remember that playing dead is only for grizzlies; the black bears around here you have to actively fight off should you be attacked, and I hope you like black flies.
While I haven't run into any bears, grizzlie, black, or brown I have "played with" gators and various poisonous snakes. Ooh and sharks. I don't know about, or recall, these black flies but I've dealt with mosquitoes big enough to carry you off. I grew up in Florida. However as a teen I lived a few years in Mass.
Oh, btw, there's grizzlies in Vermont? I didn't know there were any east of the Mississippi River, their traditional territory being from the Miss to California. Most are now in Yellow Stone. In the 1970s thier population got down to 200, but now it's over 600, still not enough to sustain the population if they get hit by disease. And definitely not enough to remove them from the endangered species list like former Interior Secretary Gale Norton tried to do in 2005.
In the US now you can pop out a few kids, never work a day in your life and make the equivalent of 35k-50k/year (depending of what state you live in) with all the gov. assistance that's handed out.
First let me state I don't believe in the US federal government giving out welfare. Now can you tell me where you got your data that those on welfare get "35k-50k/year" in any state of the US? Because I have a disability, I am a survivor of a TBI, Traumatic Brain Injury, I get SSI. I served in the US army and worked for more than 20 years after I got out, paying income taxes the whole tyme so I paid into SSI. Yet my SSI will come to less than $10,000 this year, and that is all of the government assistant I get. I seriously doubt anyone except corporate farmers and others who get corporate welfare receive even half of $35,000. I'm tempted to say this is just an attempt to spread disinformation.
Oh right, I forgot that everyone always has the choice to have a different job than they currently have. No one ever gets stuck, unable to find a better job and unable to quit and live with no job.
This might of been appropriate if the workplace was smokefree when the workers started working there but changed to allow smoking. It is totally different though if the place allowed smoking when they started working there. If they didn't like or it bothered them they shouldn't of started workign there to begin with.
When you go into court, you are putting yourself in the hands of 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury d
I'd love to be on a jury. Though I've been called for jury twice I wasn't selected either tyme, I wasn't even called for questioning. For those who want to avoid jury duty though, all they have to say is they believe in Jury Nullifaction. This is exactly why I wanted to be on a jury, so I could rule against a bad law.
Because too many people just don't understand what was actually intended by the founders of the U.S.A. And dare I say they don't care?
It's partically because of apathy I think. Because most in the US hasn't had to fight to preserve them, they don't appreciate the Bill of Rights. It's a matter of taking them for granted.
As for the FDA, I dunno if I agree... after all, they're pretty intertwined with the NIH, wouldn't you say? I could see an arguement for downsizing it, but doing away with it completely would probably be disasterous.
No, get rid of the FDA. What little, if there is any which there isn't, Constitutionally authorized actions the FDA does can be done by the NIH.
A smoking ban that is supported by the people, even at the expense of business, is exactly what state regulation of business should do.
And what if the people supported slavery, should it be allowed? Afterall that's what democracy is isn't it? Reminds me of the "tyranny of the masses".
Businesses do not have individual rights, including the right to profit at the expense of citizens' health. The problem is when the powers of the state start trampling on individual rights, which is a whole different game.
Ah but businesses do have rights, so says some Supreme Court rulings. I disagree with this but a person should have the right to allow smoking on property they own, even if it's a business. And governments are trampling this by making, passing, bans on smoke on private property. The only way I could see such a ban as being ok is if the ban is a condition of getting a government backed loan, if it's on public property, or if the business has a government contract. But how many business loans are government backed?
It's probably a win for everyone, except the selfish people who think their smoking is more important than everyone else's health.
My freedom trumps mob rule. And that includes allowing smoking in a business I own. I just have to accept responsibility if I loose business by allowing smoking. Ah, but it's to safegard everyone's health? In that case we should ban vehicles as they are a serious danger to not just people's health but their lives as well. I know this full well, after being hit by a van while riding my bike the docs told my family it's be a miracle if I lived while I was in a coma. I also knew of someone who burned to death when the car she was in caught on fire.
Falcon
Re:Smoking bans: reducing freedom, or increasing i
on
2006's Bill of Wrongs
·
· Score: 1
And now, my right not suffer health problems trumps your freedom to smoke next to me.
So go somewhere that's smokefree. If I own a bar and want to allow smoking it should be my right to do so, just as it's your right to go to a bar that bans smoking. Then if the market says it wants smokefree businesses I can either allow smoking and loose business, or ban smoking to stay in business.
Can you imagine for a second the crap that would be put in our food and mislabeled or deceptively labeled? It's already pretty bad WITH the FDA stopping much of it, and without them, it would be a field day of cost-cutting at the expense of the health and safety of the consumer.
The FDA does stop some of it but it also allows much through as well as blocks some drugs that may be good. Who do you think the FDA relies on for drug tests? The pharmaceutical companies. The FDA just reviews the data handed to them by the companies and other interested parties who have the money and expertice to do research themselves. What I propose is to allow any and all drugs to be available over the counter and allow all data on drugs to be publically and widely available, the PRD being a start. However require these databases and what not to enclude all data and test results not just that which makes the drug look good or effective. Then strengthen the court system so when the drug doesn't work right when used right can file a lawsuit. The same with side effects, if they experence a side effect that's not listed when they agree to accept responsibility, they should have a good case.
Don't think for a second that your freedom of choice will protect you, because your freedom of choice doesn't mean anything if there is no agency enforcing the availability of accurate and detailed information so you can make an informed choice.
Notice above how I said the court system should be made easier for someone to sue a drug manufacturer, pharmaceutical company. Also note where I said all "data on drugs to be publically and widely available". As it is now even doctors don't get all the data on drugs, make this available to all. The NIH, National Institutes of Health, could publish it. Of course some in the health industries, especially the pharmaceutical companies, would never go for this. It takes millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars for a drug to be approved which is just how big pharma wants it, they don't want anybody to take any market from them. This is the same reasons why they want to extend patents, so generic manfacturers can't release cheaper generic drugs. A few days or a couple of weeks ago there was an article on/. about how the GAO did a study on the efficiency of patent on drugs, Report Says Patents Prevent New Drugs
The main problem is that there isn't enough resources for those who get sentenced to life or life without parole. That is you won't have people looking for ways to clear you unless you have your own money. Whereas lawyers for those on death row (and with all appeals you have a fair time to go) are a dime a dozen.
True, people who get death sentences, in the US at least, automatically get appeals. Even so though, the death penalty is so permanent. On the other hand if it were me I'd choose death over a life sentence. I love my freedom too much to want to remain alive. Actually I'm kind of in that position now, because of an accident I am a survivor of a TBI, Traumatic Brain Injury. And as far as my life for the most part I feel as though I've been living in hell and want to end the suffering.
This is exactly why we should legalize weed, crack, pcp, prostitution etc.
Amen!!!
Falcon
Re:Smoking bans: reducing freedom, or increasing i
on
2006's Bill of Wrongs
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Which is exactly what smokers have been doing to non-smokers for years. The only differences are that (a) passive smoking doesn't just make non-smokers uncomfortable, it actually damages their health, and (b) there are a hell of a lot more people who don't want smoking venues than do. By your own argument, banning smoking is exactly what we should do.
Ah but nothing is stopping you from patronizing a place that bans smoking, or of starting one yourself. What I find ironic is that you say this at the same tyme you use your sig, "Throughout human history, the greatest threat to life and liberty has been not terrorism, but the power of the state." Smoking bans in public or mandated by the government represents one of those government powers.
Falcon
Re:Smoking bans: reducing freedom, or increasing i
on
2006's Bill of Wrongs
·
· Score: 1
So by your logic I should be able to go into a public place (a bar) and inhale some noxious chemical, one that is a known poison and carcinogen, and blow it in your face while you are trying to eat?
I have no problem with allowing smoking in public as long as there's also a place where smoking is banned. Or to flip it around, I don't mind a place that bans smoking as long as there is an equivalent place where I can smoke. However a total ban on smoking outdoors, in restaruants, and such does not fit that. I should be able, if I wanted to, to own a restaruant that bans all smoking, or one that has a smoking section away from nonsmokers, or one without any separate sectons.
So you are saying someone's right to have a "legal habit" is greater then someone's right to be confortable? And it's not about being comfortable, it's about not breathing in poisons.
Take this argument and apply it to driving. Though I don't ride my bike much anymore I used to ride it 100+ miles a week, and I'd breath in all of the poisonous exhaust from the vehicles I was sharing the roads with. By your logic I should be able to ban all vehicles. However that doesn't even take into consideration another harm from vehicles. Car accidents can and do kill a lot of people. I myself had a serious accident while riding my bike. While I was in a coma after a moving van hit me, the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived (if I could see and talk to those docs I'd let them know I see my life as a living hell not as a miracle). And I no longer ride much because of that accident!
Note that I also included group policies as well. I don't see how having your coworkers pay higher insurance rates for your own foolish choices is in any way a morally superior choice.
I don't know where you live or get your health insurance from but every rates form for health insurance I've seen had one rate for nonsmokers and a higher rate for smokers.
In my opinion, the CDC is the perfect example of where the government should get involved. And, I would suspect that people opposed to direct government competition with the private sector would mostly agree.
As a Libertarian, the CDC and the NIH, National Instituttes of Health, are two of the very few federal agencies I agree with the existance of. Many of the others I'd rather see vanish off the federal registry, two of those being the FCC and the FDA!
Why aren't YOU a member of the Free State Project?
Ah, if only the Free State Project were in Vermont instead of New Hampshire, or they switched places. I'd rather live on the coast, and not have to travel through another state to get there. I'd even accept Maine. But unfortunately I don't have much choice as to where I live.
Coming from New York to Florida I've found the opposite. And of course their income is taxed down here.
The only tax on income in Florida is the federal income tax and a tax on intangibles such as devidents on stocks. What revenue the state collects is from a consumption tax (sales tax on none food or health items) and property tax. You only pay tax on what you buy and what real estate you own. Now there's also the voluntary tax that's called the Florida Lottery, which is supposed to go to enhance educational spending. Oh and I grew up in Florida, my family having moved there when I was three.
Falcon
The biggest hospital in Orlando is not for profit.
on
2006's Bill of Wrongs
·
· Score: 1
ORMC, Orlando Regional Medical Center? I was a "guest" there for a few weeks after an accident. My mom is also a lab tech there.
Will they drop to 0? Because $0 is all some people can afford to pay for an unplanned hospital stay. Or I guess the homeless should just die on the streets because they're too "lazy" to get jobs, right?
With lower tax and medical bills more people would be able to afford insurance. With lower healthcare costs, health insurance would be lower too so more employers could afford to offer employees health insurance. Then with lower taxes more jobs could be created thus employing the unemployed. For those who couldn't work or get work civil society would be able to help out more as more people could donate to these organizations with lower tax bills. And I am saying this as someone who collects SSI.
I would also be more than willing to accept a designation on your driver's license, similar to the markings for organ donors, that marks you as a (e. g.) smoker, thereby exempting you from both state-funded medical care or from the responsibility of any group healthcare programs you may be a part of, requiring you to pay for everything out-of-pocket as well as lowering your priority in gaining access to treatment for your self-inflicted ailments. But the hue and cry against such a measure from indignant smokers (et al) would keep it from ever being enacted.
While I agree people need to be responsible for the actions they take and the choices they make, I totally disagree with any markings or designation that a person smokes or whatever on the driver's license or id. Because I am a smoker I pay more for health insurance coverage, and I have no problem with it. If I want to pay less for health coverage then I can stop smoking. I just don't want any government mandating I stop, or where I can smoke while on private property. And while regarding health risks, using this as a basis for banning smoking, why don't you also ban driving? Afterall we go to war, which kills many more people than smoking does, for oil and gas. Then the exhaust from burning petrol creates greenhouse gases which causes global warming again causing deaths from heat strokes and such. Then the particulate matter in deisel exhaust causes asthma and other breathing disorders. So if you're really concerned about health issues as related to smoking you should also be concerned about the health issues of burning fossil fuels. You should also be concerned with lung cancer caused by radon gas which is emitted from the concrete used in buildings.
In fact, I find the whole concept of the death penalty as it happens in the USA about the stupidest thing there is. We say that it will stop ppl from committing crimes, yet it make very easy and not so scary (a "humane" way of doing so), we do not publish it, and then expect that it will influence criminals to stop their behavior. Whatever idiot that came up with this logic should be shot.
I too find it stupid that we, the US, has the death penalty, but not for your reasoning. Like Thomas Jefferson did, I believe it's better to let ten guilty go free than to falsely punish one innocent. If an innocent is sent to prison for life there's still a change s/he can be cleared and set free but they can't be brought back to life once executed. As for the death penalty being a deterrent, if it really worked nobody would commit capital murder. And as for me if I knew that if I were to kill and be sentenced to death I wouldn't have a problem in killing many more to avoid getting caught, say any and all witnesses. I also find it ironic that we kill people to show killing people is bad.
Don't be afraid of the command line and you will be rewarded.
Though it's been a long tyme since I have I have worked with CLIs. Abut ten years ago I took a class in Linux, er unix, however the PCs we used had coherent as the OS. Before that, I first started progamming on the Trash, er TRS80, when RadShack released it in the 1970's. I learned basic programming on it, the Apple 2, and a dumb terminal connected to an IBM 360 series 60 mainframe. I admit I need to learn or relearn a lot to proficiently use the command line, however I'm wondering how well I'll be able to use it as my memory is impaired, damaged.
I've used Maya its a pretty nice 3D modeling system, and its relatively simple to learn as compared to Blender.
I'd like to get a good book on learning either Blender or Maya.
Just remember one thing with Linux: its not about finding programs that are equivalent to Windows programs.
As it is now I don't really use much in the way of Windows apps, programs in general really, other than browsers and a text editor. However when I get around to it I want to install a webserver, perl, a database, and maybe Ruby on Rails or other web tech as I want to learn web development.
Slashdot Mirror
You don't get a say in where you go?
Falconremember that playing dead is only for grizzlies; the black bears around here you have to actively fight off should you be attacked, and I hope you like black flies.
While I haven't run into any bears, grizzlie, black, or brown I have "played with" gators and various poisonous snakes. Ooh and sharks. I don't know about, or recall, these black flies but I've dealt with mosquitoes big enough to carry you off. I grew up in Florida. However as a teen I lived a few years in Mass.
Oh, btw, there's grizzlies in Vermont? I didn't know there were any east of the Mississippi River, their traditional territory being from the Miss to California. Most are now in Yellow Stone. In the 1970s thier population got down to 200, but now it's over 600, still not enough to sustain the population if they get hit by disease. And definitely not enough to remove them from the endangered species list like former Interior Secretary Gale Norton tried to do in 2005.
FalconIn the US now you can pop out a few kids, never work a day in your life and make the equivalent of 35k-50k/year (depending of what state you live in) with all the gov. assistance that's handed out.
First let me state I don't believe in the US federal government giving out welfare. Now can you tell me where you got your data that those on welfare get "35k-50k/year" in any state of the US? Because I have a disability, I am a survivor of a TBI, Traumatic Brain Injury, I get SSI. I served in the US army and worked for more than 20 years after I got out, paying income taxes the whole tyme so I paid into SSI. Yet my SSI will come to less than $10,000 this year, and that is all of the government assistant I get. I seriously doubt anyone except corporate farmers and others who get corporate welfare receive even half of $35,000. I'm tempted to say this is just an attempt to spread disinformation.
FalconOh right, I forgot that everyone always has the choice to have a different job than they currently have. No one ever gets stuck, unable to find a better job and unable to quit and live with no job.
This might of been appropriate if the workplace was smokefree when the workers started working there but changed to allow smoking. It is totally different though if the place allowed smoking when they started working there. If they didn't like or it bothered them they shouldn't of started workign there to begin with.
FalconWhen you go into court, you are putting yourself in the hands of 12 people who weren't smart enough to get out of jury d
I'd love to be on a jury. Though I've been called for jury twice I wasn't selected either tyme, I wasn't even called for questioning. For those who want to avoid jury duty though, all they have to say is they believe in Jury Nullifaction. This is exactly why I wanted to be on a jury, so I could rule against a bad law.
FalconBecause too many people just don't understand what was actually intended by the founders of the U.S.A. And dare I say they don't care?
It's partically because of apathy I think. Because most in the US hasn't had to fight to preserve them, they don't appreciate the Bill of Rights. It's a matter of taking them for granted.
FalconIt's also your right if you choose to eat at a restaurant that serves dog meat, but good luck finding one since that's illegal as well.
In the US yes, but dog meat is a delicacy in some countries such as China.
FalconAs for the FDA, I dunno if I agree... after all, they're pretty intertwined with the NIH, wouldn't you say? I could see an arguement for downsizing it, but doing away with it completely would probably be disasterous.
No, get rid of the FDA. What little, if there is any which there isn't, Constitutionally authorized actions the FDA does can be done by the NIH.
FalconA smoking ban that is supported by the people, even at the expense of business, is exactly what state regulation of business should do.
And what if the people supported slavery, should it be allowed? Afterall that's what democracy is isn't it? Reminds me of the "tyranny of the masses".
Businesses do not have individual rights, including the right to profit at the expense of citizens' health. The problem is when the powers of the state start trampling on individual rights, which is a whole different game.
Ah but businesses do have rights, so says some Supreme Court rulings. I disagree with this but a person should have the right to allow smoking on property they own, even if it's a business. And governments are trampling this by making, passing, bans on smoke on private property. The only way I could see such a ban as being ok is if the ban is a condition of getting a government backed loan, if it's on public property, or if the business has a government contract. But how many business loans are government backed?
It's probably a win for everyone, except the selfish people who think their smoking is more important than everyone else's health.
My freedom trumps mob rule. And that includes allowing smoking in a business I own. I just have to accept responsibility if I loose business by allowing smoking. Ah, but it's to safegard everyone's health? In that case we should ban vehicles as they are a serious danger to not just people's health but their lives as well. I know this full well, after being hit by a van while riding my bike the docs told my family it's be a miracle if I lived while I was in a coma. I also knew of someone who burned to death when the car she was in caught on fire.
FalconAnd now, my right not suffer health problems trumps your freedom to smoke next to me.
So go somewhere that's smokefree. If I own a bar and want to allow smoking it should be my right to do so, just as it's your right to go to a bar that bans smoking. Then if the market says it wants smokefree businesses I can either allow smoking and loose business, or ban smoking to stay in business.
FalconCan you imagine for a second the crap that would be put in our food and mislabeled or deceptively labeled? It's already pretty bad WITH the FDA stopping much of it, and without them, it would be a field day of cost-cutting at the expense of the health and safety of the consumer.
The FDA does stop some of it but it also allows much through as well as blocks some drugs that may be good. Who do you think the FDA relies on for drug tests? The pharmaceutical companies. The FDA just reviews the data handed to them by the companies and other interested parties who have the money and expertice to do research themselves. What I propose is to allow any and all drugs to be available over the counter and allow all data on drugs to be publically and widely available, the PRD being a start. However require these databases and what not to enclude all data and test results not just that which makes the drug look good or effective. Then strengthen the court system so when the drug doesn't work right when used right can file a lawsuit. The same with side effects, if they experence a side effect that's not listed when they agree to accept responsibility, they should have a good case.
Don't think for a second that your freedom of choice will protect you, because your freedom of choice doesn't mean anything if there is no agency enforcing the availability of accurate and detailed information so you can make an informed choice.
Notice above how I said the court system should be made easier for someone to sue a drug manufacturer, pharmaceutical company. Also note where I said all "data on drugs to be publically and widely available". As it is now even doctors don't get all the data on drugs, make this available to all. The NIH, National Institutes of Health, could publish it. Of course some in the health industries, especially the pharmaceutical companies, would never go for this. It takes millions if not hundreds of millions of dollars for a drug to be approved which is just how big pharma wants it, they don't want anybody to take any market from them. This is the same reasons why they want to extend patents, so generic manfacturers can't release cheaper generic drugs. A few days or a couple of weeks ago there was an article on /. about how the GAO did a study on the efficiency of patent on drugs, Report Says Patents Prevent New Drugs
. FalconThe main problem is that there isn't enough resources for those who get sentenced to life or life without parole. That is you won't have people looking for ways to clear you unless you have your own money. Whereas lawyers for those on death row (and with all appeals you have a fair time to go) are a dime a dozen.
True, people who get death sentences, in the US at least, automatically get appeals. Even so though, the death penalty is so permanent. On the other hand if it were me I'd choose death over a life sentence. I love my freedom too much to want to remain alive. Actually I'm kind of in that position now, because of an accident I am a survivor of a TBI, Traumatic Brain Injury. And as far as my life for the most part I feel as though I've been living in hell and want to end the suffering.
FalconThis is exactly why we should legalize weed, crack, pcp, prostitution etc.
Amen!!!
FalconWhich is exactly what smokers have been doing to non-smokers for years. The only differences are that (a) passive smoking doesn't just make non-smokers uncomfortable, it actually damages their health, and (b) there are a hell of a lot more people who don't want smoking venues than do. By your own argument, banning smoking is exactly what we should do.
Ah but nothing is stopping you from patronizing a place that bans smoking, or of starting one yourself. What I find ironic is that you say this at the same tyme you use your sig, "Throughout human history, the greatest threat to life and liberty has been not terrorism, but the power of the state." Smoking bans in public or mandated by the government represents one of those government powers.
FalconSo by your logic I should be able to go into a public place (a bar) and inhale some noxious chemical, one that is a known poison and carcinogen, and blow it in your face while you are trying to eat?
I have no problem with allowing smoking in public as long as there's also a place where smoking is banned. Or to flip it around, I don't mind a place that bans smoking as long as there is an equivalent place where I can smoke. However a total ban on smoking outdoors, in restaruants, and such does not fit that. I should be able, if I wanted to, to own a restaruant that bans all smoking, or one that has a smoking section away from nonsmokers, or one without any separate sectons.
FalconSo you are saying someone's right to have a "legal habit" is greater then someone's right to be confortable? And it's not about being comfortable, it's about not breathing in poisons.
Take this argument and apply it to driving. Though I don't ride my bike much anymore I used to ride it 100+ miles a week, and I'd breath in all of the poisonous exhaust from the vehicles I was sharing the roads with. By your logic I should be able to ban all vehicles. However that doesn't even take into consideration another harm from vehicles. Car accidents can and do kill a lot of people. I myself had a serious accident while riding my bike. While I was in a coma after a moving van hit me, the docs told my family it would be a miracle if I lived (if I could see and talk to those docs I'd let them know I see my life as a living hell not as a miracle). And I no longer ride much because of that accident!
FalconNote that I also included group policies as well. I don't see how having your coworkers pay higher insurance rates for your own foolish choices is in any way a morally superior choice.
I don't know where you live or get your health insurance from but every rates form for health insurance I've seen had one rate for nonsmokers and a higher rate for smokers.
FalconIn my opinion, the CDC is the perfect example of where the government should get involved. And, I would suspect that people opposed to direct government competition with the private sector would mostly agree.
As a Libertarian, the CDC and the NIH, National Instituttes of Health, are two of the very few federal agencies I agree with the existance of. Many of the others I'd rather see vanish off the federal registry, two of those being the FCC and the FDA!
FalconWhy aren't YOU a member of the Free State Project?
Ah, if only the Free State Project were in Vermont instead of New Hampshire, or they switched places. I'd rather live on the coast, and not have to travel through another state to get there. I'd even accept Maine. But unfortunately I don't have much choice as to where I live.
FalconComing from New York to Florida I've found the opposite. And of course their income is taxed down here.
The only tax on income in Florida is the federal income tax and a tax on intangibles such as devidents on stocks. What revenue the state collects is from a consumption tax (sales tax on none food or health items) and property tax. You only pay tax on what you buy and what real estate you own. Now there's also the voluntary tax that's called the Florida Lottery, which is supposed to go to enhance educational spending. Oh and I grew up in Florida, my family having moved there when I was three.
FalconORMC, Orlando Regional Medical Center? I was a "guest" there for a few weeks after an accident. My mom is also a lab tech there.
FalconWill they drop to 0? Because $0 is all some people can afford to pay for an unplanned hospital stay. Or I guess the homeless should just die on the streets because they're too "lazy" to get jobs, right?
With lower tax and medical bills more people would be able to afford insurance. With lower healthcare costs, health insurance would be lower too so more employers could afford to offer employees health insurance. Then with lower taxes more jobs could be created thus employing the unemployed. For those who couldn't work or get work civil society would be able to help out more as more people could donate to these organizations with lower tax bills. And I am saying this as someone who collects SSI.
FalconI would also be more than willing to accept a designation on your driver's license, similar to the markings for organ donors, that marks you as a (e. g.) smoker, thereby exempting you from both state-funded medical care or from the responsibility of any group healthcare programs you may be a part of, requiring you to pay for everything out-of-pocket as well as lowering your priority in gaining access to treatment for your self-inflicted ailments. But the hue and cry against such a measure from indignant smokers (et al) would keep it from ever being enacted.
While I agree people need to be responsible for the actions they take and the choices they make, I totally disagree with any markings or designation that a person smokes or whatever on the driver's license or id. Because I am a smoker I pay more for health insurance coverage, and I have no problem with it. If I want to pay less for health coverage then I can stop smoking. I just don't want any government mandating I stop, or where I can smoke while on private property. And while regarding health risks, using this as a basis for banning smoking, why don't you also ban driving? Afterall we go to war, which kills many more people than smoking does, for oil and gas. Then the exhaust from burning petrol creates greenhouse gases which causes global warming again causing deaths from heat strokes and such. Then the particulate matter in deisel exhaust causes asthma and other breathing disorders. So if you're really concerned about health issues as related to smoking you should also be concerned about the health issues of burning fossil fuels. You should also be concerned with lung cancer caused by radon gas which is emitted from the concrete used in buildings.
FalconIn fact, I find the whole concept of the death penalty as it happens in the USA about the stupidest thing there is. We say that it will stop ppl from committing crimes, yet it make very easy and not so scary (a "humane" way of doing so), we do not publish it, and then expect that it will influence criminals to stop their behavior. Whatever idiot that came up with this logic should be shot.
I too find it stupid that we, the US, has the death penalty, but not for your reasoning. Like Thomas Jefferson did, I believe it's better to let ten guilty go free than to falsely punish one innocent. If an innocent is sent to prison for life there's still a change s/he can be cleared and set free but they can't be brought back to life once executed. As for the death penalty being a deterrent, if it really worked nobody would commit capital murder. And as for me if I knew that if I were to kill and be sentenced to death I wouldn't have a problem in killing many more to avoid getting caught, say any and all witnesses. I also find it ironic that we kill people to show killing people is bad.
Don't be afraid of the command line and you will be rewarded.
Though it's been a long tyme since I have I have worked with CLIs. Abut ten years ago I took a class in Linux, er unix, however the PCs we used had coherent as the OS. Before that, I first started progamming on the Trash, er TRS80, when RadShack released it in the 1970's. I learned basic programming on it, the Apple 2, and a dumb terminal connected to an IBM 360 series 60 mainframe. I admit I need to learn or relearn a lot to proficiently use the command line, however I'm wondering how well I'll be able to use it as my memory is impaired, damaged.
I've used Maya its a pretty nice 3D modeling system, and its relatively simple to learn as compared to Blender.
I'd like to get a good book on learning either Blender or Maya.
Just remember one thing with Linux: its not about finding programs that are equivalent to Windows programs.
As it is now I don't really use much in the way of Windows apps, programs in general really, other than browsers and a text editor. However when I get around to it I want to install a webserver, perl, a database, and maybe Ruby on Rails or other web tech as I want to learn web development.
Falcon