Because they like the feel of grass under their feet rather than concrete? They like to create a cooler micro-climate around their home? Because they have kids who can play on the safety of their own place? They want some distance between them and their neighbors? They like the smell of grass? They can lay out during the summer without having to worry about anyone else?
There are a number of reasons people have a yard. Even more amazing, they can still be green by modifying how they take care of it while still enjoying the benefits.
the common militia, which consisted of all the people, and a "Well Regulated Militia", which was the standing army.
False. You're using semantics to cloud the obvious.
The Militia Act of 1792 clearly indicates the militia is composed of citizens who own a gun and not a standing army. Here is the most telling part of the act:
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United States, shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States, who may be in service at the same time, or who were last in service, and shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war:
Pretty darn clear the difference between militia and standing army. In fact, if you read the entire act, the word militia is used and defined throughout as well as the regulations regarding the militia, not a separate standing army.
The Founding Fathers wanted citizens to own firearms while at the same time letting the citizens know they could be called up at any time to suppress insurrection or invasion. The only way to do this was to regulate them, set down specific requirements for what they must bring and how they were to be trained. The act lays this out in plain, clear language.
To use Jefferson's own words:
that the militia would "be our best reliance in peace and for the first months of war until the Regulars may relieve them". Link to source
Are these potholes so wide they can't be straddled?
It depends. Sometimes you can, but sometimes the way they have grown they're just large enough for one wheel or the other to drop into. If the pothole is on your right, you could try to swerve right to straddle it but you might also hit the curb or parked cars.
If you try to swerve to the left, you might miss it, or end up perfectly hitting the target, but as the OP said, you run the risk of driving into oncoming traffic.
As to reporting potholes, every major city responds to reports of potholes needing patched, but the sheer amount of requests, traffic, time of year, etc, prevent them from quickly filling them. When you include limited monetary resources, things get much worse.
If you have never driven in colder climates where potholes are ubiquitous this time of the year, you don't have a frame of reference to understand how bad these things are. It's like people who have never lived down south don't understand the perpetual heat and humidity combined with insects left over from the dinosaur era roaming about.
The movie, In Time, touches on the subject of a timeline for a person. As Wikipedia relates, Harlan Ellison had already written a similar story as well as a few others.
Despite this, I can see people not appreciating or caring about a timeline. I know it's hard to believe but there are millions (billions?) of people who use the Net strictly for general communication and research rather than the be all and end all to life.
As we've seen with smart phones, more technology does not necessarily make our lives easier. People are becoming so addictive to being connected, of needing to see if their lives are validated through tweets and pictures, that this timeline may send some over the edge as they desperately search for something to make themselves seem like someone.
Funny this story should come up. I picked this story up at a library book sale a while back and hadn't gotten around to it until recently.
Not a bad story, typical Heinlein. I had read The Cat Who Walks Through Walls and it was better, up until he went off topic with the timeline stuff and the ending, wtf? Maybe I missed something.
So far this book is good. Understandable, logical, and interesting.
Yes, Russia does do this. Evidence has surfaced (just like Russia sending troops and equipment to invade Ukraine) of locations and the amount these people are being paid to post Russian propaganda.
The nice thing about these trolls is they are easy to spot for several reasons including:
1) They use the word fascist when describing Ukrainian leaders 2) They use the words junta and Kiev in the same sentence 3) They describe Ukrainian troops as Nazis 4) They consistently ask for proof of Russian equipment and men invading Ukraine despite giving them photos and videos from Russian state tv showing this. It's like talking to a Creationist: no matter how much evidence you have to show they're wrong, they'll never believe you 5) They talk of Eastern Ukraine being part of Russia anyway so the Ukrainian troops are actually the invaders
Once you spot these trolls, it's easy to ignore and flag them.
they are able to change their thoughts and opinions and recognize that what they're being told to think doesn't match up with reality.
Apparently all those people are dead and Putin has been able to destroy history. Despite the overwhelming evidence of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the vast majority of Russians still believe one or more of the below items as told to them by Putin and his state-controlled media. Just a quick rundown of the lies encompass:
- the U.S. was behind the overthrow of Yanukovych (False. Once again our vaunted experts were surprised by the downfall of a country's leader)
- Yanukovych fleeing was the result of a U.S. coup (False. Similar to above, but slightly different as the Russians are claiming the U.S. sponsored a coup, which it wasn't. Yanukovych fled because the Ukrainian parliament abandoned him when he ordered the murder of protestors in Maidan Square)
- the current Ukrainian government are fascists (False. Fascists are people like Putin who use taxpayer money to support selected businesses or people. Also, it is well known that Putin's government orders the confiscation of personal and business property to be managed under state control. Witness the annexation of Crimea and how businesses there are feeling this effect)
- the current Ukrainian government are Nazis (False. Only one militia group, Azov battalion, is known to use Nazi symbols and/or policies in their organization. As they are not under direct control of the government, they're privately funded, to claim the entire Ukrainian government are Nazis is of course false)
- the Ukrainian government ordered attacks on Russian speakers in the East when it came to power (False. No such attacks by government forces has ever been documented, even by the people claiming such attacks.)
- the Ukrainian government shot down the Malaysian airliner (False. Substantial evidence shows the Russian-backed rebels shot down the plane thinking it was a Ukrainian military plane and then bragged about it on Twitter and elsewhere before they retracted their statements once the truth was known)
- there are no Russian troops fighting in Ukraine (False. Documented graves of dead Russian soldiers show a MINIMUM of 1,000 troops dead. Other estimates gathered by Russian mothers has put the estimate closer to 5,000. It is known 100 or so died in one incident in late 2014 around Donetsk. Further, Russian state tv showed the equivalent of Russian marines fighting at the Donetsk airport with their arm patches visible).
- Russia is not supplying equipment to the rebels (False. Near daily convoys of Russian equipment are seen crossing into Eastern Ukraine, this is in addition to equipment captured by government forces, equipment which is only manufactured in Russia and never owned by the Ukrainian military.)
I said elsewhere that this is a scam for the following reasons.
Her Tumbler account (Swiked) shows the initial photo asking what color is the dress. A day or so later she posts a second picture of someone wearing the blue/black version, stating:
this is the dress as i saw it on the day of the wedding. blue and black. It's just that one photo bUT it's so weird???!??
Here's the thing, she does not say the second photo is the same dress ON THE DAY of the wedding, only that the photo shows what she saw.
What most likely happened was she took the first picture on a different day and because it's white/gold, it took on the cast of the lighting to give a blue hue and her friends had a disagreement over the color which started the whole thing, especially if someone is red/green colorblind.
Second, if you look at the top edge of the dress in the first picture you can clearly see what would be considered "virgin" light, i.e. light which is not reflected but directly falling on to the dress. If the claim is that our eyes are fooling us because of the bright background or because we can't be sure what the lighting situation is, this light should produce a different color under it, just as light shining across a rippled surface can produce different colors.
Except it doesn't. There is no transition from the slice of light to the shaded portion. It's one continuous tone. In fact, as the picture shows, there are multiple shadows of different angles and lighting conditions which should produce different colors, but they don't. For instance, under the cape/shawl toward the upper right, the area under the shadow is darker but not a different color.
Further, if our eyes are being deceived by the bright background, covering up all but a small portion of the dress should reveal the true colors because then there would be nothing to confuse us. Except that doesn't work either, the dress stays as white/gold with a blue hue.
And finally, if you look at the edging in the middle of the picture then down to the lower left corner (our left), you can see shadows under the gold edging. If the dress in the picture was blue/black you would not see such distinct shadows as are shown in the picture.
So, the dress in the original picture IS NOT the same dress she shows a day or so later but is the same style.
One final thought. The opposite of blue on the color wheel is gold and the opposite of black is white. However, if you look at what is blue and black in the "good" picture, they are not the correct parts. The bodice is blue which means in the reversed portion the bodice of the original picture should be gold and the edging should be white. Except that is not what is shown. The bodice is white and the edging is gold.
And for the record, I am not red/green colorblind. I pass all the Ishihara color tests without issue.
They borrowed it from Republican Mitt Romney who referenced Republican Newt Gingrich.
Which makes sense when one considers the voodoo Republicans have with trickle down economics (witness the wonderful state Kansas is in) or that swallowing a small camera can somehow lead to being able to perform a gynecological exam.
Considering the mother's blood is circulating through the fetus and she is helping to remove its waste product, everything the mother eats/drinks/smokes the fetus also gets.
Both companies seem to have a penchant for holding packages. Previous package for UPS was delivered at 3 AM to my local facility. We don't get our UPS deliveries until after 12 noon.
Apparently it's not possible to load a package at a hub on to a truck within five hours but instead takes over 24.
Then there's my current FedEx delivery. Shipped on Monday, to be delivered on Wednesday.
Nope, some excuse about them having problems at their sorting facility because of weather. Delivery now for Friday.
I guess government workers being told to take their time getting to work when the weather is bad is absolutely outrageous, but when a private company uses weather as the excuse for not doing their job, something they're paid to do, well that's okay.
Sheldon Cooper: To a hospital? Full of sick people? Oh, I don't think so.
Penny: Okay, well, your friend and his mother are there. We're going!
Sheldon Cooper: I can't.
Penny: Oh, don't tell me you're afraid of germs.
Sheldon Cooper: Not all germs. Just the ones that will kill me. The same way I'm not afraid of all steak knives; just the ones that might be plunged in my thorax.
Leonard Hofstadter: Ah-uh, fine, I'll tell Howard you didn't come because you're more concerned about your own well-being than his.
Sheldon Cooper: I would think he would know that.
Penny: Okay, you know what? You are unbelievable. You buy all these superhero T-shirts but when it's time for you to step up and do the right thing, you just hide in the laundry room.
Sheldon Cooper: Fine, I'll go. Just for the record, my Aunt Ruth died in a hospital. She went in to visit my Uncle Roger, caught something, and bit the dust a week later. The two of them now share a coffee can on my mother's mantel.
it is against the constitution for them to censor speech in such a way.
False. The Constitution applies to what the GOVERNMENT can do regarding speech. An employer or business is free to censor within certain bounds such as preventing their employees from talking about an upcoming product, internal financial figures and so on.
Further, this is Steam's property. They can do what they want, just as any other business can do with their property. You know those signs which says, "No shoes, no shirt, no service"? Guess what, they're not censoring your right to walk around barefoot. They are only saying on their property you can't do so.
Finally, anyone who didn't think their comments regarding how to not pay Steam for the games they developed wouldn't get censored is an idiot.
What negligence? You mean someone left their door unlocked and they deserve to have their stuff stolen? You're blaming the victim?
As I said in my initial post, how about people not steal other people's stuff or go places they shouldn't be? Or is personal responsibility being cast to the dustbin of history?
You can try to spin it all you want, but in the end it comes down to one thing: people doing things they shouldn't be doing in the first place. If it were done to them they would be screaming bloody murder, yet when they do it to someone else, "Oh well, they shouldn't have left their door unlocked."
Or, and I'm just spitballing here, people could not commit a crime or go somewhere they're not supposed to be.
You know, personal responsibility, do unto others and all that other crap I keep reading on here about how we're supposed to be caring and understanding of our fellow humans.
If you think it's acceptable for someone to do whatever they want to someone else's property/equipment and not expect to be penalized, then I will be sure to do the same to you and expect the same treatment.
there is also a certain amount of logic to the view that if those substances weren't illegal, none of that shit would have been going on at all,
Right, because legalizing something instantly removes the criminal aspect. Look at Colorado. Legalized marijuana and the Mexican gangs are moving in to supply cheaper product.
Of course the real issue people will say is, "The government shouldn't be involved with this. People should be free to drink/smoke/inject what they want." Then, in the next breath they say, "Oh, btw, the government needs to provide money to treat these people."
Apparently just like the banking industry or Wall Street firms, government regulation is evil until the government is needed to intervene, in which case no amount of taxpayer money is sufficient.
Here's the deal. You want to legalize this stuff, go for it. However, don't expect anyone to pay for what you do to yourself. If you don't want government intervention you can't be a hypocrite and expect it to intervene on your behalf. If you can afford to buy drugs you can afford to pay for your own treatment.
I know they're evil words but personal responsibility comes into play in this situation. Everyone knows what happens to people who use various drugs, yet if one is going to ignore reality then there is no reason for anyone to come to their rescue because they ignored science (see the current and ongoing measles and whooping cough outbreaks).
Slashdot Mirror
why do you have a "yard"?
Because they like the feel of grass under their feet rather than concrete? They like to create a cooler micro-climate around their home? Because they have kids who can play on the safety of their own place? They want some distance between them and their neighbors? They like the smell of grass? They can lay out during the summer without having to worry about anyone else?
There are a number of reasons people have a yard. Even more amazing, they can still be green by modifying how they take care of it while still enjoying the benefits.
That was the point of the video. The machine cost $5,000 and the plastic to make the whistle was in addition to that figure.
The same applies with the two figures (three when you include Raj) for Howard and Bernadette.
Those are awfully expensive items to print at home.
Just like XKCD, The Big Bang Theory comes to the rescue:
Howard: Do you realize, by owning a 3-D printer, we are reclaiming the manufacturing process and taking jobs back from sweatshops in China?
Raj: I think this thing was made in China.
Howard: Eh, what can you do?
Raj: Ooh, I, I think it's done. Oh, it worked. We printed a whistle.
Howard: Amazing. You realize these things go for 25 cents a pop at a party store.
Raj: And we made it in only three hours. Sounds just like store-bought.
The full video version.
the common militia, which consisted of all the people, and a "Well Regulated Militia", which was the standing army.
False. You're using semantics to cloud the obvious.
The Militia Act of 1792 clearly indicates the militia is composed of citizens who own a gun and not a standing army. Here is the most telling part of the act:
Sec. 4. And be it further enacted, That the militia employed in the service of the United States, shall receive the same pay and allowances, as the troops of the United States, who may be in service at the same time, or who were last in service, and shall be subject to the same rules and articles of war:
Pretty darn clear the difference between militia and standing army. In fact, if you read the entire act, the word militia is used and defined throughout as well as the regulations regarding the militia, not a separate standing army.
The Founding Fathers wanted citizens to own firearms while at the same time letting the citizens know they could be called up at any time to suppress insurrection or invasion. The only way to do this was to regulate them, set down specific requirements for what they must bring and how they were to be trained. The act lays this out in plain, clear language.
To use Jefferson's own words:
that the militia would "be our best reliance in peace and for the first months of war until the Regulars may relieve them". Link to source
Are these potholes so wide they can't be straddled?
It depends. Sometimes you can, but sometimes the way they have grown they're just large enough for one wheel or the other to drop into. If the pothole is on your right, you could try to swerve right to straddle it but you might also hit the curb or parked cars.
If you try to swerve to the left, you might miss it, or end up perfectly hitting the target, but as the OP said, you run the risk of driving into oncoming traffic.
As to reporting potholes, every major city responds to reports of potholes needing patched, but the sheer amount of requests, traffic, time of year, etc, prevent them from quickly filling them. When you include limited monetary resources, things get much worse.
If you have never driven in colder climates where potholes are ubiquitous this time of the year, you don't have a frame of reference to understand how bad these things are. It's like people who have never lived down south don't understand the perpetual heat and humidity combined with insects left over from the dinosaur era roaming about.
The movie, In Time, touches on the subject of a timeline for a person. As Wikipedia relates, Harlan Ellison had already written a similar story as well as a few others.
Despite this, I can see people not appreciating or caring about a timeline. I know it's hard to believe but there are millions (billions?) of people who use the Net strictly for general communication and research rather than the be all and end all to life.
As we've seen with smart phones, more technology does not necessarily make our lives easier. People are becoming so addictive to being connected, of needing to see if their lives are validated through tweets and pictures, that this timeline may send some over the edge as they desperately search for something to make themselves seem like someone.
Well, I still have the paperback with the reversed artwork, showing Mannie with the WRONG ARM being cybernetic,
Ha!. Just looked at mine since I'm finishing this book (see my post lower down) and my Mannie's arm is the correct one. Left.
However, is it just me or does Mannie look like Bruce Greenwood (Captain Pike of the Enterprise a la J.J. Abrams)?
Funny this story should come up. I picked this story up at a library book sale a while back and hadn't gotten around to it until recently.
Not a bad story, typical Heinlein. I had read The Cat Who Walks Through Walls and it was better, up until he went off topic with the timeline stuff and the ending, wtf? Maybe I missed something.
So far this book is good. Understandable, logical, and interesting.
Yes, Russia does do this. Evidence has surfaced (just like Russia sending troops and equipment to invade Ukraine) of locations and the amount these people are being paid to post Russian propaganda.
The nice thing about these trolls is they are easy to spot for several reasons including:
1) They use the word fascist when describing Ukrainian leaders
2) They use the words junta and Kiev in the same sentence
3) They describe Ukrainian troops as Nazis
4) They consistently ask for proof of Russian equipment and men invading Ukraine despite giving them photos and videos from Russian state tv showing this. It's like talking to a Creationist: no matter how much evidence you have to show they're wrong, they'll never believe you
5) They talk of Eastern Ukraine being part of Russia anyway so the Ukrainian troops are actually the invaders
Once you spot these trolls, it's easy to ignore and flag them.
they are able to change their thoughts and opinions and recognize that what they're being told to think doesn't match up with reality.
Apparently all those people are dead and Putin has been able to destroy history. Despite the overwhelming evidence of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, the vast majority of Russians still believe one or more of the below items as told to them by Putin and his state-controlled media. Just a quick rundown of the lies encompass:
- the U.S. was behind the overthrow of Yanukovych (False. Once again our vaunted experts were surprised by the downfall of a country's leader)
- Yanukovych fleeing was the result of a U.S. coup (False. Similar to above, but slightly different as the Russians are claiming the U.S. sponsored a coup, which it wasn't. Yanukovych fled because the Ukrainian parliament abandoned him when he ordered the murder of protestors in Maidan Square)
- the current Ukrainian government are fascists (False. Fascists are people like Putin who use taxpayer money to support selected businesses or people. Also, it is well known that Putin's government orders the confiscation of personal and business property to be managed under state control. Witness the annexation of Crimea and how businesses there are feeling this effect)
- the current Ukrainian government are Nazis (False. Only one militia group, Azov battalion, is known to use Nazi symbols and/or policies in their organization. As they are not under direct control of the government, they're privately funded, to claim the entire Ukrainian government are Nazis is of course false)
- the Ukrainian government ordered attacks on Russian speakers in the East when it came to power (False. No such attacks by government forces has ever been documented, even by the people claiming such attacks.)
- the Ukrainian government shot down the Malaysian airliner (False. Substantial evidence shows the Russian-backed rebels shot down the plane thinking it was a Ukrainian military plane and then bragged about it on Twitter and elsewhere before they retracted their statements once the truth was known)
- there are no Russian troops fighting in Ukraine (False. Documented graves of dead Russian soldiers show a MINIMUM of 1,000 troops dead. Other estimates gathered by Russian mothers has put the estimate closer to 5,000. It is known 100 or so died in one incident in late 2014 around Donetsk. Further, Russian state tv showed the equivalent of Russian marines fighting at the Donetsk airport with their arm patches visible).
- Russia is not supplying equipment to the rebels (False. Near daily convoys of Russian equipment are seen crossing into Eastern Ukraine, this is in addition to equipment captured by government forces, equipment which is only manufactured in Russia and never owned by the Ukrainian military.)
I said elsewhere that this is a scam for the following reasons.
Her Tumbler account (Swiked) shows the initial photo asking what color is the dress. A day or so later she posts a second picture of someone wearing the blue/black version, stating:
this is the dress as i saw it on the day of the wedding. blue and black. It's just that one photo bUT it's so weird???!??
Here's the thing, she does not say the second photo is the same dress ON THE DAY of the wedding, only that the photo shows what she saw.
What most likely happened was she took the first picture on a different day and because it's white/gold, it took on the cast of the lighting to give a blue hue and her friends had a disagreement over the color which started the whole thing, especially if someone is red/green colorblind.
Second, if you look at the top edge of the dress in the first picture you can clearly see what would be considered "virgin" light, i.e. light which is not reflected but directly falling on to the dress. If the claim is that our eyes are fooling us because of the bright background or because we can't be sure what the lighting situation is, this light should produce a different color under it, just as light shining across a rippled surface can produce different colors.
Except it doesn't. There is no transition from the slice of light to the shaded portion. It's one continuous tone. In fact, as the picture shows, there are multiple shadows of different angles and lighting conditions which should produce different colors, but they don't. For instance, under the cape/shawl toward the upper right, the area under the shadow is darker but not a different color.
Further, if our eyes are being deceived by the bright background, covering up all but a small portion of the dress should reveal the true colors because then there would be nothing to confuse us. Except that doesn't work either, the dress stays as white/gold with a blue hue.
And finally, if you look at the edging in the middle of the picture then down to the lower left corner (our left), you can see shadows under the gold edging. If the dress in the picture was blue/black you would not see such distinct shadows as are shown in the picture.
So, the dress in the original picture IS NOT the same dress she shows a day or so later but is the same style.
One final thought. The opposite of blue on the color wheel is gold and the opposite of black is white. However, if you look at what is blue and black in the "good" picture, they are not the correct parts. The bodice is blue which means in the reversed portion the bodice of the original picture should be gold and the edging should be white. Except that is not what is shown. The bodice is white and the edging is gold.
And for the record, I am not red/green colorblind. I pass all the Ishihara color tests without issue.
At least you could get in. I had to change my resolution so I could find the edge of the login option. It was hidden under the search box.
Now that I'm in I'm still seeing overlapping options along the top edge.
They borrowed it from Republican Mitt Romney who referenced Republican Newt Gingrich.
Which makes sense when one considers the voodoo Republicans have with trickle down economics (witness the wonderful state Kansas is in) or that swallowing a small camera can somehow lead to being able to perform a gynecological exam.
Considering the mother's blood is circulating through the fetus and she is helping to remove its waste product, everything the mother eats/drinks/smokes the fetus also gets.
Both companies seem to have a penchant for holding packages. Previous package for UPS was delivered at 3 AM to my local facility. We don't get our UPS deliveries until after 12 noon.
Apparently it's not possible to load a package at a hub on to a truck within five hours but instead takes over 24.
Then there's my current FedEx delivery. Shipped on Monday, to be delivered on Wednesday.
Nope, some excuse about them having problems at their sorting facility because of weather. Delivery now for Friday.
I guess government workers being told to take their time getting to work when the weather is bad is absolutely outrageous, but when a private company uses weather as the excuse for not doing their job, something they're paid to do, well that's okay.
Sheldon Cooper: To a hospital? Full of sick people? Oh, I don't think so.
Penny: Okay, well, your friend and his mother are there. We're going!
Sheldon Cooper: I can't.
Penny: Oh, don't tell me you're afraid of germs.
Sheldon Cooper: Not all germs. Just the ones that will kill me. The same way I'm not afraid of all steak knives; just the ones that might be plunged in my thorax.
Leonard Hofstadter: Ah-uh, fine, I'll tell Howard you didn't come because you're more concerned about your own well-being than his.
Sheldon Cooper: I would think he would know that.
Penny: Okay, you know what? You are unbelievable. You buy all these superhero T-shirts but when it's time for you to step up and do the right thing, you just hide in the laundry room.
Sheldon Cooper: Fine, I'll go. Just for the record, my Aunt Ruth died in a hospital. She went in to visit my Uncle Roger, caught something, and bit the dust a week later. The two of them now share a coffee can on my mother's mantel.
it is against the constitution for them to censor speech in such a way.
False. The Constitution applies to what the GOVERNMENT can do regarding speech. An employer or business is free to censor within certain bounds such as preventing their employees from talking about an upcoming product, internal financial figures and so on.
Further, this is Steam's property. They can do what they want, just as any other business can do with their property. You know those signs which says, "No shoes, no shirt, no service"? Guess what, they're not censoring your right to walk around barefoot. They are only saying on their property you can't do so.
Finally, anyone who didn't think their comments regarding how to not pay Steam for the games they developed wouldn't get censored is an idiot.
and ended up appreciating the simplicity of a plain old light switch.
What a stunning revelation. A simple analog switch is better than hundreds of dollars of technology.
The familiar phrase rears its head again: Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should.
Saying you were only following orders is never a defense for committing a crime.
but that negligence shouldn't be overlooked.
What negligence? You mean someone left their door unlocked and they deserve to have their stuff stolen? You're blaming the victim?
As I said in my initial post, how about people not steal other people's stuff or go places they shouldn't be? Or is personal responsibility being cast to the dustbin of history?
You can try to spin it all you want, but in the end it comes down to one thing: people doing things they shouldn't be doing in the first place. If it were done to them they would be screaming bloody murder, yet when they do it to someone else, "Oh well, they shouldn't have left their door unlocked."
Or, and I'm just spitballing here, people could not commit a crime or go somewhere they're not supposed to be.
You know, personal responsibility, do unto others and all that other crap I keep reading on here about how we're supposed to be caring and understanding of our fellow humans.
If you think it's acceptable for someone to do whatever they want to someone else's property/equipment and not expect to be penalized, then I will be sure to do the same to you and expect the same treatment.
Paintballs might also be effective since they are hard enough to do damage at reasonable distances.
This keyboard seems to have already filled this role.
there is also a certain amount of logic to the view that if those substances weren't illegal, none of that shit would have been going on at all,
Right, because legalizing something instantly removes the criminal aspect. Look at Colorado. Legalized marijuana and the Mexican gangs are moving in to supply cheaper product.
Of course the real issue people will say is, "The government shouldn't be involved with this. People should be free to drink/smoke/inject what they want." Then, in the next breath they say, "Oh, btw, the government needs to provide money to treat these people."
Apparently just like the banking industry or Wall Street firms, government regulation is evil until the government is needed to intervene, in which case no amount of taxpayer money is sufficient.
Here's the deal. You want to legalize this stuff, go for it. However, don't expect anyone to pay for what you do to yourself. If you don't want government intervention you can't be a hypocrite and expect it to intervene on your behalf. If you can afford to buy drugs you can afford to pay for your own treatment.
I know they're evil words but personal responsibility comes into play in this situation. Everyone knows what happens to people who use various drugs, yet if one is going to ignore reality then there is no reason for anyone to come to their rescue because they ignored science (see the current and ongoing measles and whooping cough outbreaks).
Maybe I'm missing something, but it is repeatedly said that everything should be free.
So how is it that this guy needed money to continue his work? Isn't it free? Why would he mysteriously need money when everything is free?
Free things don't cost anything so are we sure he's not pocketing the money?