I almost agree. But not all drugs should be legal. There are a few variants that are just plain evil. Check out some of the effects from variants of China White. Permanent disability from a single dose. Nasty nasty stuff. There might be some drugs we, as a society, say are just too dangerous to allow.
And by legal, you can't mean a laise faire approach. More likely a well regulated system like what is in place for pharmaceuticals or alcohol, tobacco, caffeinated products, etc. Which is why I prefer the term decriminalization. At a minimum, you'd still want some sort of consumer protection in place.
But you are correct, blanket prohibition is an ineffective and blunt tool. Approaching drugs as a health problem instead of a criminal problem is a step in the right direction.
Ultimately, I don't think legalization or prohibition proponents will like the final solution. But that comes from starting with a position rather than a goal.
Hmmm, the addicts I know have no problem finding drugs in just a few minutes. And they aren't robbing to pay for a fix. They are robbing to pay for rent because they forgot to show up for work and got fired.
The lifestyle they live is not just one of addiction. It is one of stumbling through life because they destroy everything around them. Not because the drugs are illegal (you may have heard of this new drug all the kids are doing: alcohol), but because all they care about is getting high. And yet they still need money for food and rent. Cheaper drugs aren't going to make them less of a fuckup. Rehab might, but it would interfere with them getting high, which they like.
And by not being a productive and healthy, I was including ethanol and nicotine addicts. I've known people to be hospitalized and die from each. Young and old. And from illegal drugs. And some legal ones. Drug effects form a spectrum, as you may have heard. Caffeine isn't very debilitating. Ethanol is. Meth more so. To ever group them the way you did is silly. Thinking them equivalent, more so.
But the effects are not the only thing we measure by. Cannabis might be fine. But pot and morphine and coke are very different. In short term effects, addiction rates, long term mental and physical effects, etc.
If you are arguing that all drugs should be treated the same, you are a fool. I would rather have a rational policy that minimizes health risks, costs to society, crime, incarceration, etc. A simplistic blanket policy (ban or legalize) won't do that.
Do you think anyone who has ever used drugs needs rehab? Even people who only indulge a few times a year?
Not at all. I know all too many users and addicts of legal and illegal substances to make that assumption. Just as I know that not everyone who gets a tan or smokes a cigarette is going to die of cancer. And that simple slogan solutions are never so simple in execution.
I actually based my views in part on the Swiss program. It is not a simple "legalize and tax" system. Yet I'd agree it shows success. Precisely because it is nuanced. It kills the market for heroin by giving away heroin to the biggest users, while mainstreaming addicts and reducing health risks. Very clever. And something I'd like to see done in the US. Plus other variants.
Not all drug addicts steal because they can't get jobs due to drug testing. Many I know have jobs most of the time. But their lifestyle makes it hard to hold a job (employers prefer worker who show up and are not stoned out of their minds). Or they have a girlfriend who is a drug addict leech. So they resort to petty theft to make ends meet sometimes.
My argument isn't that legalizing drugs can't make things better overall. Just that it's going to be more complicated and messy than people realize. And if we just legalize and tax, we are being foolish by not finding the best solution possible.
Unfortunately all too many people on drugs have no interest in rehab. Not to mention the economics are not so easy. i.e How much revenue per addict do you need to generate per treatment?
And extreme prevention measures, in the form of making drugs illegal / forcing high prices, hasn't been much of a winner.
So yes, we can easily end a lot of drug related crime. Except for petty crime by people too messed up to hold a job, but no too messed up to steal from friends, neighbors, family to support their lifestyle. But the consequences won't be all rosy. Addicts are not known be be a productive and healthy bunch.
A real solution will need to be a bit more nuanced than just legalize and tax.
I've often thought it would be fun to have a contest based on insulting the US President. To make it interesting, it would only be open to people visiting the US.
Contestants would stand outside the White House fence and publicly insult the president, loudly and with a sign, while videoing it. All videos would be posted to YouTube. Winner would be the one with the most views. Threats of violence would be disqualified.
The contest would serve two purposes: a bit of fun and showing the world that, despite other flaws, you really can say just about anything with impunity.
Side contests doing the same at other government branches would also be fun.
I believe the term surrogate here is being used to mean substitute. As in abandoning ones real personality and substituting one created in social media.
In the past, it was accepted for some people to have stage names (or nom de plume). It was a way to separate work from private life. The stage name could go with an invented personality. Sometimes it was a character name that became associated with an actor. They could ham it up, then go home. It only got weird when someone permanently became the caricature they created.
With traditional media, that was limited and controlled. Not many people had reasons for stage names, and when and where they had to use it was easier to define. And the true wackos (unless it was matched by great talent) were sidelined.
With social media, everyone is creating a stage name. And blurring the lines of when they are using it. They spend huge amounts of time polishing the image they project. They use it as a substitute for real interactions with other human beings. For some, it becomes a warped substitute for their actual personality, which they neglect. Not for everyone, but all to many people.
As the actor playing the Doctor, Matt has seen some of the pressure to become the surrogate personality. To become the Doctor 24/7. He believes social media increases that pressure. So he's opted out of social media. And he's suggesting that others would benefit from opting out too. Not because there isn't anything to be gained, but because creating and becoming a surrogate personality is not worth it.
Good point! If they'd stop drilling for oil, fewer Oklahomans would be able to afford cars or gas, reducing casualties on I-35. Let's prevent death and injury by banning the fracking.
And I'm saying that normalcy is a side issue. There are many non-Gaussian distributions for which average and still be more informative. Median is useful for some needs, average for others.
The obsession with normal distributions is a rookie mistake. Saying the median could be more informative is ok. Saying the median could be more informative because something is non-Gaussian is wrong.
Very. From looking at the average, were you able to tell that some countries are older than 1 century? If you had to buy candles to celebrate all anniversaries this year, could you make a useful guess? Could you estimate the probability that a country would cease to exist this year?
The distribution of data is not a prerequisite for the average to be informative or useful. Consider the average weight of an adult human. It's worse than skewed, it's a bimodal distribution. But the average is still very informative. Would a more detailed view of the data be more useful, yes. But it's silly and ignorant to tie usefulness of data to it being Gaussian.
1) You have to have excess liquidity to be able to have a bank account. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, leaving money in a bank account is an extravagance.
2) Fees. Unless you maintain a minimum balance, many banks charge fees. See above.
Slashdot Mirror
I almost agree. But not all drugs should be legal. There are a few variants that are just plain evil. Check out some of the effects from variants of China White. Permanent disability from a single dose. Nasty nasty stuff. There might be some drugs we, as a society, say are just too dangerous to allow.
And by legal, you can't mean a laise faire approach. More likely a well regulated system like what is in place for pharmaceuticals or alcohol, tobacco, caffeinated products, etc. Which is why I prefer the term decriminalization. At a minimum, you'd still want some sort of consumer protection in place.
But you are correct, blanket prohibition is an ineffective and blunt tool. Approaching drugs as a health problem instead of a criminal problem is a step in the right direction.
Ultimately, I don't think legalization or prohibition proponents will like the final solution. But that comes from starting with a position rather than a goal.
Hmmm, the addicts I know have no problem finding drugs in just a few minutes. And they aren't robbing to pay for a fix. They are robbing to pay for rent because they forgot to show up for work and got fired.
The lifestyle they live is not just one of addiction. It is one of stumbling through life because they destroy everything around them. Not because the drugs are illegal (you may have heard of this new drug all the kids are doing: alcohol), but because all they care about is getting high. And yet they still need money for food and rent. Cheaper drugs aren't going to make them less of a fuckup. Rehab might, but it would interfere with them getting high, which they like.
And by not being a productive and healthy, I was including ethanol and nicotine addicts. I've known people to be hospitalized and die from each. Young and old. And from illegal drugs. And some legal ones. Drug effects form a spectrum, as you may have heard. Caffeine isn't very debilitating. Ethanol is. Meth more so. To ever group them the way you did is silly. Thinking them equivalent, more so.
But the effects are not the only thing we measure by. Cannabis might be fine. But pot and morphine and coke are very different. In short term effects, addiction rates, long term mental and physical effects, etc.
If you are arguing that all drugs should be treated the same, you are a fool. I would rather have a rational policy that minimizes health risks, costs to society, crime, incarceration, etc. A simplistic blanket policy (ban or legalize) won't do that.
Not at all. I know all too many users and addicts of legal and illegal substances to make that assumption. Just as I know that not everyone who gets a tan or smokes a cigarette is going to die of cancer. And that simple slogan solutions are never so simple in execution.
I actually based my views in part on the Swiss program. It is not a simple "legalize and tax" system. Yet I'd agree it shows success. Precisely because it is nuanced. It kills the market for heroin by giving away heroin to the biggest users, while mainstreaming addicts and reducing health risks. Very clever. And something I'd like to see done in the US. Plus other variants.
Not all drug addicts steal because they can't get jobs due to drug testing. Many I know have jobs most of the time. But their lifestyle makes it hard to hold a job (employers prefer worker who show up and are not stoned out of their minds). Or they have a girlfriend who is a drug addict leech. So they resort to petty theft to make ends meet sometimes.
My argument isn't that legalizing drugs can't make things better overall. Just that it's going to be more complicated and messy than people realize. And if we just legalize and tax, we are being foolish by not finding the best solution possible.
Unfortunately all too many people on drugs have no interest in rehab. Not to mention the economics are not so easy. i.e How much revenue per addict do you need to generate per treatment?
And extreme prevention measures, in the form of making drugs illegal / forcing high prices, hasn't been much of a winner.
So yes, we can easily end a lot of drug related crime. Except for petty crime by people too messed up to hold a job, but no too messed up to steal from friends, neighbors, family to support their lifestyle. But the consequences won't be all rosy. Addicts are not known be be a productive and healthy bunch.
A real solution will need to be a bit more nuanced than just legalize and tax.
I don't read Chinese, so used to ask what they were. I've gotten things ranging from "Hello, welcome to ..." to some adverts.
Due to my illiteracy, they are uniformly annoying.
A crude version of this happens in China. Certain locations trigger text messages to my phone.
I've often thought it would be fun to have a contest based on insulting the US President. To make it interesting, it would only be open to people visiting the US.
Contestants would stand outside the White House fence and publicly insult the president, loudly and with a sign, while videoing it. All videos would be posted to YouTube. Winner would be the one with the most views. Threats of violence would be disqualified.
The contest would serve two purposes: a bit of fun and showing the world that, despite other flaws, you really can say just about anything with impunity.
Side contests doing the same at other government branches would also be fun.
Yes, it is bleedin' obvious.
I believe the term surrogate here is being used to mean substitute. As in abandoning ones real personality and substituting one created in social media.
In the past, it was accepted for some people to have stage names (or nom de plume). It was a way to separate work from private life. The stage name could go with an invented personality. Sometimes it was a character name that became associated with an actor. They could ham it up, then go home. It only got weird when someone permanently became the caricature they created.
With traditional media, that was limited and controlled. Not many people had reasons for stage names, and when and where they had to use it was easier to define. And the true wackos (unless it was matched by great talent) were sidelined.
With social media, everyone is creating a stage name. And blurring the lines of when they are using it. They spend huge amounts of time polishing the image they project. They use it as a substitute for real interactions with other human beings. For some, it becomes a warped substitute for their actual personality, which they neglect. Not for everyone, but all to many people.
As the actor playing the Doctor, Matt has seen some of the pressure to become the surrogate personality. To become the Doctor 24/7. He believes social media increases that pressure. So he's opted out of social media. And he's suggesting that others would benefit from opting out too. Not because there isn't anything to be gained, but because creating and becoming a surrogate personality is not worth it.
Maybe. According to the jury, he is not guilty. Yes, there is a difference.
I've had it with these mutherfuckin bugs on this mutherfuckin plane.
Good point! If they'd stop drilling for oil, fewer Oklahomans would be able to afford cars or gas, reducing casualties on I-35. Let's prevent death and injury by banning the fracking.
Ministry of Silly Walks
Very effective department, but embarrassing none the less.
Are you trying to imply the Chinese version of CSI should be on the list?
The secret title of every one of the new movies will be:
Star Wars: Episode ? Now give me your money, fucktard!
And I'm saying that normalcy is a side issue. There are many non-Gaussian distributions for which average and still be more informative. Median is useful for some needs, average for others.
The obsession with normal distributions is a rookie mistake. Saying the median could be more informative is ok. Saying the median could be more informative because something is non-Gaussian is wrong.
You're not alone...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kN9LdTkR85Q
Very. From looking at the average, were you able to tell that some countries are older than 1 century? If you had to buy candles to celebrate all anniversaries this year, could you make a useful guess? Could you estimate the probability that a country would cease to exist this year?
The distribution of data is not a prerequisite for the average to be informative or useful. Consider the average weight of an adult human. It's worse than skewed, it's a bimodal distribution. But the average is still very informative. Would a more detailed view of the data be more useful, yes. But it's silly and ignorant to tie usefulness of data to it being Gaussian.
Gaussian distribution is not a requirement for calculating or using average. But this is Slashdot, so I don't expect you to understand mathematics.
The video clearly shows that the payload was successfully inserted into a low orbit before the rocket broke up on reentry.
I travel frequently too. I'd say your observation applies pretty much everywhere.
News flash: There are 300 million Americans. Some are idiots. Some != all.
Sure, but:
1) You have to have excess liquidity to be able to have a bank account. If you're living paycheck to paycheck, leaving money in a bank account is an extravagance.
2) Fees. Unless you maintain a minimum balance, many banks charge fees. See above.
I limit it to 1's and 0's
Outsourcing to GB and USA?