erm. I liked that show when I was 14, too... When I tried to watch a rerun a while back, though, I realized that every single show has the same fucking plot.
To wit:
1. Tim [says,does] something stupid
2. Tim [tries to hide it,says more stupid stuff making it worse]
3. Jill [finds out,sulks]
4. Tim talks to Wilson, who gives good advice which Tim ineptly tries to follow and fails
A better question is why it was loaded? Responsible gun owners always keep their guns locked in a safe, with the ammunition locked up separately. It is far more likely that a family member will accidentally find an unlocked, loaded weapon, and harm themselves or someone else than it is that one can successfully repel a home invader with it.
To me the most compelling argument is the moral one. There is a clear correlation between Prohibition and increased homicide rates. Of course we know that correlation is not causation, but the pattern repeats in the US in the 1920's, then again after RMN's declaration of war against drug users, and of course in Columbia in the 1990's and Mexico since the Merida Initiative.
The question becomes one of morbid calculation. We trade three murders (give or take) in the (false) hopes of avoiding one overdose death. The really disheartening aspect is the fact that we know that prohibition actually increases the harms to users as well!
At this point we usually hear "Think of the Children!!1!" As you so eloquently pointed out: when drugs are outlawed only outlaws will have drugs. So de facto criminals are in charge of deciding who gets to buy them. What possible incentive would they then have to avoid selling to minors? It seems obvious to me that people whose brains have not fully developed should not have access to mind-altering substances for recreational purposes. For that reason, it is in society's interest to keep minors from using drugs. Unfortunately, this goal is impossible to achieve under prohibition.
You forget one thing: Small time marijuana dealers will become those regulated sources. Since they finally can make their business an official business.
Or they can stay unofficial, and thereby be cheaper because of avoiding taxation.
But in any way, it will create more legal jobs. Also usage will go way up.
I don't think this is the best way to implement legalization. In Washington State liquor can only be sold from state-run stores, which decreases our alcohol consumption here and better avoids sales to minors -- this would be a far better way to tax and regulate cannabis.
As for usage going up, I'm not so sure. Maybe for a short period of time, but the Netherlands has the most liberal cannabis laws in Europe while enjoying the smallest percentage of users. Though, in my opinion, the world would be a better place if everybody smoked it;) Certainly they would be healthier if they switched from alcohol to cannabis.
Very well put! I wish I had some mod points for you.
The part that I love about talking drug reform on the internet is the hugely disproportionate debating and writing abilities between the two camps. I have been following this issue for something like a decade, and I have yet to see any well-written or well-reasoned arguments from the prohibitionist side. It's really telling that they always have to resort to ad-hominem attacks or appeals to authority, and their grammar is much more likely to be atrocious. This is why we will win, eventually.
Indeed, I knew when I was in third grade and being hounded about my penmanship to the point that I never wanted to write another word that content is the most important thing about communication. Form is constantly mutable while the thoughts themselves are constant. It's the same song whether it's sung by Soundgarden or Johnny Cash, Stevie Wonder or The Red Hot Chili Peppers.
Not to mention the fact that I can type at a much closer rate to my train of thought than I can and still maintain legible handwriting. Now the only time I need to write by hand is when I wake up in the middle of the night with an idea, because if I'm the only one who needs to read it then it scrawls itself across the paper encrypted by the hand of glarbl_blarbl.
How much did it cost to get lessons and a license? Was it comparable to the requirements for driving a car legally? Also, doesn't a private plane cost a lot more to buy than a car?
I'm genuinely curious, my dad flew big planes in the Navy before retiring to work for American Airlines and now a leasing company. I've been in the cockpit with him a couple of times, and it looks like a really exhilarating mode of travel if you're in charge of the ride.
just re-read your post. You didn't say I was attacking you X-P.
On that point, I don't think you were directly attacking me. In fact, I doubt it was an attack at all. I just think it was somewhat thoughtless, and I felt the need to correct it since it is in a public forum. I see a lot of misconceptions about people on the spectrum on the internet, when I'm involved in an online discussion about the subject I feel compelled to make sure the information is accurate.
Thanks for the apology, it is appreciated.
I don't have a problem with the word "impaired", in fact it seems apt. On the other hand, I find the word "retarded" to be hateful and pejorative. That's all I'm saying.
Words have specific meanings. When you call an entire class of people a word that has become a slur, you should expect that you're hurting someone's feelings. I don't think I'm asking too much here to keep that in mind. And I also think that we're having a relatively civilized discussion, how do you think I attacked you?
That's funny! I have a distinct memory of being taught empathy, but I just took an online test a few days ago where you're supposed to tell what emotion a person is feeling with only a photograph of the eyes to go on. I think I got like 60% right. I'd post the link, but it's 3AM here and I'm going to bed.
All I'm saying is that autistic people, while having a good mind for facts and that sorts of things, have a poor mind for social interaction, which is kind of important. So I would argue that is it a kind of impairment.
But it most certainly is not mental retardation. One little data point for you: I have Asperger Syndrome, and an IQ of 148. Also, just because non-verbal communication is not intuitive to people with ASD it does not necessarily follow that we are incapable of learning it. Please remember that you are talking about real people here with real feelings, and a lot of us read slashdot. Spreading your misconceptions to people who don't know any better can create real problems for us.
It's a spectrum! Not everybody who has ASD has exactly the same symptoms. I really wish people would stop making assumptions about everyone on the spectrum based on meeting one person. If you've met one aspie, you've met one aspie. That's all.
For me, abstract thought is almost all I do. I'm an extreme systemizer and a professional musician. Do you think I would be able to identify the key of a song without abstract thought? Transpose to a different key? Sure, sometimes I mistakenly take a joke literally -- but that sure as hell does not mean that I am incapable of abstract thought.
It depends on your definition of disabled. If it means "hard to get and keep a regular job", then it most certainly can be a disability. Many non-technical jobs require employees to be able to interact normally with others (often strangers) -- this can be really difficult for people (like me) who have a hard time reading non-verbal cues and have no patience for intra-office politics. It's a good thing one of my "Aspie special interests" was music, I am a lot more comfortable around musicians and dealing with the attendant technical stuff than I am at normal jobs.
I like having AS. It has been, on balance, a blessing. That being said, I find psychotherapy to be quite beneficial in dealing with the anxiety and depression which is often seen in people on the Autistic Spectrum. Not only does it help with those issues, my therapist is Neurotypical (or NT, which is what people with ASD tend to call "normal" people) so she can help me understand where most people are coming from and slowly teach me to read certain non-verbal cues.
Re:Meaning is not a key component of syntax.
on
Monkeys With Syntax
·
· Score: 1
And then comes the fun part when we talk about the epistemology of monkeys! How do we know what the monkeys know? And what is the nature of their knowledge? How much can we teach them and how will that affect their language (such as it is)? Do they teach their kids or is it hard-wired?
Slashdot Mirror
Because all FedEx/UPS drivers keep a database of people who complain about them on the internet?
Good point. She was a MILF before the term was invented!
erm. I liked that show when I was 14, too... When I tried to watch a rerun a while back, though, I realized that every single show has the same fucking plot.
To wit:
1. Tim [says,does] something stupid
2. Tim [tries to hide it,says more stupid stuff making it worse]
3. Jill [finds out,sulks]
4. Tim talks to Wilson, who gives good advice which Tim ineptly tries to follow and fails
5. Tim and Jill resolve whatever the issue was
That was a troll? Really? I could see modding it redundant, but I don't understand how this could be considered a troll.
A better question is why it was loaded? Responsible gun owners always keep their guns locked in a safe, with the ammunition locked up separately. It is far more likely that a family member will accidentally find an unlocked, loaded weapon, and harm themselves or someone else than it is that one can successfully repel a home invader with it.
To me the most compelling argument is the moral one. There is a clear correlation between Prohibition and increased homicide rates. Of course we know that correlation is not causation, but the pattern repeats in the US in the 1920's, then again after RMN's declaration of war against drug users, and of course in Columbia in the 1990's and Mexico since the Merida Initiative.
The question becomes one of morbid calculation. We trade three murders (give or take) in the (false) hopes of avoiding one overdose death. The really disheartening aspect is the fact that we know that prohibition actually increases the harms to users as well!
At this point we usually hear "Think of the Children!!1!" As you so eloquently pointed out: when drugs are outlawed only outlaws will have drugs. So de facto criminals are in charge of deciding who gets to buy them. What possible incentive would they then have to avoid selling to minors? It seems obvious to me that people whose brains have not fully developed should not have access to mind-altering substances for recreational purposes. For that reason, it is in society's interest to keep minors from using drugs. Unfortunately, this goal is impossible to achieve under prohibition.
Great analogy! I'm having trouble understanding it though... Do you think you could compare it to a car instead?
You forget one thing: Small time marijuana dealers will become those regulated sources. Since they finally can make their business an official business. Or they can stay unofficial, and thereby be cheaper because of avoiding taxation.
But in any way, it will create more legal jobs. Also usage will go way up.
I don't think this is the best way to implement legalization. In Washington State liquor can only be sold from state-run stores, which decreases our alcohol consumption here and better avoids sales to minors -- this would be a far better way to tax and regulate cannabis.
As for usage going up, I'm not so sure. Maybe for a short period of time, but the Netherlands has the most liberal cannabis laws in Europe while enjoying the smallest percentage of users. Though, in my opinion, the world would be a better place if everybody smoked it ;) Certainly they would be healthier if they switched from alcohol to cannabis.
Very well put! I wish I had some mod points for you.
The part that I love about talking drug reform on the internet is the hugely disproportionate debating and writing abilities between the two camps. I have been following this issue for something like a decade, and I have yet to see any well-written or well-reasoned arguments from the prohibitionist side. It's really telling that they always have to resort to ad-hominem attacks or appeals to authority, and their grammar is much more likely to be atrocious. This is why we will win, eventually.
Uhm... they couldn't really be ancestors if they didn't survive... Redundant pedantry, I'm guilty too.
...if this thing is made with APD receivers then it will not be cheap.
No technology is cheap when it's first mass produced. I came across a Computer Shopper from 1990 awhile back, 286 systems for $2000!
Indeed, I knew when I was in third grade and being hounded about my penmanship to the point that I never wanted to write another word that content is the most important thing about communication. Form is constantly mutable while the thoughts themselves are constant. It's the same song whether it's sung by Soundgarden or Johnny Cash, Stevie Wonder or The Red Hot Chili Peppers.
Not to mention the fact that I can type at a much closer rate to my train of thought than I can and still maintain legible handwriting. Now the only time I need to write by hand is when I wake up in the middle of the night with an idea, because if I'm the only one who needs to read it then it scrawls itself across the paper encrypted by the hand of glarbl_blarbl.
How much did it cost to get lessons and a license? Was it comparable to the requirements for driving a car legally? Also, doesn't a private plane cost a lot more to buy than a car?
I'm genuinely curious, my dad flew big planes in the Navy before retiring to work for American Airlines and now a leasing company. I've been in the cockpit with him a couple of times, and it looks like a really exhilarating mode of travel if you're in charge of the ride.
(the cost goes down, if energy gets cheaper).
I was thinking fat chance with Peak Oil in sight. Then I remembered we're talking about thermite and shit. Peak Oil only applies to those jetliners.
just re-read your post. You didn't say I was attacking you X-P.
On that point, I don't think you were directly attacking me. In fact, I doubt it was an attack at all. I just think it was somewhat thoughtless, and I felt the need to correct it since it is in a public forum. I see a lot of misconceptions about people on the spectrum on the internet, when I'm involved in an online discussion about the subject I feel compelled to make sure the information is accurate.
Well, how do you define retardation?
Thanks for the apology, it is appreciated. I don't have a problem with the word "impaired", in fact it seems apt. On the other hand, I find the word "retarded" to be hateful and pejorative. That's all I'm saying.
Words have specific meanings. When you call an entire class of people a word that has become a slur, you should expect that you're hurting someone's feelings. I don't think I'm asking too much here to keep that in mind. And I also think that we're having a relatively civilized discussion, how do you think I attacked you?
That's funny! I have a distinct memory of being taught empathy, but I just took an online test a few days ago where you're supposed to tell what emotion a person is feeling with only a photograph of the eyes to go on. I think I got like 60% right. I'd post the link, but it's 3AM here and I'm going to bed.
Well, if my theory is correct that those of us on the Autistic Spectrum are the next step in human evolution... Then you won't have to worry about it!
Same here. Only thing is I don't want to move to Chicago!
All I'm saying is that autistic people, while having a good mind for facts and that sorts of things, have a poor mind for social interaction, which is kind of important. So I would argue that is it a kind of impairment.
But it most certainly is not mental retardation. One little data point for you: I have Asperger Syndrome, and an IQ of 148. Also, just because non-verbal communication is not intuitive to people with ASD it does not necessarily follow that we are incapable of learning it. Please remember that you are talking about real people here with real feelings, and a lot of us read slashdot. Spreading your misconceptions to people who don't know any better can create real problems for us.
It's a spectrum! Not everybody who has ASD has exactly the same symptoms. I really wish people would stop making assumptions about everyone on the spectrum based on meeting one person. If you've met one aspie, you've met one aspie. That's all.
For me, abstract thought is almost all I do. I'm an extreme systemizer and a professional musician. Do you think I would be able to identify the key of a song without abstract thought? Transpose to a different key? Sure, sometimes I mistakenly take a joke literally -- but that sure as hell does not mean that I am incapable of abstract thought.
It depends on your definition of disabled. If it means "hard to get and keep a regular job", then it most certainly can be a disability. Many non-technical jobs require employees to be able to interact normally with others (often strangers) -- this can be really difficult for people (like me) who have a hard time reading non-verbal cues and have no patience for intra-office politics. It's a good thing one of my "Aspie special interests" was music, I am a lot more comfortable around musicians and dealing with the attendant technical stuff than I am at normal jobs.
I like having AS. It has been, on balance, a blessing. That being said, I find psychotherapy to be quite beneficial in dealing with the anxiety and depression which is often seen in people on the Autistic Spectrum. Not only does it help with those issues, my therapist is Neurotypical (or NT, which is what people with ASD tend to call "normal" people) so she can help me understand where most people are coming from and slowly teach me to read certain non-verbal cues.
Ray Kurzweil thinks that if you can hang on for another 20 years or so you should be able to live indefinitely.
And then comes the fun part when we talk about the epistemology of monkeys! How do we know what the monkeys know? And what is the nature of their knowledge? How much can we teach them and how will that affect their language (such as it is)? Do they teach their kids or is it hard-wired?