are a physical thing, with no will of their own. They're neither good or evil.
But, no, I don't have a problem with people taking them. Making them illegal hasn't stopped anyone that wants to from getting them, and the cost is larger than just letting people take them freely to begin with. If you truely think drug use is a problem, rehab programs are far more effective than outlawing the drug.
Well if you are using for other sites, you must see that it does listen to the standards much better than before.