I am in california, but previously when trying to collect the plaintiff refused (this was a judgement for their part of the bills which we all agreed to pay equal shares, electric, phone, water, etc).
Thanks for the info, i'll check my records and see if I am still eligible.
How long od you have to collect? I got a judgement against a former roommate years ago and was never able to collect (real jerk he was) do I still have the ability to file this with a collection agency? I still have all of the paperwork...
"The only thing that Linux is lacking to be contender at this point are users"
If by users you mean gaming titles then I would agree with you... If there were as many games for linux as their are for windows I would run linux exclusively..
As it is now I just run it for gaming servers (as their are typically linux ports for the game servers, but not the games themselves.. which always has seemed weird to me, if you have the server code working wouldn't all of the media (bitmaps, skins, sound files) be the same?)
I have been getting calls recently from a long distance number, when i answer the phone it is a spanish speaking voice recording.. it seems to be saying something about rates and calling (from the little espanol I understand).
Could they be using this service to rack up charges to their phone number much like the pervious oversees number scams (where they would call you and tell you to dial an 900 number claiming you won a prize) or is it just spanish speaking telemarketing spam?
I had been thinking about this a lot lately and then I saw this article... anyone else seen or experienced anything like this?
I was listening to Dr. Dean Edell on the radio the other day and he said that vascetomies reversal rate decreases by 10% a year after the procedure.. so I would say it pretty much isn't reversable as when a man has one i doubt he would want it reversed within that 10 year time frame...right?
First off, could does not equal would, do you see what's wrong with making something illegal because what "could" happen? Let's make laws based on what does happen, not what could.
Secondly, All of your points are negated IF drugs were made legal.
"You could behave irrationally and dangerously while under the influence of that drug."
You can already do the same with alcohol, you can also do the same sober. I could be more responsible while under the influence.
"You could behave violently when addicted to that drug and looking for resources to get your next fix."
If they were legal you wouldn't need to, you could grow your own (opium/marijuana) or buy legal cheap drugs from a pharmacist. You could be have violently because your cheeseburger was made without pickles.. let's outlaw non-pickled hamburgers.
"You could injure yourself through incorrect dosage, etc., and sue for damages."
How are those alcohol lawsuits doing? Same premise... and it would be subject to the same legislation (like bartender serving limits, alcohol purchase times). People can sue for whatever they want, we should treat those lawsuits on their merit, not demonize a personal choice for how it could be mis-used. Should we make coffee illegal (McDonalds case).
"Your use of the drug could encourage the development of more dangerous pathogens (which is why strong antibiotics are always perscription)"
Um what? How does it being illegal or legal change this? Encourage dangerous pathogens?
Seriously, admit it, you just ran out of "omg think of what "would" happen" scary ideas.. right?
"Guns are outlawed in most of the world, except in certain state-sanctioned professions."
Ok fine, knives? Forks, pointed sticks, rocks, throwing sand in someone's eyes... so basically you want to lock up the world to keep yourself safe from any possible dangers? Did you recently introduce a ban on playing tag?
"You need a license to drive a car or fly a plane, specifically because of the risk involved."
I said outlawed, I didn't say licensed.. you know driving accidents kill more people per year than anything else right? And it is legal.
"*sigh* Only if you're over 21."
Please point to my argument of letting minors use drugs legally.
"That includes letting you do recreational drugs."
All of the current reasons you give are because drugs are illegal, not because the drugs themselves are dangerous.. right now people are using drugs and society hasn't collapsed, but yet you think taking away the detrimental social and economic effects would make things worse? Hello?
"If the risk (incl. risk to others) is high and the benefit is low, you can expect laws prohibiting that behavior."
Using this criteria, drug laws should be repealed. Millions of people are incarcerated for minor drug infractions, illegal drug cartels murder and influence millions of lives, billions of dollars are spent pursuing an outcome that can never be achieved.
"Where do you think the money for public health care comes from?
Look at the amount of taxes that "every other civilized country" has to pay every year and get back to me."
I already addressed this but you seem unable to discuss my point and again parrot propaganda.
What he said was use the money ALREADY SPENT on criminalization of drugs and it's effect on society (police, DEA, prisions, court time, etc.) and use that to create a public health care system.. something that would benefit all of society. READ my quips, no new taxes.
"Because that personal choice endangers the rest of society."
Really? Care to prove that? My smoking a joint endangers the rest of society.. really.. please explain to me how so that I might repent of my evil ways.
Let me counter with an equally specious argument, "This personal choice does not endanger society".
"so when drugs are demonstrated to have a high probability of being used in a way that hurts others"
I didn't know that codiene routinely murders, rapes, and steals.. how exactly is my using a drug hurting others?
Your saying we should create laws based on a probability of propensity for harm? Then why aren't guns outlawed? Cars? Airplanes? Pointed sticks?
"but that doesn't mean that I'm willing to accept the consequences of allowing you to have it"
What if there aren't any consequences, do you still get to be my mommy and tell me what I can and cannot have? Is it ok for me to drink? What about skydive.. i could land on you and squish you flat you know...
"Meth labs, by the way, are the result of economic factors. They exist despite the legality of the product, not because of it."
Right, because it is illegal to have it is expensive so a black market exists. The only legal outlet is for medical reasons not recreation, it is still illegal for recreation, if it was legal for recreational use it wouldn't be expensive and thus no meth labs.
BTW your arguement was "just being around amphetamines" was dangerous, which I stated that you are obviously unaware that thousands of kids are exposed to it everyday in the form of their classmates who have ADD and are prescribed amphetamines.
"Something that harms you *and* chemically makes you want more of it should indeed be banned"
What if it doesn't harm me or chemically make me want more.. what if that is just propaganda you have bought into? What if it doesn't harm you but relieves your constant pain.. should it still be banned.
AND what if I want to be harmed or chemically dependant, why would I want someone to protect me from that.. do you think laws against suicide are in the right?
"Just because of momentary exposure, they themselves become a health hazard to those around them."
WOW, just wow.. all those poor kids with ADD, I never knew they were a health hazard to all of those around them because they take ritalin or adderall.. someone should inform law enforcement./sarcasm
You do know that Meth labs are a result of the legality of amphetamines right?
"A should be illegal, but if A greatly increases the likelihood of crime and results in huge harm to society in medical costs, then it should not be outlawed"
He never said that the drug would increase the likelihood of crime, he said that drugs should be legal, but not an excuse for criminal behavior.
"I think you made my point on who wants this: stoners. "
Wow people who smoke pot don't want to be treated as criminals for a personal choice.. brillant deduction. So why are you against it if it has nothing to do with you?
"Public health care is not the answer. I certainly do not want to pay shitloads in taxes and overfill our hospitals"
Public health care is something pretty much every other civilized country has and seems to work out pretty well for them I think you missed the point though, where did he talk about increasing taxes?
What he said was use the money ALREADY SPENT on criminalization of drugs and it's effect on society (police, DEA, prisions, court time, etc.) and use that to create a public health care system.. something that would benefit all of society.
Why are you so against drug use that you would penalize your fellow man for his or her personal choices with no benefit to society?
"I would only support legal drug use on the condition that the user signs away any and all rights to be supported by the State."
I would only support the user signing away their rights to be supported if they never had to pay taxes again and got a refund for all taxes paid thus far.
"Well, actually, if you let his dog dump on your lawn long enough, it's possible that your neighbor has established an easement for his dog dumping on your lawn by virtue of adverse possession."
What about a neighboor's cat? I have a number of neighboors who have no qualms with letting their cats be "outdoor" cats, which means they come and poop on my lawn, since they usually do this at night I don't know about it till I get a whiff of cat poop in the morning when I open my windows...
Would it be wrong to shoot the cats with a paintball gun if I see them pooping on my lawn years later when i finally catch one of them?
*desks himself in camo, loads paintballs and waits...*
"before passing it to an avatar from Half-Life 2 to read out"
It won't be long until these "avatars" start biasing the news towards their personal beliefs.. like denegrating head crabs, or constantly slanting the news against Dr. Breen.
Not to mention the crowbar lobby's already powerful influence...
"If you got 50% more pay, what would you spend it on, keeping the same standard as you have now, only with ethically better food."
I would shop at target or pennys or mervyns (to choose a few (west coast?) stores), which has better quality food and clothing, or even costco as most of their prices are only about 20% higher than walmart when comparing clothing and non-durable goods (because of the amount of goods you are purchasing at a time) when you break it down.
When I purchase durable goods (non-food, non hygenic) I try to buy quality over quantity as I take care of my things and expect that if I pay a little more it will last a lot longer.
When I can make a choice with negliable cost difference I try to "take the high road" but currently the choices to do so are far and few between.
50% more pay is a huge difference and would make it actually possible to "do the right thing".
Minimum wage is 6.75 currently in California, your talking 10.25 dollars an hour at a 50% increase. This is not enough to buy a bigger house, new car, plasma TV, but it would give someone the extra 100-200 a month to express their voice with dollars.
"Most people do not care about ethical dilemmas if taking the 'high road' costs more than a few dollars extra."
That's easy to say, but try working a low wage job and supporting a family, it's not that people don't care about these issues, it's that they can't afford to care.
I have a wife and 3 children.
I'd rather not shop at walmart, but I can't afford to spend 100 dollars more per month by going "the high road".
I'd rather animals are treated humanely and then killed humanely for their meat, but I can't afford 5 dollars a pound for hamburger or 7 dollars a pound for chicken.
Maybe what we need to do is rally around higher pay standards for the middle and lower classes, then we CAN make decisions that are the morally correct ones...
"A good pair of running shoes is going to set you back at least $100, no matter what...That's just what it costs to make a good pair of running shoes."
I beg to differ, that's what it costs to BUY a good pair of running shoes, i'd be surprised if the materials and labor (esp shoes made over sees, which is um all of them) costs were above 10 dollars per pair to MAKE them, more likely around 5.
Marketing is also expensive but i'd argue not really needed (at least in the size of budgets most companies spend) if you have a quality product.
Slashdot Mirror
The waves create enormous electric fields (over 100 billion electron volts/meter).
Could these (i assume) elertrons/electric charges be harnessed in some way?
I am in california, but previously when trying to collect the plaintiff refused (this was a judgement for their part of the bills which we all agreed to pay equal shares, electric, phone, water, etc).
Thanks for the info, i'll check my records and see if I am still eligible.
How long od you have to collect? I got a judgement against a former roommate years ago and was never able to collect (real jerk he was) do I still have the ability to file this with a collection agency? I still have all of the paperwork...
"The only thing that Linux is lacking to be contender at this point are users"
If by users you mean gaming titles then I would agree with you... If there were as many games for linux as their are for windows I would run linux exclusively..
As it is now I just run it for gaming servers (as their are typically linux ports for the game servers, but not the games themselves.. which always has seemed weird to me, if you have the server code working wouldn't all of the media (bitmaps, skins, sound files) be the same?)
I have been getting calls recently from a long distance number, when i answer the phone it is a spanish speaking voice recording.. it seems to be saying something about rates and calling (from the little espanol I understand).
Could they be using this service to rack up charges to their phone number much like the pervious oversees number scams (where they would call you and tell you to dial an 900 number claiming you won a prize) or is it just spanish speaking telemarketing spam?
I had been thinking about this a lot lately and then I saw this article... anyone else seen or experienced anything like this?
I was listening to Dr. Dean Edell on the radio the other day and he said that vascetomies reversal rate decreases by 10% a year after the procedure.. so I would say it pretty much isn't reversable as when a man has one i doubt he would want it reversed within that 10 year time frame...right?
"Who wants to look at a tauren's ass all day when you can look at a sexy night elf's ass?"
I'm a furry, you insensitive clod!
First off, could does not equal would, do you see what's wrong with making something illegal because what "could" happen? Let's make laws based on what does happen, not what could.
Secondly, All of your points are negated IF drugs were made legal.
"You could behave irrationally and dangerously while under the influence of that drug."
You can already do the same with alcohol, you can also do the same sober. I could be more responsible while under the influence.
"You could behave violently when addicted to that drug and looking for resources to get your next fix."
If they were legal you wouldn't need to, you could grow your own (opium/marijuana) or buy legal cheap drugs from a pharmacist. You could be have violently because your cheeseburger was made without pickles.. let's outlaw non-pickled hamburgers.
"You could injure yourself through incorrect dosage, etc., and sue for damages."
How are those alcohol lawsuits doing? Same premise... and it would be subject to the same legislation (like bartender serving limits, alcohol purchase times). People can sue for whatever they want, we should treat those lawsuits on their merit, not demonize a personal choice for how it could be mis-used. Should we make coffee illegal (McDonalds case).
"Your use of the drug could encourage the development of more dangerous pathogens (which is why strong antibiotics are always perscription)"
Um what? How does it being illegal or legal change this? Encourage dangerous pathogens?
Seriously, admit it, you just ran out of "omg think of what "would" happen" scary ideas.. right?
"Guns are outlawed in most of the world, except in certain state-sanctioned professions."
Ok fine, knives? Forks, pointed sticks, rocks, throwing sand in someone's eyes... so basically you want to lock up the world to keep yourself safe from any possible dangers? Did you recently introduce a ban on playing tag?
"You need a license to drive a car or fly a plane, specifically because of the risk involved."
I said outlawed, I didn't say licensed.. you know driving accidents kill more people per year than anything else right? And it is legal.
"*sigh*
Only if you're over 21."
Please point to my argument of letting minors use drugs legally.
"That includes letting you do recreational drugs."
All of the current reasons you give are because drugs are illegal, not because the drugs themselves are dangerous.. right now people are using drugs and society hasn't collapsed, but yet you think taking away the detrimental social and economic effects would make things worse? Hello?
"If the risk (incl. risk to others) is high and the benefit is low, you can expect laws prohibiting that behavior."
Using this criteria, drug laws should be repealed. Millions of people are incarcerated for minor drug infractions, illegal drug cartels murder and influence millions of lives, billions of dollars are spent pursuing an outcome that can never be achieved.
Thanks for making my point.
"Where do you think the money for public health care comes from?
Look at the amount of taxes that "every other civilized country" has to pay every year and get back to me."
I already addressed this but you seem unable to discuss my point and again parrot propaganda.
What he said was use the money ALREADY SPENT on criminalization of drugs and it's effect on society (police, DEA, prisions, court time, etc.) and use that to create a public health care system.. something that would benefit all of society. READ my quips, no new taxes.
"Because that personal choice endangers the rest of society."
Really? Care to prove that? My smoking a joint endangers the rest of society.. really.. please explain to me how so that I might repent of my evil ways.
Let me counter with an equally specious argument, "This personal choice does not endanger society".
There now we are safe.
"so when drugs are demonstrated to have a high probability of being used in a way that hurts others"
I didn't know that codiene routinely murders, rapes, and steals.. how exactly is my using a drug hurting others?
Your saying we should create laws based on a probability of propensity for harm? Then why aren't guns outlawed? Cars? Airplanes? Pointed sticks?
"but that doesn't mean that I'm willing to accept the consequences of allowing you to have it"
What if there aren't any consequences, do you still get to be my mommy and tell me what I can and cannot have? Is it ok for me to drink? What about skydive.. i could land on you and squish you flat you know...
"Meth labs, by the way, are the result of economic factors. They exist despite the legality of the product, not because of it."
Right, because it is illegal to have it is expensive so a black market exists. The only legal outlet is for medical reasons not recreation, it is still illegal for recreation, if it was legal for recreational use it wouldn't be expensive and thus no meth labs.
BTW your arguement was "just being around amphetamines" was dangerous, which I stated that you are obviously unaware that thousands of kids are exposed to it everyday in the form of their classmates who have ADD and are prescribed amphetamines.
"Something that harms you *and* chemically makes you want more of it should indeed be banned"
What if it doesn't harm me or chemically make me want more.. what if that is just propaganda you have bought into? What if it doesn't harm you but relieves your constant pain.. should it still be banned.
AND what if I want to be harmed or chemically dependant, why would I want someone to protect me from that.. do you think laws against suicide are in the right?
"I'm pretty sure that weed is NOT legal in the Netherlands."
It's de-criminalized.
"Cocaine is harmless? my friend blew out her sinuses doing cocaine."
You can drink and eat cocaine BTW, it just isn't economically viable when the legal status has pushed the cost up to 100+ dollars a gram.
"Just because of momentary exposure, they themselves become a health hazard to those around them."
/sarcasm
WOW, just wow.. all those poor kids with ADD, I never knew they were a health hazard to all of those around them because they take ritalin or adderall.. someone should inform law enforcement.
You do know that Meth labs are a result of the legality of amphetamines right?
"A should be illegal, but if A greatly increases the likelihood of crime and results in huge harm to society in medical costs, then it should not be outlawed"
He never said that the drug would increase the likelihood of crime, he said that drugs should be legal, but not an excuse for criminal behavior.
"I think you made my point on who wants this: stoners. "
Wow people who smoke pot don't want to be treated as criminals for a personal choice.. brillant deduction. So why are you against it if it has nothing to do with you?
"Public health care is not the answer. I certainly do not want to pay shitloads in taxes and overfill our hospitals"
Public health care is something pretty much every other civilized country has and seems to work out pretty well for them I think you missed the point though, where did he talk about increasing taxes?
What he said was use the money ALREADY SPENT on criminalization of drugs and it's effect on society (police, DEA, prisions, court time, etc.) and use that to create a public health care system.. something that would benefit all of society.
Why are you so against drug use that you would penalize your fellow man for his or her personal choices with no benefit to society?
"Drug fucked hookers"
And why are they hooking?
Ever heard of prostitutes selling themselves to support their alcohol addiction? Or cigarette addiction?
"I would only support legal drug use on the condition that the user signs away any and all rights to be supported by the State."
I would only support the user signing away their rights to be supported if they never had to pay taxes again and got a refund for all taxes paid thus far.
"Well, actually, if you let his dog dump on your lawn long enough, it's possible that your neighbor has established an easement for his dog dumping on your lawn by virtue of adverse possession."
What about a neighboor's cat? I have a number of neighboors who have no qualms with letting their cats be "outdoor" cats, which means they come and poop on my lawn, since they usually do this at night I don't know about it till I get a whiff of cat poop in the morning when I open my windows...
Would it be wrong to shoot the cats with a paintball gun if I see them pooping on my lawn years later when i finally catch one of them?
*desks himself in camo, loads paintballs and waits...*
"What happened between me and Laa-Laa"
Riiight, Laa-Laa, we all know it was Tinky Winky..
"before passing it to an avatar from Half-Life 2 to read out"
It won't be long until these "avatars" start biasing the news towards their personal beliefs.. like denegrating head crabs, or constantly slanting the news against Dr. Breen.
Not to mention the crowbar lobby's already powerful influence...
"If you got 50% more pay, what would you spend it on, keeping the same standard as you have now, only with ethically better food."
I would shop at target or pennys or mervyns (to choose a few (west coast?) stores), which has better quality food and clothing, or even costco as most of their prices are only about 20% higher than walmart when comparing clothing and non-durable goods (because of the amount of goods you are purchasing at a time) when you break it down.
When I purchase durable goods (non-food, non hygenic) I try to buy quality over quantity as I take care of my things and expect that if I pay a little more it will last a lot longer.
When I can make a choice with negliable cost difference I try to "take the high road" but currently the choices to do so are far and few between.
50% more pay is a huge difference and would make it actually possible to "do the right thing".
Minimum wage is 6.75 currently in California, your talking 10.25 dollars an hour at a 50% increase. This is not enough to buy a bigger house, new car, plasma TV, but it would give someone the extra 100-200 a month to express their voice with dollars.
"Most people do not care about ethical dilemmas if taking the 'high road' costs more than a few dollars extra."
That's easy to say, but try working a low wage job and supporting a family, it's not that people don't care about these issues, it's that they can't afford to care.
I have a wife and 3 children.
I'd rather not shop at walmart, but I can't afford to spend 100 dollars more per month by going "the high road".
I'd rather animals are treated humanely and then killed humanely for their meat, but I can't afford 5 dollars a pound for hamburger or 7 dollars a pound for chicken.
Maybe what we need to do is rally around higher pay standards for the middle and lower classes, then we CAN make decisions that are the morally correct ones...
"A good pair of running shoes is going to set you back at least $100, no matter what...That's just what it costs to make a good pair of running shoes."
I beg to differ, that's what it costs to BUY a good pair of running shoes, i'd be surprised if the materials and labor (esp shoes made over sees, which is um all of them) costs were above 10 dollars per pair to MAKE them, more likely around 5.
Marketing is also expensive but i'd argue not really needed (at least in the size of budgets most companies spend) if you have a quality product.
"I, ... am Nike-Free going on 8 years... Just have to decide to do it."
I think you mean:
Boycott Nike "Just do it".