There is a meaningful difference. In Iran the government chooses the rules and you have no choice but to comply. In New York the followers of the rabbis choose if they want to comply. They are acknowledging that the various communications technologies are tools, that can be used for good or ill, and they are trying to choose what they believe is good. They are choosing, not the government.
Thank you for sharing about the Philippines, but that isn't quite the same as it notes in the article.
As for the rest, its nonsense. You also overlook the rights of audiences, organizations, and governments to conduct their assemblies for the intended purpose. Your right to free speech doesn't allow you to prevent others from engaging in theirs. You are simply embracing another form of censorship, an attack on free speech, and one popular with fascists by the way. There are 8760 hours in a year. A limitation during 2 of those hours as to where you protest so as to allow another free speech event to take place for the intended purpose is a minor burden at most even if it is worth discussing and some of them go too far. The much bigger problem is what goes on in college campuses.
And which governments are those? The only enduring "free speech zones" you find in the US on are some college campuses when they are often struck down in court. The only other use I can think of is some limited use during some events or parades. Although there are problematic aspects to their use in the US, it is still a long ways from fascism. Or does the existence of the hecklers veto provide the only true measure of freedom?
“All third generation [3G] and high-speed internet services, prior to realization of the required conditions for the National Information Network [Iran’s government-controlled and censored Internet which is under development], is against Sharia [and] against moral and human standards.”
In short the position is that if you have freedom you will abuse it. That's overall pretty similar to the thinking of al Qaida and ISIS. Strike up the banjos and play "Dueling Theocracy!" Oops, sorry, no music allowed. Or kite flying.
This is nothing but cultural imperialism - imposing our own, "correct" values at gunpoint and forcing the native peoples to accept it or die.
Women in traditional Muslim countries are pushing for reform as they can. Saudi women drive in protest. Afghan women and girls go to school despite death threats and acid attacks. There are plenty of examples. Why would you think that women would be satisfied with being confined to burkas, forced to be escorted outside the home by a male relative, accept being beaten with sticks, and so on?
P.S. "Islamist" is a right-wing term used only by Islamophobes.
My impression has been that you're usually better informed than that.
It doesn't make sense unless your theory is that Evil President Obama is intentionally dismantling any programs we may have had in order to make terrorist domination of the world easy, twirling his mustache all the way. . . .
You seem to be speculating that Obama is doing things to actively undermine any defenses we have based on... I'm not sure what exactly. This seems to be part of the "bizarro world" theory that people have about political opponents. They think, "I'm against policy X and they're for policy X" means that the other guy is their exact mirror image and end up with, "I'm for fighting terrorism, so he must be for enabling it." No actual evidence of policy disagreement or bad policy is necessary. It's just reasonable to assume that the other guy is making a hash of it because he's your opposite and you'd be doing everything right.
Apparently you believe that all well intentioned actions regardless of how different they are have the same result in the end. Cut 100,000 troops to the Army and slash its budget by $50 billion is the same as adding 100,000 troops to the Army and adding $50 billion to its budget. Refusing to capture and interrogate terrorists provides just as much information as capturing and interrogating them. Is there any chance that you can spot the nonsense there? Can you make an allowance for well intentioned but flawed, counterproductive actions resulting from decision making based on ideology divorced from the facts? Is that a possibility? Or does it all devolve to "mustache twirling"? That is just so tedious. Do you pay any attention to the news?
...so it would be kind of surprising if the DOD ignored the whole thing for all those years and should start scrambling now that some guys playing solider in homebrew camps are thinking about it.
DOD is great for the 1% of Americans involved with the military. Unfortunately that doesn't do much for the other 99%.
My understanding is that it's a "treat with antibiotics after exposure" type of thing. And we have and produce lots of antibiotics, many of which I remember us ramping up production on post 9/11.
There are vaccines for plague, but other than the military or some travelers not many people get them. Even with treatment the plague still kill around 10% of its victims. When untreated it kill a far higher percentage. About 100 years ago it kill about 2/3 of its victims in the US.
I suspect not, given that they appear to be trying to get it from dead animals at the moment.
There are plenty of groups associated with al Qaida and ISIS. The fact that one is doing that says nothing about what another has been able to do.
Nah, you're not very knowledgable yourself. I'm not an expert either but at least read up a bit on history rather than referring to wacky websites
Agreed, you aren't an expert, and you don't seem to have enough of an understanding of the issue to make informed judgments about either my views or what is going on. Instead you are substituting your personal wacky views for hard facts and statements by the Islamists about why they are doing what they are. Maybe you could explain how it is that you know better than they do why they are doing what they are doing? You do realize that there is a long history of insurrection and conquest by Muslim peoples that predates "Western imperialism," don't you?
If reestablishing a Caliphate is of "minor importance" and "among the most silly," then why do they keep declaring them? Why are so many Muslim peoples drawn to them?
Your views seem to be little more than a restatement of politically correct nonsense unconnected to the facts.
Have you ever actually tried to do a serious engineering project from scratch based only on what's in the published literature in any field without consulting somebody who had actually done it? It's actually really hard. The devil is always in the details,...... It's usually nice to have somebody around who can say, "Yeah, we tried that and it didn't work.....
Maybe you haven't noticed, but the Middle East is full of countries that have had WMD programs involving chemical and/or biological weapons, and even some nuclear programs. The expertise is out there.
The idea that they're on the brink of a devastating weapon that nobody in the DoD thought to prepare for during the Cold War when we had the entire Soviet weapons program working on it seems like a stretch.
The Cold War is long over and the resources assembled to be prepared to fight if it ever went hot started going away long ago, not unlike the heavy lift space rockets (Saturn V) built to go to the moon. Even the people that knew how to build some those things are retiring and dying. They have already had to try to recreate lost knowledge for materials in nuclear weapons. Knowledge and infrastructure a perishable, and that's assuming you aren't actively dismantling them. There are things we could do in the 1950s and 1960s that we can't today without recreating large industrial programs that would take years to put in place.
Being prepared to fight the Soviets 25 years ago doesn't necessarily buy us anything today.
There's a difference between "being prepared" and "Oh, shit, let's panic!" When this stuff comes up, the public reaction is usually the latter.
Is the public reaction generally panic? I don't think so. Where do you see the public panicking? The actual reaction is largely indifference by most of the public while commentators like you claim the public is panicking and therefore we should do nothing.
These guys aspire to all sorts of stuff and if even half of it were realistic they would have taken over the world by now
But they have taken over countries before, and endangered many others. You're almost building a strawman there.
The reality is that their resources and competence don't match their aspirations and our policy responses should take that into consideration.
The reality is that they have caused enormous damage and killed many tens of thousands of people (at least) using meager resources. In the manner of the classic guerilla they often take what they need from the government.
Some nutbar in a cave announcing his intention to get hold of a hydrogen bomb and blow us all to hell should cause us to spot check the security of the known hydrogen bomb storage sites. It shouldn't cause us to start digging billion dollar fallout shelters under every major city or grounding airplanes whenever somebody uses the word "hydrogen."
You're not getting that right in several respects. We should continue to secure all sorts of nuclear related materials, as we have been, to prevent dirty bomb attacks, or the theft or illegal sale of fissionable material. Requiring emergency shelters in new construction of various type of buildings as some countries do wouldn't add much to the cost and could pay off in many different disaster or attack scenarios. The nutters in North Korea already have nukes and missiles, the Iranians aspire to them, and eventually others will get them. Some of the nutters likely to end up with nukes may find their destruction an acceptable trade-off if they get to badly damage the US. Just 9-11 resulted in $100,000,000,000 in damage to the US economy. What do you think it would have been had New York been attacked with a nuke which would destroy more than one building? Patting yourself on the back for not "over reacting" to the aspirations of "guys in a cave"* is going to be cold comfort if you need shelters to meet other emergencies and you don't have them.
*Who have already managed to kill thousands of Americans and probably well over 100,000 around the world.
We want to attack ISIS, and *poof*, evidence suddenly shows up that ISIS has weapons of mass destruction.
You might recall that they have recently taken control of sizable territory in Iraq to add to the sizable territory in Syria that they control. You may also recall that there were chemical weapons used in Syria, and apparently not all of that use was by the Assad regime.
One of the problems with the news is that is sometimes gets the story more or less right and your cynicism is powerless to alter the facts.
Please be sufficiently terrified and not notice it's a sham caused by western meddling in the 1st place.
Many problems in the world are either caused or exacerbated by ignorance of the sort that you have just demonstrated. Al Qaida's goals have nothing to do with what the West does or has done, other than repelling the Muslim invasions 500+ years ago. They want to rule the world, and that means taking over places they don't rule now. Pretending the problem is something other than what it actually is will be very likely to have unfortunate results. The Islamists are teaching their children that they will retake the lands they formerly ruled, and eventually control it all. Now there is a key point here: it doesn't matter if you believe them, believe that they actually believe that, or that they will succeeed. They do believe it, and will act on it, so Western societies and the rest of the world had better be ready for it.
So what are the policy implications? What do we do differently now that we know this? I mean, we've always been aware that they'd do something with bio weapons if they could.
You ask and answer your own question - the important steps to deal with this sort of threat should have been taken long ago. And if we're "lucky" the "insightful" people in government responsible for helping to prepare haven't dismantled the apparatus developed by the previous administration for handling it. It hard to say what the current state is, but if the constant denial we see on this and related topics on Slashdot is any indication.... well.... we're already screwed.
We also know that their capabilities are limited and that what we're really likely to see is a an attempt that may fizzle or may, if they're lucky, be moderately successful.
Well, that's assuming they didn't make off with any of the biological weapons developed by Saddam (and there were some) or by Syria where ISIS controls considerable territory and apparently has already used chemical weapons, or that the government scientists from those regimes or the former Soviet Union didn't either sell their expertise or volunteer it to "help the brothers."
Finally, we've always known that there's a short list of biological agents that amateurs with limited resources would likely deploy.
And the general public isn't really vaccinated against many of those agents, are they? Also note that amateurs may have a freer hand, especially if they don't aim for a high probability of killing. It is the professionals that are aiming for military grade effectiveness that have to push the envelope. And who says that they aren't buying help from various places, places with considerable experience in "experimental" "evidence based" programs such as North Korea?
...things that we're already as well prepared for as we can reasonably be?
Are we? I can think of some things that probably haven't been done, or funded. Do you think the Obama administration is refilling the vaccine stocks as they expire? I'm not sure I would be confident. After all, they "ended" the war on terror, didn't they?
Or is this particular thing so much more likely than any of the million other attack vectors that we should spend outsized resources on it?
Is something potentially this dangerous something that we should just ignore? I'm pretty sure there must be some middle ground between denial and surrender to it being "too hard."
I'd be a little more inclined to believe that the person who wrote the document was a real expert if there had been a known case of these guys actually producing a biological weapon. This sounds a whole lot more like people who have never built a biological weapon teaching other people who have never built a biologial weapon how to build a biological weapon.
It's been known for quite some time that al Qaida and company have conducted lethal experiments with biological agents, even if at times inadvertently. You are also far too dismissive of them. Many terrorists and terrorist leaders have been well educated people: engineers, doctors, lawyers, scientists, etc. You should also keep in mind that al Qaida has previously canceled attacks because they were uncertain that a particular attack would produce casualties of a large enough number to meet their approval and maintain their "brand" as highly dangerous.
What is this Cold War obsession with misrepresenting Marxism in as many ways as possible just to make it seem ridiculous (or evil)?... One of the biggest contradictions of human intelligence is its desire to over-simplify the world - to make up for our human sense of inadequacy:
You seem to have demonstrated that contradiction in whitewashing Marx. You over-simplify by focusing on Marx's economic theories* while ignoring the terrible evil that he advocated.
.... and will be forced to do without or make do with crocus tea (Hellllloooooooooo shaman!) rather than a well controlled manufactured drug.
That's kind of the point - there was no "well controlled manufactured drug" since there was no standard dosage.
Oral colchicine had been used for many years as an unapproved drug with no prescribing information, dosage recommendations, or drug interaction warnings -- FDA approval
.
And it has some dangerous potential side-effects beyond simple drug interaction.
Without dosage and interaction information you're in the supplement world.
Slashdot Mirror
There is a meaningful difference. In Iran the government chooses the rules and you have no choice but to comply. In New York the followers of the rabbis choose if they want to comply. They are acknowledging that the various communications technologies are tools, that can be used for good or ill, and they are trying to choose what they believe is good. They are choosing, not the government.
Thank you for sharing about the Philippines, but that isn't quite the same as it notes in the article.
As for the rest, its nonsense. You also overlook the rights of audiences, organizations, and governments to conduct their assemblies for the intended purpose. Your right to free speech doesn't allow you to prevent others from engaging in theirs. You are simply embracing another form of censorship, an attack on free speech, and one popular with fascists by the way. There are 8760 hours in a year. A limitation during 2 of those hours as to where you protest so as to allow another free speech event to take place for the intended purpose is a minor burden at most even if it is worth discussing and some of them go too far. The much bigger problem is what goes on in college campuses.
To be fair they do a lot less chopping off of heads or hands.
Those without the character to resist sin are damned. Except Jesus specifically conserved with, converted, and saved sinners.
It is Christian teaching that everyone needs that salvation from Christ, not only for forgiveness of sin, but to address ones sinful nature.
The ones who chuckle to themselves about going to hell? I think very few actually embrace going to hell.
Plenty do, but that is because they misunderstand the nature of Hell.
And which governments are those? The only enduring "free speech zones" you find in the US on are some college campuses when they are often struck down in court. The only other use I can think of is some limited use during some events or parades. Although there are problematic aspects to their use in the US, it is still a long ways from fascism. Or does the existence of the hecklers veto provide the only true measure of freedom?
Or maybe is just a fan of ASCII art.
Apparently you aren't up on the latest research, which puts you behind the times.
Belief In Evolution Doesn't Measure Science Literacy
The key bit FTA is here:
“All third generation [3G] and high-speed internet services, prior to realization of the required conditions for the National Information Network [Iran’s government-controlled and censored Internet which is under development], is against Sharia [and] against moral and human standards.”
In short the position is that if you have freedom you will abuse it. That's overall pretty similar to the thinking of al Qaida and ISIS. Strike up the banjos and play "Dueling Theocracy!" Oops, sorry, no music allowed. Or kite flying.
This is nothing but cultural imperialism - imposing our own, "correct" values at gunpoint and forcing the native peoples to accept it or die.
Women in traditional Muslim countries are pushing for reform as they can. Saudi women drive in protest. Afghan women and girls go to school despite death threats and acid attacks. There are plenty of examples. Why would you think that women would be satisfied with being confined to burkas, forced to be escorted outside the home by a male relative, accept being beaten with sticks, and so on?
P.S. "Islamist" is a right-wing term used only by Islamophobes.
My impression has been that you're usually better informed than that.
It doesn't make sense unless your theory is that Evil President Obama is intentionally dismantling any programs we may have had in order to make terrorist domination of the world easy, twirling his mustache all the way. . . .
You seem to be speculating that Obama is doing things to actively undermine any defenses we have based on... I'm not sure what exactly. This seems to be part of the "bizarro world" theory that people have about political opponents. They think, "I'm against policy X and they're for policy X" means that the other guy is their exact mirror image and end up with, "I'm for fighting terrorism, so he must be for enabling it." No actual evidence of policy disagreement or bad policy is necessary. It's just reasonable to assume that the other guy is making a hash of it because he's your opposite and you'd be doing everything right.
Apparently you believe that all well intentioned actions regardless of how different they are have the same result in the end. Cut 100,000 troops to the Army and slash its budget by $50 billion is the same as adding 100,000 troops to the Army and adding $50 billion to its budget. Refusing to capture and interrogate terrorists provides just as much information as capturing and interrogating them. Is there any chance that you can spot the nonsense there? Can you make an allowance for well intentioned but flawed, counterproductive actions resulting from decision making based on ideology divorced from the facts? Is that a possibility? Or does it all devolve to "mustache twirling"? That is just so tedious. Do you pay any attention to the news?
Pentagon Set to Slash Military to Pre-World War II Levels
...so it would be kind of surprising if the DOD ignored the whole thing for all those years and should start scrambling now that some guys playing solider in homebrew camps are thinking about it.
DOD is great for the 1% of Americans involved with the military. Unfortunately that doesn't do much for the other 99%.
My understanding is that it's a "treat with antibiotics after exposure" type of thing. And we have and produce lots of antibiotics, many of which I remember us ramping up production on post 9/11.
There are vaccines for plague, but other than the military or some travelers not many people get them. Even with treatment the plague still kill around 10% of its victims. When untreated it kill a far higher percentage. About 100 years ago it kill about 2/3 of its victims in the US.
I suspect not, given that they appear to be trying to get it from dead animals at the moment.
There are plenty of groups associated with al Qaida and ISIS. The fact that one is doing that says nothing about what another has been able to do.
If you substitute "progressive" for Liberals you might be on to something.
It's Official: Leftist-Islamist Alliance against the West
RADICAL ISLAM'S ALLIANCE WITH THE SOCIALIST LEFT
The Leftist-Islamist Alliance in Pictures
Nah, you're not very knowledgable yourself. I'm not an expert either but at least read up a bit on history rather than referring to wacky websites
Agreed, you aren't an expert, and you don't seem to have enough of an understanding of the issue to make informed judgments about either my views or what is going on. Instead you are substituting your personal wacky views for hard facts and statements by the Islamists about why they are doing what they are. Maybe you could explain how it is that you know better than they do why they are doing what they are doing? You do realize that there is a long history of insurrection and conquest by Muslim peoples that predates "Western imperialism," don't you?
If reestablishing a Caliphate is of "minor importance" and "among the most silly," then why do they keep declaring them? Why are so many Muslim peoples drawn to them?
Your views seem to be little more than a restatement of politically correct nonsense unconnected to the facts.
Have you ever actually tried to do a serious engineering project from scratch based only on what's in the published literature in any field without consulting somebody who had actually done it? It's actually really hard. The devil is always in the details, ...... It's usually nice to have somebody around who can say, "Yeah, we tried that and it didn't work. ....
Maybe you haven't noticed, but the Middle East is full of countries that have had WMD programs involving chemical and/or biological weapons, and even some nuclear programs. The expertise is out there.
The idea that they're on the brink of a devastating weapon that nobody in the DoD thought to prepare for during the Cold War when we had the entire Soviet weapons program working on it seems like a stretch.
The Cold War is long over and the resources assembled to be prepared to fight if it ever went hot started going away long ago, not unlike the heavy lift space rockets (Saturn V) built to go to the moon. Even the people that knew how to build some those things are retiring and dying. They have already had to try to recreate lost knowledge for materials in nuclear weapons. Knowledge and infrastructure a perishable, and that's assuming you aren't actively dismantling them. There are things we could do in the 1950s and 1960s that we can't today without recreating large industrial programs that would take years to put in place.
Being prepared to fight the Soviets 25 years ago doesn't necessarily buy us anything today.
There's a difference between "being prepared" and "Oh, shit, let's panic!" When this stuff comes up, the public reaction is usually the latter.
Is the public reaction generally panic? I don't think so. Where do you see the public panicking? The actual reaction is largely indifference by most of the public while commentators like you claim the public is panicking and therefore we should do nothing.
These guys aspire to all sorts of stuff and if even half of it were realistic they would have taken over the world by now
But they have taken over countries before, and endangered many others. You're almost building a strawman there.
The reality is that their resources and competence don't match their aspirations and our policy responses should take that into consideration.
The reality is that they have caused enormous damage and killed many tens of thousands of people (at least) using meager resources. In the manner of the classic guerilla they often take what they need from the government.
Some nutbar in a cave announcing his intention to get hold of a hydrogen bomb and blow us all to hell should cause us to spot check the security of the known hydrogen bomb storage sites. It shouldn't cause us to start digging billion dollar fallout shelters under every major city or grounding airplanes whenever somebody uses the word "hydrogen."
You're not getting that right in several respects. We should continue to secure all sorts of nuclear related materials, as we have been, to prevent dirty bomb attacks, or the theft or illegal sale of fissionable material. Requiring emergency shelters in new construction of various type of buildings as some countries do wouldn't add much to the cost and could pay off in many different disaster or attack scenarios. The nutters in North Korea already have nukes and missiles, the Iranians aspire to them, and eventually others will get them. Some of the nutters likely to end up with nukes may find their destruction an acceptable trade-off if they get to badly damage the US. Just 9-11 resulted in $100,000,000,000 in damage to the US economy. What do you think it would have been had New York been attacked with a nuke which would destroy more than one building? Patting yourself on the back for not "over reacting" to the aspirations of "guys in a cave"* is going to be cold comfort if you need shelters to meet other emergencies and you don't have them.
*Who have already managed to kill thousands of Americans and probably well over 100,000 around the world.
We want to attack ISIS, and *poof*, evidence suddenly shows up that ISIS has weapons of mass destruction.
You might recall that they have recently taken control of sizable territory in Iraq to add to the sizable territory in Syria that they control. You may also recall that there were chemical weapons used in Syria, and apparently not all of that use was by the Assad regime.
One of the problems with the news is that is sometimes gets the story more or less right and your cynicism is powerless to alter the facts.
Please be sufficiently terrified and not notice it's a sham caused by western meddling in the 1st place.
Many problems in the world are either caused or exacerbated by ignorance of the sort that you have just demonstrated. Al Qaida's goals have nothing to do with what the West does or has done, other than repelling the Muslim invasions 500+ years ago. They want to rule the world, and that means taking over places they don't rule now. Pretending the problem is something other than what it actually is will be very likely to have unfortunate results. The Islamists are teaching their children that they will retake the lands they formerly ruled, and eventually control it all. Now there is a key point here: it doesn't matter if you believe them, believe that they actually believe that, or that they will succeeed. They do believe it, and will act on it, so Western societies and the rest of the world had better be ready for it.
Alarm in Spain over al-Qaeda call for its “reconquest”
HAMAS Targets Spain
The price of denial and PC thinking is starting to be felt in very ugly ways.
Rotherham: In the face of such evil, who is the racist now?
So what are the policy implications? What do we do differently now that we know this? I mean, we've always been aware that they'd do something with bio weapons if they could.
You ask and answer your own question - the important steps to deal with this sort of threat should have been taken long ago. And if we're "lucky" the "insightful" people in government responsible for helping to prepare haven't dismantled the apparatus developed by the previous administration for handling it. It hard to say what the current state is, but if the constant denial we see on this and related topics on Slashdot is any indication .... well .... we're already screwed.
We also know that their capabilities are limited and that what we're really likely to see is a an attempt that may fizzle or may, if they're lucky, be moderately successful.
Well, that's assuming they didn't make off with any of the biological weapons developed by Saddam (and there were some) or by Syria where ISIS controls considerable territory and apparently has already used chemical weapons, or that the government scientists from those regimes or the former Soviet Union didn't either sell their expertise or volunteer it to "help the brothers."
Finally, we've always known that there's a short list of biological agents that amateurs with limited resources would likely deploy.
And the general public isn't really vaccinated against many of those agents, are they? Also note that amateurs may have a freer hand, especially if they don't aim for a high probability of killing. It is the professionals that are aiming for military grade effectiveness that have to push the envelope. And who says that they aren't buying help from various places, places with considerable experience in "experimental" "evidence based" programs such as North Korea?
Revealed: the gas chamber horror of North Korea's gulag
...things that we're already as well prepared for as we can reasonably be?
Are we? I can think of some things that probably haven't been done, or funded. Do you think the Obama administration is refilling the vaccine stocks as they expire? I'm not sure I would be confident. After all, they "ended" the war on terror, didn't they?
Or is this particular thing so much more likely than any of the million other attack vectors that we should spend outsized resources on it?
Is something potentially this dangerous something that we should just ignore? I'm pretty sure there must be some middle ground between denial and surrender to it being "too hard."
I'd be a little more inclined to believe that the person who wrote the document was a real expert if there had been a known case of these guys actually producing a biological weapon. This sounds a whole lot more like people who have never built a biological weapon teaching other people who have never built a biologial weapon how to build a biological weapon.
It's been known for quite some time that al Qaida and company have conducted lethal experiments with biological agents, even if at times inadvertently. You are also far too dismissive of them. Many terrorists and terrorist leaders have been well educated people: engineers, doctors, lawyers, scientists, etc. You should also keep in mind that al Qaida has previously canceled attacks because they were uncertain that a particular attack would produce casualties of a large enough number to meet their approval and maintain their "brand" as highly dangerous.
Black Death 'kills al-Qaeda operatives in Algeria'
What is this Cold War obsession with misrepresenting Marxism in as many ways as possible just to make it seem ridiculous (or evil)? ... One of the biggest contradictions of human intelligence is its desire to over-simplify the world - to make up for our human sense of inadequacy:
You seem to have demonstrated that contradiction in whitewashing Marx. You over-simplify by focusing on Marx's economic theories* while ignoring the terrible evil that he advocated.
Marx is the father of modern political genocide. (5:18-7:40)
...the Marxist progression of history is based on an increasing voluntary desire to do labour - from socialism through to communism ...
I expect after seeing political genocide in its various flavors that "voluntary" labor isn't too hard to get. That was certainly Stalin's experience.
* And those certainly aren't without their issues.
It's a common courtesy to give the slow kids a head start.
So we can thank you for the success of the Linux desktop then? Fine.
Do you think that your carefully crafted arguments convinced him, or anybody? (Outside of 4chan)
Apparently anybody that disagrees with you is a fool, liar, and a paid stooge of ${ORG}.
Linux would be better off if it had fewer poison pen advocates like you.
It's public record who passed the law. The Democrats own that law, lock, stock, and barrel, for better or worse.
Not really, no. At least not in the US.
In the US the public is armed, and the government doesn't threaten to kill the public. Things are the way they are because of laws.
That's kind of the point - there was no "well controlled manufactured drug" since there was no standard dosage.
Oral colchicine had been used for many years as an unapproved drug with no prescribing information, dosage recommendations, or drug interaction warnings -- FDA approval
.
And it has some dangerous potential side-effects beyond simple drug interaction.
Without dosage and interaction information you're in the supplement world.
Dangerous supplements