In many (Most? All?) states in the US, women can dump their child off at any hospital or fire department and not have any more legal responsibility ever. On the other hand, not only will the state financially come after any man who is the biological father and not raising the child themselves, they even go after men who are not the biological father, but were conned by the the biological mother into thinking they were for a while.
You started out great. You blew it with "It is all about hate, revenge". It clearly is not all about hate and revenge. Stick with "Torture is evil. If we administer it, WE are evil people."
So, your definition of torture is when inflicting physical pain does not get you accurate information? If so, what is the word you use when you talk about someone inflicting pain until they get accurate information?
No one is arguing the ethics of torture (well most of us are not.) The effectiveness is a completely different story though. Any claims that torture doesn't work are ridiculous. All of the people trying make their case on the ethics of the situation by claiming that it is ineffective are working against themselves. By making clear and obvious false statements, they lose their credibility.
Torture is a statistical investigation. How accurate your results are depend highly on the questions you ask and the number of samples you take.
The fact that the Catholic Church uses the same tactics as every other large scale criminal organization to protect those at the top doesn't mean those at the top are not criminals. Yes, the Catholic Church is compartmentalized into cells, so the Pope himself cannot be brought to trial for his crimes, that doesn't mean that we all have to play dumb and pretend that he isn't the head of an international child molestation ring.
It has been known for generations that Catholic priests molest children. It has been known for generations that the church covers it up. It is only with the lessening of their influence that their crimes have started getting charged. An influence that derived it's power from the Catholic Church and the Pope himself.
Not only that, but the telephone system is a social network. Just like Facebook, or G+. The government decided that the telephone network was a social network that we should have. Thus, it makes sure that as many people have it as possible. Thus the subsidies.
It is all over Slashdot. Every time the subject of immunization comes up. They don't specifically call out the chicken pox vaccine. The call for punishing people for not getting any of the recommended vaccines. That would include the chicken pox vaccine.
I think it's absurd to consider "home cooking" high risk. Eating out isn't necessarily less healthy, but it is in practice. You say it's possible to eat out in a healthy manner. This is true. But it is also true that you can eat a home cooked meal in a much safer way as well. (e.g. handling of raw meat, observing expiration dates, following fire safety rules, etc). The fact that home cooked meals are a bit more risky than they should be is also just incidental rather than necessary.
You are rationalizing again. You say that home cooked meals CAN be safer, and in practice eating out is less healthy. You are not using the same criteria to judge both activities. Eating out CAN be done healthier AND home cooking CAN be done safer. In practice, they are both what they are. (Although, I challenge the claim that eating out is in practice less healthy than eating in. People that try to eat healthy will eat healthy either way. The same goes for those that eat unhealthy.) This doesn't even count the people that die due to non-fire related home cooking injuries. (I would suspect that these are less, although I have never looked into it.)
Either way, just from fire alone, home cooking is 3 times more dangerous than the entire population not getting the chicken pox vaccine. (Of course, if you actually look at the numbers, it isn't clear that getting the chicken pox vaccine doesn't increase your risk of death due to chicken pox.)
The FDA doesn't even come into play with these statistics. You are 3 times more likely to kill yourself and others with fire than die from chicken pox in a completely unimmunized community. We could ban the use of fire in home cooking, and only allow microwaves. That won't happen because it isn't popular to save lives that way.
Why would you do that? Android handles a mouse and keyboard just fine. The touch screen would only be for things that are easeir done by touch. You sound like the people that though using a mouse meant clicking CLI commands out on an on-screen keyboard.
The point is that it is common here on Slashdot to include not getting the chicken pox vaccine as an example of a 'risky' behavior that should be enforced by law, or through higher taxes/fees. Conversely, no one would suggest that people should face the same kind of punishment for making home cooked meals. Thus, the issue isn't about risk. It is about whim.
It is absurd to say that eating out is less healthy than eating in. Whether you eat out, or in, you have a wide choice of both junk food and healthy food. So, no. Banning home cooking would most certainly not make people die of diabetes. That is the kind of rationalization that people do when they realize that their stance is hypocritical.
The death rate of home cooked meals is more than three times that of chicken pox PRE-vaccine. That means that if no one got the vaccine, it would still be less dangerous than home cooked meals, and those home cooked meals can easily kill most people's neighbors. Particularly in apartments.
The problem is that some risky behavior gets charged for, while other risky behavior gets subsidized. Once that happens, it isn't risky behavior that is getting the extra charge. It is unpopular behavior, or behavior that a powerful minority doesn't like.
Case in point. Many here on/. call out that people who don't get immunized should have to pay higher premiums. No one calls out for higher premiums for people with kitchens. Yet, the risk of death due to a home cooked mean is more than 3 times that of skipping the chicken pox vaccine.
BMI may well be the single biggest scam in health care. BMI is wrong, everyone knows it's wrong, but they just keep rationalizing why it is right anyway. All the while, health insurance companies get to charge healthy people extra, and politicians get to bemoan the 'obesity epidemic'.
This happened to me an my wife just recently while at the hospital for my son's birth. The nursery at the hospital is only used for running tests and for infants that are in critical care. Healthy infants stay in the mothers room. The nursery has a keypad security system to prevent people from entering without authorization.
We took our son to the nursery for a standard test, and on the way out, a man tried to enter when we opened the door to leave. I had no doubt that the man was there to see his infant (who I could assume is in bad shape since it was staying in the nursery). When my wife stopped him and told him that he couldn't use her door opening to enter, that he needed to have one of the nurses open the door for him, it almost came to blows. No doubt he was under stress, but he simply did not comprehend that letting him in when we left was breaking the security designed to protect his own child.
My thoughts on rude people around me have no effect on the rude people around me. Unfortunately.
Until your thoughts become actions. Perhaps Slashdot is the only place that your thoughts become action, but without any other information, I will assume it is not.
My favorite conspiracy theory is that there really are not conspiracies. The fact that we have laws against them and people get convicted of it is really just a conspiracy to make us BELIEVE that conspiracies exist...which they don't.
Gotcha. My crazy RFS (Request For Silence) scheme would likely only be useful for smart devices, given that it would keep a list of all declines bluetooth address to prevent exactly what you are going through.
Probably less difference in gray than you think. I don't get many calls in the theater. Probably far less than the number of times that you have been caught short. So, even by your standards, you are likely a bigger disturbance than I am. On the other hand, I am far more accepting of my place in public than you are. Theaters are not places of no disturbance. They are places of low disturbance. The sale of food and bladder busting drinks are evidence of this. Being overly controlling of those around you can move you to that darker shade of gray, just as easily as making noise.
Bluetooth is about as low power as we are going to get. From my experience, leaving it on doesn't affect battery life in any noticable way. Of course, YMMV.
I am curious about the Applebee's comment though. I have never had any kind of unpaired bluetooth advertising pushed to me. I'm not even sure what the mechanism for that would be. Can you enlighten me a bit on that?
Slashdot Mirror
In many (Most? All?) states in the US, women can dump their child off at any hospital or fire department and not have any more legal responsibility ever. On the other hand, not only will the state financially come after any man who is the biological father and not raising the child themselves, they even go after men who are not the biological father, but were conned by the the biological mother into thinking they were for a while.
"except in bed" already ends in "in bed".
You started out great. You blew it with "It is all about hate, revenge". It clearly is not all about hate and revenge. Stick with "Torture is evil. If we administer it, WE are evil people."
So, your definition of torture is when inflicting physical pain does not get you accurate information? If so, what is the word you use when you talk about someone inflicting pain until they get accurate information?
No one is arguing the ethics of torture (well most of us are not.) The effectiveness is a completely different story though. Any claims that torture doesn't work are ridiculous. All of the people trying make their case on the ethics of the situation by claiming that it is ineffective are working against themselves. By making clear and obvious false statements, they lose their credibility.
Torture is a statistical investigation. How accurate your results are depend highly on the questions you ask and the number of samples you take.
The fact that the Catholic Church uses the same tactics as every other large scale criminal organization to protect those at the top doesn't mean those at the top are not criminals. Yes, the Catholic Church is compartmentalized into cells, so the Pope himself cannot be brought to trial for his crimes, that doesn't mean that we all have to play dumb and pretend that he isn't the head of an international child molestation ring.
It has been known for generations that Catholic priests molest children. It has been known for generations that the church covers it up. It is only with the lessening of their influence that their crimes have started getting charged. An influence that derived it's power from the Catholic Church and the Pope himself.
Yes, when you know that a child is being molested, and you cover up for the molester, there is a name for you... Accomplice.
And that is what the Civil War was really about. Urban people and rural people fighting over our the power and money the government spends.
Not only that, but the telephone system is a social network. Just like Facebook, or G+. The government decided that the telephone network was a social network that we should have. Thus, it makes sure that as many people have it as possible. Thus the subsidies.
Your falling prey to the "My use case must be THE use case." fallacy.
I think it's absurd to consider "home cooking" high risk. Eating out isn't necessarily less healthy, but it is in practice. You say it's possible to eat out in a healthy manner. This is true. But it is also true that you can eat a home cooked meal in a much safer way as well. (e.g. handling of raw meat, observing expiration dates, following fire safety rules, etc). The fact that home cooked meals are a bit more risky than they should be is also just incidental rather than necessary.
You are rationalizing again. You say that home cooked meals CAN be safer, and in practice eating out is less healthy. You are not using the same criteria to judge both activities. Eating out CAN be done healthier AND home cooking CAN be done safer. In practice, they are both what they are. (Although, I challenge the claim that eating out is in practice less healthy than eating in. People that try to eat healthy will eat healthy either way. The same goes for those that eat unhealthy.) This doesn't even count the people that die due to non-fire related home cooking injuries. (I would suspect that these are less, although I have never looked into it.)
Either way, just from fire alone, home cooking is 3 times more dangerous than the entire population not getting the chicken pox vaccine. (Of course, if you actually look at the numbers, it isn't clear that getting the chicken pox vaccine doesn't increase your risk of death due to chicken pox.)
The FDA doesn't even come into play with these statistics. You are 3 times more likely to kill yourself and others with fire than die from chicken pox in a completely unimmunized community. We could ban the use of fire in home cooking, and only allow microwaves. That won't happen because it isn't popular to save lives that way.
If everything was easier with a mouse, we all wouldn't have had to spend so much time slapping people's hands away from touching our monitors.
Why would you do that? Android handles a mouse and keyboard just fine. The touch screen would only be for things that are easeir done by touch. You sound like the people that though using a mouse meant clicking CLI commands out on an on-screen keyboard.
The point is that it is common here on Slashdot to include not getting the chicken pox vaccine as an example of a 'risky' behavior that should be enforced by law, or through higher taxes/fees. Conversely, no one would suggest that people should face the same kind of punishment for making home cooked meals. Thus, the issue isn't about risk. It is about whim.
It is absurd to say that eating out is less healthy than eating in. Whether you eat out, or in, you have a wide choice of both junk food and healthy food. So, no. Banning home cooking would most certainly not make people die of diabetes. That is the kind of rationalization that people do when they realize that their stance is hypocritical.
The death rate of home cooked meals is more than three times that of chicken pox PRE-vaccine. That means that if no one got the vaccine, it would still be less dangerous than home cooked meals, and those home cooked meals can easily kill most people's neighbors. Particularly in apartments.
The problem is that some risky behavior gets charged for, while other risky behavior gets subsidized. Once that happens, it isn't risky behavior that is getting the extra charge. It is unpopular behavior, or behavior that a powerful minority doesn't like.
/. call out that people who don't get immunized should have to pay higher premiums. No one calls out for higher premiums for people with kitchens. Yet, the risk of death due to a home cooked mean is more than 3 times that of skipping the chicken pox vaccine.
Case in point. Many here on
BMI may well be the single biggest scam in health care. BMI is wrong, everyone knows it's wrong, but they just keep rationalizing why it is right anyway. All the while, health insurance companies get to charge healthy people extra, and politicians get to bemoan the 'obesity epidemic'.
This happened to me an my wife just recently while at the hospital for my son's birth. The nursery at the hospital is only used for running tests and for infants that are in critical care. Healthy infants stay in the mothers room. The nursery has a keypad security system to prevent people from entering without authorization.
We took our son to the nursery for a standard test, and on the way out, a man tried to enter when we opened the door to leave. I had no doubt that the man was there to see his infant (who I could assume is in bad shape since it was staying in the nursery). When my wife stopped him and told him that he couldn't use her door opening to enter, that he needed to have one of the nurses open the door for him, it almost came to blows. No doubt he was under stress, but he simply did not comprehend that letting him in when we left was breaking the security designed to protect his own child.
The bumps on their skulls confirm those findings.
My thoughts on rude people around me have no effect on the rude people around me. Unfortunately.
Until your thoughts become actions. Perhaps Slashdot is the only place that your thoughts become action, but without any other information, I will assume it is not.
My favorite conspiracy theory is that there really are not conspiracies. The fact that we have laws against them and people get convicted of it is really just a conspiracy to make us BELIEVE that conspiracies exist...which they don't.
Gotcha. My crazy RFS (Request For Silence) scheme would likely only be useful for smart devices, given that it would keep a list of all declines bluetooth address to prevent exactly what you are going through.
Probably less difference in gray than you think. I don't get many calls in the theater. Probably far less than the number of times that you have been caught short. So, even by your standards, you are likely a bigger disturbance than I am. On the other hand, I am far more accepting of my place in public than you are. Theaters are not places of no disturbance. They are places of low disturbance. The sale of food and bladder busting drinks are evidence of this. Being overly controlling of those around you can move you to that darker shade of gray, just as easily as making noise.
Bluetooth is about as low power as we are going to get. From my experience, leaving it on doesn't affect battery life in any noticable way. Of course, YMMV.
I am curious about the Applebee's comment though. I have never had any kind of unpaired bluetooth advertising pushed to me. I'm not even sure what the mechanism for that would be. Can you enlighten me a bit on that?