At least you qualified it with "IMO." That it defaults to top-posting (and worse, offers no option to turn off this misbehavior) makes it terminally broken, IMNSHO. Why should I have to shuffle around the order of the original message and my reply every fscking time I create a reply? Thunderbird defaults to inline/bottom-posting, which is the One True Way to write email (top-posting brokenness is a click away, if you must pretend to be an Outlook-using dweeb for some reason).
Ugh, get off your high horse. Many of us don't care to have to scroll down on every single email thread to read the newest stuff. Rarely do I ever need to read the quoted text. Why waste my time by forcing me to scroll down to read your words?
Please, humble yourself immediately.
Better yet, get a life. Honestly. What kind of loser gets upset and feels the need to evanglise about which one is better and 'the one true way' when he receives a top posted email. Do what everyone else does. DEAL WITH IT!
Hmm.. perhaps I was too strong. It does seem there are instances where the parents pay the price, but for the most part, I think that kids that commit crimes which one may be locked up on, they usually end up at juvinal hall, do they not? So maybe the line is minor things the parents get hit for, but major infractions they punish the kid?
FWIW, if you give your kids bank cracking software, I'm sure you'd be charged.. since you're part of the conspiricy. I know you were kidding... but just wanted to point that out.
How is it reasonable to get a bill for being in jail when you should not have been there to begin with? The state should eat the cost; they are the ones that fucked up!
Why should someone be harmed (in this case financially) when they have done nothing wrong?
when did the parent become not responsible for what their kids do?
Pretty much in everything. If your teenager kills someone, the parent does not go to jail for murder. The teenager does.
The case was probably dismissed because you can't sue one person because another person did something wrong, even if it was their own kid. The RIAA could sue the kid, but are unlikely to ever get the money, and get even more bad press. I don't think anyone has ever kept their image good suing a minor...
That said, I had an uncle tell me that there's a group you can join in FL, where you basicaly pay monthly or whatever, and then when you need a lawyer, they come out to defend you.
Has anyone else heard of this? If so, anyone have any links for such services?
And they could have bought their robogarage from someone else or built a normal one.
Building a normal garage doesn't help the problem they are trying to solve. It wasn't a viable option, as I've said. AFAIK, there is no competitor they can by a robogarage from, which is probably why they were working with the company to build it.
C'mon, this is Hoboken. They seem to wallow in that stuff.
So because the infrastructure isn't what it should be they should allow it to continue deteriorating? Some logic you have there..
No, begging for money to buy drugs isn't begging for help overcoming the addiction. Do people here play dumb or are they really that stupid?
In that case, I have two problems with that. One, "treatment" doesn't work, two, "treatment" costs ME money, and if you can choose to use drugs then I think I ought to be able to choose NOT to pay a single cent for your "treatment" or any other cost associated with your "choice".
Really? So all those treatment centers don't work, no one is able to recover? Just like alcohol? You sir are perhaps the stupidist person I've had the misfortune of coming across on slashdot.
Keeping drugs illegal is costing you money too. Not only are you paying for treatment, you're paying for enforcement and to keep people alive sitting in jail. Its costing you much more money than simply making drugs legal. Finally, its costing innocent people their lives. Oh wait, drugs are illegal so there is no black market selling them and so there's no violence crimes and murder going on because of the illegal drug trade.
Individual citizens who happen to like using drugs have a direct personal interest in lobbying for drug legalization. Thus, the arguments made by such citizens must be taken with a grain of salt -- once a person has experienced a physical/mental euphoria as a result of a particular action, their rationalization of that action can no longer be trusted as being objective.
No, your self image is tied up in this; you are pushing some agenda, and I don't really know why. You claim to use logic, but I haven't seen any evidence of that yet. When presented with facts about pot, when presented with facts about violence caused exactly because pot and 'harder' drugs are illegal, when asked what RIGHT you have to tell someone else what they can do with their own body, you don't ever come back with any kind of good, logical answer. Instead you have one idiotic 100% generalization after another to 'justify' your stand. That's not logic.
I've never tried pot or any other illegal drug, nor do I really have a desire to try them. Yet I stand 100% behind those that want to legalize all drug use. I do this because I believe strongly in individual rights. I believe that no one ever has any right to tell you what you may do to your own body. I also don't like what some radical groups say, but I believe they have the right to say it (practicing it is another matter). That's what logical people that belive in individual rights do.
Consider the following: a person consumes some controlled substance which impairs their ability to drive a car. They drive anyway and kill an innocent pedestrian. Because of the nature of the intoxicating substance in this case, it was extremely unlikely that the driver, if sober, would have killed the pedestrian. How do you reconcile this situation? Punishing the offender will not bring back the innocent that was killed. Would you argue that the freedom of the offender to do what he did is worth an indeterminate number of innocent lives? If you answer 'yes', would you believe that not everyone is as willing to increase their own risk of death as you are? How do you reconcile that?
Yet alcohol doesn't bother you a bit does it? No one said it should be legal to drive while under some kind of chemical influence. They just said it should not be illegal to put in your body what you want.
Its funny that you claim to support your views with logic, yet this argument is purely an emotional one (what about the poor poor innocent 6 year old orphan with the curly hair and dimples that no matter how many people spit on her she had the brightest smile in the world). Please, do the world a favor, and exersice your right to die.
That's funny, because I don't need to do drugs. No one in my family uses drugs, and neither do any of my friends. None of my coworkers use drugs. We all seem to be happy and productive people, and there's nothing special about us that makes us able to function in this way. It's a lot more likely that people who claim that they need drugs are just trying to get away with something.
With your attitude, they likely wouldn't tell you if they enjoyed doing drugs. I'm willing to bet that someone in your family or one of your coworkers DOES do drugs, and keeps it secret, because of people like you that think its evil.
How dare you be so arrogant and self important to think you have the right to tell someone else what they can do with their body.
First of all, riding a motorcycle (versus driving a car) does not at all increase the probability of injuring another person versus driving a car. A person who has been drinking or smoking, for example, would be less capable of driving a car or handling a firearm while under the influence -- thus increasing the probability of injuring a bystander. A motorcyclist, however, is actually less dangerous to other drivers because the mass of his vehicle is less than than the mass of a car by an order of magnitude.
You realize that there are others around besides those on any kind of vehical right? Such as pedistrians. A motorcycle hitting them would cause quite a bit of harm.
Secondly, you're quoting absolute figures for those morality statistics. What would actually be relevant (if this analogy were valid in the first place) would be the percentages of motorcycle-riding experiences versus drug-using experiences that result in a death.
No, he's right to quote the absolute numbers. You want the percentages so that you can exaggerate the problem. I'd also like to know how you get an accurate number of drug users when said drugs are illegal. You can nitpik all you want, it won't change reality.
Thirdly, using some sort of motorized vehicle is necessary for many people to whom public transportation is not available. As I've already established, riding a motorcyle is actually less dangerous than driving a car for everyone other than the rider.
You haven't established anything, because you conviently forget to talk about pedistrians. Even if you did, are you now advocating that everyone use motorcycles? Honestly, what is your point?
We could make the 'need' for a motorized vehicle go away by forcing everyone to live in a city and that city can build public transportation. Why not do this? You're taking away someones freedom to put in their bodies what they like, why not take about people's right to live where they want? Oh wait, because YOU want to live where ever you want, but because YOU don't want to take drugs, you don't think anyone else should be allowed.
I disagree. Hoboken knew about this from the start.
Agreed, and a reasonable person would not enter into such a contract, unless there was no other choice. It seems there was no other choice. The fact that they were willing to spend so much money on a parking garage indicates to me that they have serious parking problems which must be addressed.
Nope. Justice is about fair play, and law is about keeping order. I see no reason to protect Hoboken from its own stupidity.
I think our founders would disagree with you on the purpose of law. You can have order in a facsist government.
Someone being forced into a course of action is not stupidity, its being taken advantage. Given the reluctance of the city to enter into the contract in the first place, I would have to say they were left with no recourse. Letting city infastructure deterioate is not an acceptable course of action.
Your argument is stupid. The same thing can be said about those that rock climb or mountain bike or surf or simply eating too much causing you to become obese, yet no one said that their insurance shouldn't pay for the problems those activites cause.
If you really want to fix the cost problem, set a standard by which medical insurance can refuse to pay if you haven't taken 'reasonable care' of yourself; that is, you took TOO much of a drug, didn't take enough safety precautions rock climbing, or are morbidly obese.
While the use of drugs is indeed a personal freedom issue the simple obstacle for me is that I would not exactly like a world were the majority of citizens are doped out.
You really believe that the only thing stoppin everyone from being 'doped out' all the time is the fact that drug use is illegal? If so, I have a bridge to sell you..
There you go, emotional arguements about what MAY happen. Don't let logic convience you though.
You may be suprised to know that there ARE drugged up people driving 18 wheelers down the road right now! Worse, since drugs are illegal we can't regulate it so that you can leave a drug den, for example, if you haven't come off your high yet.
So you'd rather have high truck drivers that may plow into a bus load of kids IN ADDITION TO THE INNOCENT PEOPLE KILLED IN DRUG TURF WARS.
Ok, I'll spell it out. The fallacy is that in thinking that everyone that does pot will end up on harder drugs. It may happen, yes, but not 100% of the time, or even most of the time.
As for Israel, they do have a right to exist (although the creation of that state wasn't done properly, in my opinion). Why they have to irradicate Jews from the holy sites I don't understand. I fail to see why Jews, Christians and Muslims can't live in peace together under some kind of republic government in those areas.
He's right to want us out; he's wrong to try to kill anyone in that area that doesn't not believe as he. It'd be easier to see his viewpoint as rational (although I don't think his tactics necessarly are, but as you say, they believe us to be an invading force) if he abandoned his irrational beliefs.
If you have to see 'we are right because our god says so' you standing on a log in the ocean... in other words, you don't have any solid ground on which to stand.
If it was really about creating equality, why would you blow yourself up? You end up dead, not with more wealth. You also bring down the wrath of those you blew up on the innocent people for whom you are supposedly fighting.
Notice how many innocent Lebanese have been killed in the conflict with Israel because of Hezbolla. Most of them may have supported Hezbolla (because Hezbolla fed them) but were not actively firing rockets at Israel either.
I think the root cause is that these people really believe in their particular religion. Crusaders did too. They believe in irrational ideas, and thus do irrational things in the name of their fictional god. Why aren't people that believe in god declared insane? By all rights they should be... but they are not, because there's just so many of them.
Fine, than worry, you have a good reason to! But someone in the UK doesn't, which is my point.
FWIW, I was refering to the one that's on its way... I actually DO read world news. Not all of us Americans are alike! We can't even agree on most issues.
Stop with your emotion based drivel trying to justify taking away someone's right to do what they want to their body. I'm sorry, I have no sympathy for someone that knowingly takes something which can kill them. Your friend died, I'm sorry to hear that. Do you know how many other innocent people died because of the war on drugs? Do they have to die too so that your friend can STILL die of an addiction?
How about blaming your friend? I know its hard, but ultimately ITS HIS FAULT. Not music, movies, books, or video games. Not the dealers or the substance he took. HIS fault.
Why is it when someone dies from drugs its the fault of the movies? Yet when someone dies rock climbing, no one is shouting to ban rock climbing and movies that glorify it? You do realize that rock climbers have an addiction too... its to adrenaline.
Slashdot Mirror
That could be because the default sort order is by date, oldest first...
At least you qualified it with "IMO." That it defaults to top-posting (and worse, offers no option to turn off this misbehavior) makes it terminally broken, IMNSHO. Why should I have to shuffle around the order of the original message and my reply every fscking time I create a reply? Thunderbird defaults to inline/bottom-posting, which is the One True Way to write email (top-posting brokenness is a click away, if you must pretend to be an Outlook-using dweeb for some reason).
Ugh, get off your high horse. Many of us don't care to have to scroll down on every single email thread to read the newest stuff. Rarely do I ever need to read the quoted text. Why waste my time by forcing me to scroll down to read your words?
Please, humble yourself immediately.
Better yet, get a life. Honestly. What kind of loser gets upset and feels the need to evanglise about which one is better and 'the one true way' when he receives a top posted email. Do what everyone else does. DEAL WITH IT!
Hmm.. perhaps I was too strong. It does seem there are instances where the parents pay the price, but for the most part, I think that kids that commit crimes which one may be locked up on, they usually end up at juvinal hall, do they not? So maybe the line is minor things the parents get hit for, but major infractions they punish the kid?
FWIW, if you give your kids bank cracking software, I'm sure you'd be charged.. since you're part of the conspiricy. I know you were kidding... but just wanted to point that out.
Great... any recommendations?
How is it reasonable to get a bill for being in jail when you should not have been there to begin with? The state should eat the cost; they are the ones that fucked up!
Why should someone be harmed (in this case financially) when they have done nothing wrong?
when did the parent become not responsible for what their kids do?
Pretty much in everything. If your teenager kills someone, the parent does not go to jail for murder. The teenager does.
The case was probably dismissed because you can't sue one person because another person did something wrong, even if it was their own kid. The RIAA could sue the kid, but are unlikely to ever get the money, and get even more bad press. I don't think anyone has ever kept their image good suing a minor...
That said, I had an uncle tell me that there's a group you can join in FL, where you basicaly pay monthly or whatever, and then when you need a lawyer, they come out to defend you.
Has anyone else heard of this? If so, anyone have any links for such services?
And they could have bought their robogarage from someone else or built a normal one.
Building a normal garage doesn't help the problem they are trying to solve. It wasn't a viable option, as I've said. AFAIK, there is no competitor they can by a robogarage from, which is probably why they were working with the company to build it.
C'mon, this is Hoboken. They seem to wallow in that stuff.
So because the infrastructure isn't what it should be they should allow it to continue deteriorating? Some logic you have there..
Doesn't begging = help?
No, begging for money to buy drugs isn't begging for help overcoming the addiction. Do people here play dumb or are they really that stupid?
In that case, I have two problems with that. One, "treatment" doesn't work, two, "treatment" costs ME money, and if you can choose to use drugs then I think I ought to be able to choose NOT to pay a single cent for your "treatment" or any other cost associated with your "choice".
Really? So all those treatment centers don't work, no one is able to recover? Just like alcohol? You sir are perhaps the stupidist person I've had the misfortune of coming across on slashdot.
Keeping drugs illegal is costing you money too. Not only are you paying for treatment, you're paying for enforcement and to keep people alive sitting in jail. Its costing you much more money than simply making drugs legal. Finally, its costing innocent people their lives. Oh wait, drugs are illegal so there is no black market selling them and so there's no violence crimes and murder going on because of the illegal drug trade.
Idiot.
Individual citizens who happen to like using drugs have a direct personal interest in lobbying for drug legalization. Thus, the arguments made by such citizens must be taken with a grain of salt -- once a person has experienced a physical/mental euphoria as a result of a particular action, their rationalization of that action can no longer be trusted as being objective.
No, your self image is tied up in this; you are pushing some agenda, and I don't really know why. You claim to use logic, but I haven't seen any evidence of that yet. When presented with facts about pot, when presented with facts about violence caused exactly because pot and 'harder' drugs are illegal, when asked what RIGHT you have to tell someone else what they can do with their own body, you don't ever come back with any kind of good, logical answer. Instead you have one idiotic 100% generalization after another to 'justify' your stand. That's not logic.
I've never tried pot or any other illegal drug, nor do I really have a desire to try them. Yet I stand 100% behind those that want to legalize all drug use. I do this because I believe strongly in individual rights. I believe that no one ever has any right to tell you what you may do to your own body. I also don't like what some radical groups say, but I believe they have the right to say it (practicing it is another matter). That's what logical people that belive in individual rights do.
Consider the following: a person consumes some controlled substance which impairs their ability to drive a car. They drive anyway and kill an innocent pedestrian. Because of the nature of the intoxicating substance in this case, it was extremely unlikely that the driver, if sober, would have killed the pedestrian. How do you reconcile this situation? Punishing the offender will not bring back the innocent that was killed. Would you argue that the freedom of the offender to do what he did is worth an indeterminate number of innocent lives? If you answer 'yes', would you believe that not everyone is as willing to increase their own risk of death as you are? How do you reconcile that?
Yet alcohol doesn't bother you a bit does it? No one said it should be legal to drive while under some kind of chemical influence. They just said it should not be illegal to put in your body what you want.
Its funny that you claim to support your views with logic, yet this argument is purely an emotional one (what about the poor poor innocent 6 year old orphan with the curly hair and dimples that no matter how many people spit on her she had the brightest smile in the world). Please, do the world a favor, and exersice your right to die.
That's funny, because I don't need to do drugs. No one in my family uses drugs, and neither do any of my friends. None of my coworkers use drugs. We all seem to be happy and productive people, and there's nothing special about us that makes us able to function in this way. It's a lot more likely that people who claim that they need drugs are just trying to get away with something.
With your attitude, they likely wouldn't tell you if they enjoyed doing drugs. I'm willing to bet that someone in your family or one of your coworkers DOES do drugs, and keeps it secret, because of people like you that think its evil.
How dare you be so arrogant and self important to think you have the right to tell someone else what they can do with their body.
People need to drive for us to have a functioning economy. It's a necessary risk. However, people don't need to do drugs.
No they don't. Take away people's right to live anywhere but a big city, and you not longer NEED to drive. See how easy that is?
First of all, riding a motorcycle (versus driving a car) does not at all increase the probability of injuring another person versus driving a car. A person who has been drinking or smoking, for example, would be less capable of driving a car or handling a firearm while under the influence -- thus increasing the probability of injuring a bystander. A motorcyclist, however, is actually less dangerous to other drivers because the mass of his vehicle is less than than the mass of a car by an order of magnitude.
You realize that there are others around besides those on any kind of vehical right? Such as pedistrians. A motorcycle hitting them would cause quite a bit of harm.
Secondly, you're quoting absolute figures for those morality statistics. What would actually be relevant (if this analogy were valid in the first place) would be the percentages of motorcycle-riding experiences versus drug-using experiences that result in a death.
No, he's right to quote the absolute numbers. You want the percentages so that you can exaggerate the problem. I'd also like to know how you get an accurate number of drug users when said drugs are illegal. You can nitpik all you want, it won't change reality.
Thirdly, using some sort of motorized vehicle is necessary for many people to whom public transportation is not available. As I've already established, riding a motorcyle is actually less dangerous than driving a car for everyone other than the rider.
You haven't established anything, because you conviently forget to talk about pedistrians. Even if you did, are you now advocating that everyone use motorcycles? Honestly, what is your point?
We could make the 'need' for a motorized vehicle go away by forcing everyone to live in a city and that city can build public transportation. Why not do this? You're taking away someones freedom to put in their bodies what they like, why not take about people's right to live where they want? Oh wait, because YOU want to live where ever you want, but because YOU don't want to take drugs, you don't think anyone else should be allowed.
I disagree. Hoboken knew about this from the start.
Agreed, and a reasonable person would not enter into such a contract, unless there was no other choice. It seems there was no other choice. The fact that they were willing to spend so much money on a parking garage indicates to me that they have serious parking problems which must be addressed.
Nope. Justice is about fair play, and law is about keeping order. I see no reason to protect Hoboken from its own stupidity.
I think our founders would disagree with you on the purpose of law. You can have order in a facsist government.
Someone being forced into a course of action is not stupidity, its being taken advantage. Given the reluctance of the city to enter into the contract in the first place, I would have to say they were left with no recourse. Letting city infastructure deterioate is not an acceptable course of action.
Don't you think your parents would sue the mega-corporation if you died from an overdose?
Due they sue the alcohol makers now when that happens?
The rest of your points are just stupid rambling. You'd realize this if you thought about for more than three seconds and replaced drugs with alcohol.
Your argument is stupid. The same thing can be said about those that rock climb or mountain bike or surf or simply eating too much causing you to become obese, yet no one said that their insurance shouldn't pay for the problems those activites cause.
If you really want to fix the cost problem, set a standard by which medical insurance can refuse to pay if you haven't taken 'reasonable care' of yourself; that is, you took TOO much of a drug, didn't take enough safety precautions rock climbing, or are morbidly obese.
While the use of drugs is indeed a personal freedom issue the simple obstacle for me is that I would not exactly like a world were the majority of citizens are doped out.
You really believe that the only thing stoppin everyone from being 'doped out' all the time is the fact that drug use is illegal? If so, I have a bridge to sell you..
I hope someone mods you up.. ACs need mods (because people like me start you at -1 ;-) ).
My grandmother died of type 2 diabetes. Type 2 is the kind you get being overweight, and disappears once you've lost the weight.
Should we now ban junk food and control what and how much people eat?
There you go, emotional arguements about what MAY happen. Don't let logic convience you though.
You may be suprised to know that there ARE drugged up people driving 18 wheelers down the road right now! Worse, since drugs are illegal we can't regulate it so that you can leave a drug den, for example, if you haven't come off your high yet.
So you'd rather have high truck drivers that may plow into a bus load of kids IN ADDITION TO THE INNOCENT PEOPLE KILLED IN DRUG TURF WARS.
Good for you!
Ok, I'll spell it out. The fallacy is that in thinking that everyone that does pot will end up on harder drugs. It may happen, yes, but not 100% of the time, or even most of the time.
I wish we'd be out of there too.
As for Israel, they do have a right to exist (although the creation of that state wasn't done properly, in my opinion). Why they have to irradicate Jews from the holy sites I don't understand. I fail to see why Jews, Christians and Muslims can't live in peace together under some kind of republic government in those areas.
He's right to want us out; he's wrong to try to kill anyone in that area that doesn't not believe as he. It'd be easier to see his viewpoint as rational (although I don't think his tactics necessarly are, but as you say, they believe us to be an invading force) if he abandoned his irrational beliefs.
If you have to see 'we are right because our god says so' you standing on a log in the ocean... in other words, you don't have any solid ground on which to stand.
I have to say, I disagree with your reasoning.
If it was really about creating equality, why would you blow yourself up? You end up dead, not with more wealth. You also bring down the wrath of those you blew up on the innocent people for whom you are supposedly fighting.
Notice how many innocent Lebanese have been killed in the conflict with Israel because of Hezbolla. Most of them may have supported Hezbolla (because Hezbolla fed them) but were not actively firing rockets at Israel either.
I think the root cause is that these people really believe in their particular religion. Crusaders did too. They believe in irrational ideas, and thus do irrational things in the name of their fictional god. Why aren't people that believe in god declared insane? By all rights they should be... but they are not, because there's just so many of them.
Fine, than worry, you have a good reason to! But someone in the UK doesn't, which is my point.
FWIW, I was refering to the one that's on its way... I actually DO read world news. Not all of us Americans are alike! We can't even agree on most issues.
Just like it didn't stop the organized crime aspect of alcohol?
I'm advocating legalizing ALL drugs. Put whatever you want in your body, I don't care.
Stop with your emotion based drivel trying to justify taking away someone's right to do what they want to their body. I'm sorry, I have no sympathy for someone that knowingly takes something which can kill them. Your friend died, I'm sorry to hear that. Do you know how many other innocent people died because of the war on drugs? Do they have to die too so that your friend can STILL die of an addiction?
How about blaming your friend? I know its hard, but ultimately ITS HIS FAULT. Not music, movies, books, or video games. Not the dealers or the substance he took. HIS fault.
Why is it when someone dies from drugs its the fault of the movies? Yet when someone dies rock climbing, no one is shouting to ban rock climbing and movies that glorify it? You do realize that rock climbers have an addiction too... its to adrenaline.