Did he say that people are *forced* to buy Pot, or did he suggest that because people like to, a law against it will make a criminal of people who do what was legal before the new law? By my reading of it, it seemed that he was saying that by picking things people like to do, you make it more likely that they will keep doing these things, thus being criminals.
It sure sounded like he was saying that they have no choice but to break the law. It's hard to argue that the law made them criminals when the law was around long before most (all? I don't know how old the law is, but I know it's more than 40 years old) pot smokers started smoking pot. As someone else pointed out, the same logic would say that making murder illegal turns murderers into criminals. I'm not equating the two, I'm just pointing out the errant logic.
After all, if heterosexual sex was made illegal, nobody would be forcing you into breaking that law with your wife, but I bet you would break it.
Yes, good point. However, I'd like to think that I wouldn't try to deny it, either. I'd like to think that I'd engage in civil disobedience (not sure that my wife would be keen on making that public, however). Of course, I'd also like to think that I wouldn't spend so much time posting on slashdot.:)
Laws against non-harmful substances are ridiculous.
Pot might be less harmful than tobacco and/or alcohol (I really have no idea, and quite frankly I don't care), but it is hardly non-harmful. Note, I'm not arguing for or against legalization of pot. I'm just arguing for respecting the law unless there's a compelling reason not to (i.e., a higher morality). I don't find "getting stoned" to be very compelling, but maybe that's just me (it sure seems like it's just me).
Let's ban the non-breathing of secondhand smoke!
on
2006's Bill of Wrongs
·
· Score: 1
If I'm around smoke, then breathing secondhand smoke is hardly voluntary.
But your presence at a location is voluntary. If you're around smoke, that's by your choice.
So, on one hand we have smokers who can choose to be at a location or not and who can choose to smoke or not. OTOH, we have non-smokers who can choose to be at a location or not and who can choose to breathe or to suffocate. Your solution appears to ban non-smokers who choose not to breathe second hand smoke from certain locations rather than to ban smokers from smoking at certain locations. Do I have that about right, or am I missing something?
The ACLU is a joke and it has been for a long time. They use "civil liberties" as a club to advance a left-wing world view and then ignore "civil liberties" when it would harm that world view. It's OK with the ACLU for leftists to take away "civil liberties" because leftists are The Good People (tm). Often the ACLU even helps to take those liberties away.
The ACLU is just another arm of the worldwide socialist movement.
Your feelings about the ACLU are your concern. No one can argue with "feelings".
So, your rant about the ACLU aside, I take it you don't disagree with my point? I.e., that smoking/eating trans-fats is not a civil liberty that a civil liberty organization should be overly concerned about?
(I'm not the biggest fan of the ACLU, but I'm not a hater, either. I view them much as I do the NRA. They serve a purpose, even if they do go overboard from time to time. Also, if you think they only serve "leftist" causes, then you've been drinking too much Fox News kool-aid.)
((Why do I suspect that once again you won't answer my central question?))
Are you arguing that "people" are somehow forced to posess said plants, so that it's entirely the law's fault that these people (who shall remain nameless, of course) are criminals?
I'm sure it could be argued, but you'd have to be stoned to buy such an argument.;)
Well, I'd say that another of those could also show up in your urine for a long time to come, unless you take the proper regimen of antibiotics. I'm just sayin'...
Well, I guess we just have different moral philosophies, and that's OK. Personally, I think that laws should be followed unless there's a compelling reason not to. Because you "want to" is not very compelling. OTOH, I can think of a few things that I might be tempted to break the law over if they were made illegal, even without a reason I'd consider "compelling". I also believe that (almost) all laws have some rationality behind them; it's just a question of whether you agree with that rationale. Part of my views on this have arisen from positions where I've been in authority (e.g., lifeguard) and have had to exercise that authority on those who could not comprehend the reasons behind the rules. Just because you don't understand why a law is in place doesn't make it a bad law. Anyways, this is largely a question of philosophy, and I strongly suspect that nothing I say will change your mind (and vice-versa).
As for your personal note, I couldn't agree more (except for my part about following the law).
Sure enough, I did. Anyways, you're probably right. I'd like to believe that most of them are not deliberately speeding, but I'd also like to believe that this is the year that we'll see peace in the Middle East.
You can't change everything. And there are more ways to change a law than one.
I used to have a job that involved "selling" (something I didn't enjoy at all). My former boss told me that when a client gives you more than one reason for why he doesn't want the product, the truth is that the real reason is probably one not given.
You say there are more ways to change a law than one. I agree completely. There's civil disobedience. There's running for office. There's even voting. What these have in common is that they involve a certain amount of effort and/or risk. (OK, well breaking the law and trying to get away with it also entails a certain amount of effort and risk.) Seriously, the worst strategy for trying to change a law is ignoring it and hoping that it goes away.
If you feel strongly that the law is unjust, stand up and fight it. If you just feel like smoking some dope and hope you don't get caught, then you're part of the problem and not part of the solution.
Still, for matters dealing with national security, I think it's not too much to ask that employees stay off the ganja. I will admit that having never been tempted by the stuff, I'm not in the best position to judge. Still, we are talking about nuclear technology.
I don't think there is a living adult person in the USA that hasn't broken a law yet. I would think that at least a huge percentage of the population breaks them on a regular basis (and please think in the broad sense - I don't mean just drug use).
However, I doubt a "hugh percentage" of the population deliberately breaks the law on a regular basis. (The fact that so many might regularly break the law on accident is indicative of a problem with our legal system.) Also, how many of those broken laws could be used to blackmail you?
The fact is, the legal system is not ideal, and that is an understatement. If it is not ideal, not all laws should be followed like lemmings, after all the law is for the people and not the other way around.
...
...Now in order to fix those laws, we need to either get rid of them or rewrite them, but the process of recognizing and disobeying a law upon personal judgement or "morals" helps this process. So basically you want the population to generally obey laws, but also apply their personal judgement to help the process of improving the laws....
Fine, if you want to openly break the law, à la Thoreau, as a form of protest, you have my respect. However, if you're breaking the law just because you feel like it, that's another story.
It's already there. You've committed a crime that can be used to blackmail you. The same can hardly be said about speeding. Also, I'm not talking about shooting anyone. I'm talking about not hiring them for a position that you said was vital to our nation's defense. Obviously, you found nothing wrong with my actual point. Otherwise you wouldn't have tried to change what I said. I eschew slippery slope arguments.
Oh, and yes, speeding is also breaking the law. People who lightly dismiss it as such demonstrate contempt for the rule of law. In your case, I'm not very concerned as I suspect you don't claim to hold the highest regard for the law in the first place. (This is not meant to be an insult, so correct me if I'm wrong.) However, for people who do make such claims (typically Republicans), I find such dismissal to be hypocritical.
And just to be clear, I'm hardly a conservative, although I'll admit to holding 2 or 3 views that others might consider to be conservative.
Do you really want a law breaker "dealing with dangerous (from a proliferation standpoint) materials and experiments critical to national security". If it weren't illegal, you might have a point. However, it is illegal, so someone who smokes pot is already showing that they have a penchant for ignoring laws that they don't think apply to them. Don't give me some excuse about "civil disobedience" either, because that entails openly admitting that you've broken the law.
I'm amazed that you think polygraphs might be OK, but not drug tests. I could understand someone being against both, or supporting only the drug test, but..., wow, just wow.
If I'm around smoke, then breathing secondhand smoke is hardly voluntary. Nevertheless, I recognize the whole "by force" rant and will not belabor the issue.
My whole point is that I hardly feel this falls under the ACLU's purview, so they're not being hypocrites by not addressing these issues. Do you disagree with that specific point? (Note: I'm not asking if you like the ACLU.)
I'm optimistic that in 2007, the majority of AGW skeptics will finally be convinced that the problem is real. (Or at least convinced to a reasonable level of certainty.) In 2006, we saw Bill O'Reilly accept it as reality, as well as the Bush Administration (although they had tacitly accepted it as reality as early as 2001, their support of the science behind AGW was strengthened in '06). Even ExxonMobil has begun changing their tune.
Admitting you have a problem is the first step towards fixing the problem. Luckily, several scientists/engineers have already moved past that first step, but it's nice to see many of the skeptics finally coming around.
Additionally, I'm also seconding the GP post, although clearly all of that won't happen in '07 (nor did the GP post claim otherwise).
Of the commercial enterprises, Bigelow has me the most optimistic. They launched Genesis I in 2006, and are scheduled to launch Genesis II in "early 2007".
Larceny isn't as agressive as your invasion of my air space with your smoke. As much as I hate to agree with an AC, he's right. Your chain of logic has got some pretty weak links in it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no anti-smoking gestapo. OTOH, I'm not going to lose any sleep over bans against smoking. In the grand scheme of things, it ain't very important, so no one should be faulting the ACLU for not stepping in. That was my original point. I've also never heard of any ACLU case against adult swim time at public pools. <sarcasm>Oh, the hypocrisy!</sarcasm>
First of all, I don't disagree with your basic premise that smoke (and smokers) smell bad. Also, I don't dispute the possibility that this could be the primary motivation behind such laws.
However, you should try to understand how scientific studies work. They typically start off with a null hypothesis (e.g., second hand smoking is not bad for you), and then they see if the null hypothesis is violated beyond a certain level of significance. If it isn't, then the results are said to be insignificant. (Which is all that you claimed.) Frankly, I would be surprised if such studies didn't exist somewhere. The larger the population size, the more "power" that insignificance is said to have. I'm not aware of any studies that show an insignificant result, but if you're claiming it's insignificant, than approximately 95% of properly run studies should show that there is no significance at the 95% level of confidence.
How in the world does your "civil liberty" to eat trans-fats or stick a cancer stick in your puss compare with being tortured or having habeas corpus revoked? If this ranks as one of the more serious problems you have with the ACLU, then they must be a remarkable group.
I'm sorry, I just don't see these as civil liberty issues. Of course, there are things the ACLU fights for that I also think don't qualify, but still, to claim silence on such petty issues is the same as support, is like saying that you obviously supported Kenneth Kaunda since you never spoke against him.
Do you live in the mountains or something?
on
Giant Ice Shelf Snaps
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Are you claiming it snowed in the summer there in Australia? That's like it snowing in the Northern Hemisphere on June 25th. Ergo, I'm assuming you must either live in the mountains and/or very far south. Even if you live in Tasmania that's not as far south as Minnesota is north. I'm not at all familiar with Australian weather, so forgive any ignorance on my part. (Actually, I'm not really familiar with Minnesota weather, either.)
Although I still wonder why they'd even make a plastic "ground" prong. Especially considering that there has been some hype about conducting plastic, eventually someone could legitimately get confused.
"What, grandpa? There used to be a time when everyone just assumed plastic wouldn't conduct?"
As for me, even if I have a metal ground, if it's important to me that a device be grounded, I'll verify that it is grounded first. (Well, at least that the outlet's ground is grounded. In older buildings, this is not always true, even though I believe it is legally required.)
If that leaves you with some question as to whether you will have an operable earth ground when the ground prong is plastic, you are not qualified to plug appliances into the wall. Please contact a trained professional.
Actually, it doesn't matter how many cones you have; it matters what range of frequencies they cover (for purposes of invisibility). The cones I mentioned are optimal at the points specified but cover the entire "visible" range. The only advantage a tetrachromat would have for this cloak is if their fourth cone extended the range of their visible frequencies (which it does tend to do). However, you could also have only 2 cones and still have a visible range outside of what is considered normal, so being a tetrachromat is neither necessary nor sufficient.
Wikipedia does a good job describing refraction and the refractive index. You should try to understand refraction before trying to understand the refractive index.
Slashdot Mirror
Did he say that people are *forced* to buy Pot, or did he suggest that because people like to, a law against it will make a criminal of people who do what was legal before the new law? By my reading of it, it seemed that he was saying that by picking things people like to do, you make it more likely that they will keep doing these things, thus being criminals.
It sure sounded like he was saying that they have no choice but to break the law. It's hard to argue that the law made them criminals when the law was around long before most (all? I don't know how old the law is, but I know it's more than 40 years old) pot smokers started smoking pot. As someone else pointed out, the same logic would say that making murder illegal turns murderers into criminals. I'm not equating the two, I'm just pointing out the errant logic.
Yes, good point. However, I'd like to think that I wouldn't try to deny it, either. I'd like to think that I'd engage in civil disobedience (not sure that my wife would be keen on making that public, however). Of course, I'd also like to think that I wouldn't spend so much time posting on slashdot. :)
Pot might be less harmful than tobacco and/or alcohol (I really have no idea, and quite frankly I don't care), but it is hardly non-harmful. Note, I'm not arguing for or against legalization of pot. I'm just arguing for respecting the law unless there's a compelling reason not to (i.e., a higher morality). I don't find "getting stoned" to be very compelling, but maybe that's just me (it sure seems like it's just me).
So, on one hand we have smokers who can choose to be at a location or not and who can choose to smoke or not. OTOH, we have non-smokers who can choose to be at a location or not and who can choose to breathe or to suffocate. Your solution appears to ban non-smokers who choose not to breathe second hand smoke from certain locations rather than to ban smokers from smoking at certain locations. Do I have that about right, or am I missing something?
So, your rant about the ACLU aside, I take it you don't disagree with my point? I.e., that smoking/eating trans-fats is not a civil liberty that a civil liberty organization should be overly concerned about?
(I'm not the biggest fan of the ACLU, but I'm not a hater, either. I view them much as I do the NRA. They serve a purpose, even if they do go overboard from time to time. Also, if you think they only serve "leftist" causes, then you've been drinking too much Fox News kool-aid.)
((Why do I suspect that once again you won't answer my central question?))
Are you arguing that "people" are somehow forced to posess said plants, so that it's entirely the law's fault that these people (who shall remain nameless, of course) are criminals?
I'm sure it could be argued, but you'd have to be stoned to buy such an argument. ;)
At least then we'd know that no more bad laws would get passed. OK, no more good laws would get passed either, but that's a small price to pay... ;)
Man, could you imagine Bush getting "fired" for illegal drug use? Wouldn't that be sweet?
Well, I'd say that another of those could also show up in your urine for a long time to come, unless you take the proper regimen of antibiotics. I'm just sayin'...
Well, I guess we just have different moral philosophies, and that's OK. Personally, I think that laws should be followed unless there's a compelling reason not to. Because you "want to" is not very compelling. OTOH, I can think of a few things that I might be tempted to break the law over if they were made illegal, even without a reason I'd consider "compelling". I also believe that (almost) all laws have some rationality behind them; it's just a question of whether you agree with that rationale. Part of my views on this have arisen from positions where I've been in authority (e.g., lifeguard) and have had to exercise that authority on those who could not comprehend the reasons behind the rules. Just because you don't understand why a law is in place doesn't make it a bad law. Anyways, this is largely a question of philosophy, and I strongly suspect that nothing I say will change your mind (and vice-versa).
As for your personal note, I couldn't agree more (except for my part about following the law).
Sure enough, I did. Anyways, you're probably right. I'd like to believe that most of them are not deliberately speeding, but I'd also like to believe that this is the year that we'll see peace in the Middle East.
I used to have a job that involved "selling" (something I didn't enjoy at all). My former boss told me that when a client gives you more than one reason for why he doesn't want the product, the truth is that the real reason is probably one not given.
You say there are more ways to change a law than one. I agree completely. There's civil disobedience. There's running for office. There's even voting. What these have in common is that they involve a certain amount of effort and/or risk. (OK, well breaking the law and trying to get away with it also entails a certain amount of effort and risk.) Seriously, the worst strategy for trying to change a law is ignoring it and hoping that it goes away.
If you feel strongly that the law is unjust, stand up and fight it. If you just feel like smoking some dope and hope you don't get caught, then you're part of the problem and not part of the solution.
If the law is stupid, useless, and outdated, why aren't you fighting to change it?
Still, for matters dealing with national security, I think it's not too much to ask that employees stay off the ganja. I will admit that having never been tempted by the stuff, I'm not in the best position to judge. Still, we are talking about nuclear technology.
Fine, if you want to openly break the law, à la Thoreau, as a form of protest, you have my respect. However, if you're breaking the law just because you feel like it, that's another story.
It's already there. You've committed a crime that can be used to blackmail you. The same can hardly be said about speeding. Also, I'm not talking about shooting anyone. I'm talking about not hiring them for a position that you said was vital to our nation's defense. Obviously, you found nothing wrong with my actual point. Otherwise you wouldn't have tried to change what I said. I eschew slippery slope arguments.
Oh, and yes, speeding is also breaking the law. People who lightly dismiss it as such demonstrate contempt for the rule of law. In your case, I'm not very concerned as I suspect you don't claim to hold the highest regard for the law in the first place. (This is not meant to be an insult, so correct me if I'm wrong.) However, for people who do make such claims (typically Republicans), I find such dismissal to be hypocritical.
And just to be clear, I'm hardly a conservative, although I'll admit to holding 2 or 3 views that others might consider to be conservative.
Do you really want a law breaker "dealing with dangerous (from a proliferation standpoint) materials and experiments critical to national security". If it weren't illegal, you might have a point. However, it is illegal, so someone who smokes pot is already showing that they have a penchant for ignoring laws that they don't think apply to them. Don't give me some excuse about "civil disobedience" either, because that entails openly admitting that you've broken the law.
I'm amazed that you think polygraphs might be OK, but not drug tests. I could understand someone being against both, or supporting only the drug test, but..., wow, just wow.
If I'm around smoke, then breathing secondhand smoke is hardly voluntary. Nevertheless, I recognize the whole "by force" rant and will not belabor the issue.
My whole point is that I hardly feel this falls under the ACLU's purview, so they're not being hypocrites by not addressing these issues. Do you disagree with that specific point? (Note: I'm not asking if you like the ACLU.)
I'm optimistic that in 2007, the majority of AGW skeptics will finally be convinced that the problem is real. (Or at least convinced to a reasonable level of certainty.) In 2006, we saw Bill O'Reilly accept it as reality, as well as the Bush Administration (although they had tacitly accepted it as reality as early as 2001, their support of the science behind AGW was strengthened in '06). Even ExxonMobil has begun changing their tune.
Admitting you have a problem is the first step towards fixing the problem. Luckily, several scientists/engineers have already moved past that first step, but it's nice to see many of the skeptics finally coming around.
Additionally, I'm also seconding the GP post, although clearly all of that won't happen in '07 (nor did the GP post claim otherwise).
Of the commercial enterprises, Bigelow has me the most optimistic. They launched Genesis I in 2006, and are scheduled to launch Genesis II in "early 2007".
Larceny isn't as agressive as your invasion of my air space with your smoke. As much as I hate to agree with an AC, he's right. Your chain of logic has got some pretty weak links in it.
Don't get me wrong, I'm no anti-smoking gestapo. OTOH, I'm not going to lose any sleep over bans against smoking. In the grand scheme of things, it ain't very important, so no one should be faulting the ACLU for not stepping in. That was my original point. I've also never heard of any ACLU case against adult swim time at public pools. <sarcasm>Oh, the hypocrisy!</sarcasm>
First of all, I don't disagree with your basic premise that smoke (and smokers) smell bad. Also, I don't dispute the possibility that this could be the primary motivation behind such laws.
However, you should try to understand how scientific studies work. They typically start off with a null hypothesis (e.g., second hand smoking is not bad for you), and then they see if the null hypothesis is violated beyond a certain level of significance. If it isn't, then the results are said to be insignificant. (Which is all that you claimed.) Frankly, I would be surprised if such studies didn't exist somewhere. The larger the population size, the more "power" that insignificance is said to have. I'm not aware of any studies that show an insignificant result, but if you're claiming it's insignificant, than approximately 95% of properly run studies should show that there is no significance at the 95% level of confidence.
How in the world does your "civil liberty" to eat trans-fats or stick a cancer stick in your puss compare with being tortured or having habeas corpus revoked? If this ranks as one of the more serious problems you have with the ACLU, then they must be a remarkable group.
I'm sorry, I just don't see these as civil liberty issues. Of course, there are things the ACLU fights for that I also think don't qualify, but still, to claim silence on such petty issues is the same as support, is like saying that you obviously supported Kenneth Kaunda since you never spoke against him.
Are you claiming it snowed in the summer there in Australia? That's like it snowing in the Northern Hemisphere on June 25th. Ergo, I'm assuming you must either live in the mountains and/or very far south. Even if you live in Tasmania that's not as far south as Minnesota is north. I'm not at all familiar with Australian weather, so forgive any ignorance on my part. (Actually, I'm not really familiar with Minnesota weather, either.)
Although I still wonder why they'd even make a plastic "ground" prong. Especially considering that there has been some hype about conducting plastic, eventually someone could legitimately get confused.
"What, grandpa? There used to be a time when everyone just assumed plastic wouldn't conduct?"
As for me, even if I have a metal ground, if it's important to me that a device be grounded, I'll verify that it is grounded first. (Well, at least that the outlet's ground is grounded. In older buildings, this is not always true, even though I believe it is legally required.)
I guess you haven't heard of conducting plastic. :D
Actually, it doesn't matter how many cones you have; it matters what range of frequencies they cover (for purposes of invisibility). The cones I mentioned are optimal at the points specified but cover the entire "visible" range. The only advantage a tetrachromat would have for this cloak is if their fourth cone extended the range of their visible frequencies (which it does tend to do). However, you could also have only 2 cones and still have a visible range outside of what is considered normal, so being a tetrachromat is neither necessary nor sufficient.
Wikipedia does a good job describing refraction and the refractive index. You should try to understand refraction before trying to understand the refractive index.