Honestly, I could care less about the people who know the risks, and still use the drugs to the point of harming themselves. It's those that use them and harm others in the process, that bother me.
Yes, in which case the crimes would be child abuse/neglect and robbery/breaking and entering and murder, and endangering the welfare of a minor (or a charge similar to what happens if you sell tobacco/alcohol to a kid) respectively.
I'm not naive enough to think that there is anything that one can do that has no effect on others, but lets call a duck a duck, shall we. The problem isn't drugs, the problem is people who use drugs irresponsibly. So what we should do is enforce the laws we already have that prohibit all the bad stuff people do while on drugs, and disallow any version of the twinky defense. Maybe we even take things a step further and add additional punishment for any drug related crime (so e.g. you get three months for stealing the Jones' TV and an additional year for not being able to moderate your drug use - bonus points if we can find some way to incorporate effective rehab.)
Besides, it isn't like the war on drugs is terribly effective at reducing drug use or related crimestoday.
Amen to that. I had a high school history teacher that said all we really need to stir revolutionary sentiments in the US would be a trucker strike. A couple of days of people getting no food tends to make them want to change things. Which way things would go I don't think anyone can tell, but disrupting the nations freight system (either highway or truckers) would have dire and long lasting consequences.
It's pretty simple. State political parties looked at Iowa and New Hampshire with their early primaries and saw all the money that got spent in those states in order to gain momentum. The other states got jealous that they hadn't thought of it first, so a whole crapload (that's the poli-sci term) of states moved their primaries forward to try to get some more attention, and more importantly, money. Apparently, Florida is one of those states that didn't think it had a big enough impact on the political process in 2000 and 2004 *boggle*.
Now the national political parties are pissed because they have do dilute thier funding and not focus on only a few states very early. So the Dems are reacting (IMO appropriately) and saying that if Florida really wants its primary so early we might just not pay attention to it.
Liberal Christians are called Catholics. They might not be down with the whole abortion thing, but they'd rather see union friendly politicians than legislate their morality.
Umm, doesn't that usually work better the other way. For instance if you can save 15% of $40k (I don't quite believe the GP's numbers) in Kansas you'll bank a measly $90k after 15 years, or about enough to put 15% down in New Jersey. And you'd have to commute, and pay parking, and an (expensive) mortgage.
On the other hand, if you make $100k in NY and save 15% you'll have $225k after 15 years, or about 80% of a really nice house in a ritzy Manhattan (Kansas) suburb.
I don't know, I read the summary and thought, "Dear Used record store owner, Please sue us and so that we can have the fair use provisions enumerated (again)."
It's usually a big thing when coupled with AIDS, particularly in Africa. People say silly things like we can't give prostitutes condoms because then they might use them. Then African bishops spread FUD about condoms, and meanwhile millions of people die.
Although lately a similar issue has sprung up with a human papaloma vaccine. Is giving your daughter a vaccine for a STD at 11 condoning sex?
The one and only reason I still buy CDs is to fill my 6-disc changer with new music. Yes I can, and have, burned CDs to listen to, but most of the time I prefer a coherent work, otherwise I'd be listening to my iPod, FM, or subscribing to satellite.
In fact, if I had a little more tin-foil lying around I might suggest that the main reason cars still don't come standard with 1/8'' line-in is to sell more CDs.
Ok, so I'm with you, the DMCA safe-harbor clearly does not apply here because it isn't a copyright issue, but rather a anti-circumvention issue.
What I'm unclear on is apparently, according to your wikipedia link:
Section 230's coverage is not complete: it excepts federal criminal liability and intellectual property law. 47 U.S.C. 230(e)(1) (criminal) and (e)(2) (intellectual property)
which I read to mean that digg and others are not absolved via the Communications Decency Act. Otherwise slashdot would not have had to capitulate on the scientology thing, correct?
So basically as I understand it there is no safe harbor, and in order for digg to survive a lawsuit a judge would have to strike down the law as either unenforcible or unconstitutional.
Ok now I'm going off topic, and against slashdot groupthink, but molecules should not be copyrighted, because the proper IP protection for molecules is patents.
First thanks for the links. I've just read your first link, and feel the need to comment on something humorous I (thought I) read in there.
I would like to propose a different and more illuminating metaphor for American science education. It is more like a mining and sorting operation, designed to cast aside most of the mass of common human debris, but at the same time to discover and rescue diamonds in the rough
for some reason unbeknownst to me looked an awful lot like
I would like to propose a different and more illuminating metaphor for American science education. It is more like a mining and sorting operation, designed to cast aside most of the mass communication degrees, but at the same time to discover and rescue diamonds in the rough
I think that says something about my prejudices...
Universities have the same inability of any large account (corporate, government, or other) to choose "good" software. The people hawking crap like WebCT have better account reps who sway the people spending the money than the "good" options.
And since the late 80's what has happened to the population of schools? Now, what has happened to the number of administrators running the schools? Has it kept pace?
The reason they need technology is the same reason anyone needs technology, So that fewer people can do more work. In fact that should be the litmus test of throwing technology at any problem. Can the user get more done?
In some cases it is not obvious, like students with laptops, but in others, like administrators administrating their schools it is quite obvious.
IMO a max payout cap isn't really a good solution (which is essentially what you're proposing) because the people who get massive settlements probably genuinely deserve them. I have no problem with someone who's doctor cut off the wrong leg (when they needed an appendectomy) receiving a multi-million dollar payout. The problem is all these $10-500k payouts where a woman comes out of pregnancy with sciatica, or someone has surgery and one of those 5% eventualities (that you acknowledged and signed off on) happens and blames the doctor. I feel bad, honest, but for god's sake it isn't the doctors fault that pregnancy is risky or that surgery you needed isn't perfect and he shouldn't be paying you a dime.
That is an interesting definition, but it is a little problematic because it isn't as if one day there are thoughts were previously there were none. The brain develops slowly, asking when there are thought patterns is a little like asking where the mountains start.
Abortion is a moral issue, namely when does life begin. This is a moral, philosophical, or religious question, but it cannot and will never be a scientific question. We are essentially asking when does the fetus have its soul infused.
Saying that life begins at conception is all fine and good, but most politicians (willfully) don't understand the consequences of such a position.
If one is to take the position that early abortions are immoral, one does so on the grounds that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a life (has a soul). If the embryo is equivalent to a human life than we cannot create them for research, or in vitro fertilization. The most abundant source of embryonic stem cells are discarded embryos from fertility clinics. If the embryo is a life than we cannot create embryos that will not be implanted directly into a woman (which makes fertility clinics impractical). More to the point if a fertility doctor knowingly creates embryos that cannot make it into a woman he is guilty of murder. This means there cannot be any morally acceptable path to obtain embryonic stem cells.
Therefore, the only positions that are internally logically consistent are (a) life begins at conception, no abortion, no extra embryos in fertility clinics, and no stem cell research, (b) life begins sometime after conception, abortion and stem cell research are permissible until life begins.
It could have been a trade secret at one time, but by printing it in the take down notices it is now public knowledge and trade secret laws do not apply.
It turns out that 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 has at least the following roots 2, and 04 F9 55 51 4E 87 71 7D E9 10 78 62 81 78 44 60 and cannot therefore be prime.
I release this mathematical proof into the public domain.
Slashdot Mirror
Yes, in which case the crimes would be child abuse/neglect and robbery/breaking and entering and murder, and endangering the welfare of a minor (or a charge similar to what happens if you sell tobacco/alcohol to a kid) respectively.
I'm not naive enough to think that there is anything that one can do that has no effect on others, but lets call a duck a duck, shall we. The problem isn't drugs, the problem is people who use drugs irresponsibly. So what we should do is enforce the laws we already have that prohibit all the bad stuff people do while on drugs, and disallow any version of the twinky defense. Maybe we even take things a step further and add additional punishment for any drug related crime (so e.g. you get three months for stealing the Jones' TV and an additional year for not being able to moderate your drug use - bonus points if we can find some way to incorporate effective rehab.)
Besides, it isn't like the war on drugs is terribly effective at reducing drug use or related crimestoday.
Amen to that. I had a high school history teacher that said all we really need to stir revolutionary sentiments in the US would be a trucker strike. A couple of days of people getting no food tends to make them want to change things. Which way things would go I don't think anyone can tell, but disrupting the nations freight system (either highway or truckers) would have dire and long lasting consequences.
It's pretty simple. State political parties looked at Iowa and New Hampshire with their early primaries and saw all the money that got spent in those states in order to gain momentum. The other states got jealous that they hadn't thought of it first, so a whole crapload (that's the poli-sci term) of states moved their primaries forward to try to get some more attention, and more importantly, money. Apparently, Florida is one of those states that didn't think it had a big enough impact on the political process in 2000 and 2004 *boggle*.
Now the national political parties are pissed because they have do dilute thier funding and not focus on only a few states very early. So the Dems are reacting (IMO appropriately) and saying that if Florida really wants its primary so early we might just not pay attention to it.
Liberal Christians are called Catholics. They might not be down with the whole abortion thing, but they'd rather see union friendly politicians than legislate their morality.
Yeah, it'd suck only being able to put 80% down on this 5-bedroom
Umm, doesn't that usually work better the other way. For instance if you can save 15% of $40k (I don't quite believe the GP's numbers) in Kansas you'll bank a measly $90k after 15 years, or about enough to put 15% down in New Jersey. And you'd have to commute, and pay parking, and an (expensive) mortgage.
On the other hand, if you make $100k in NY and save 15% you'll have $225k after 15 years, or about 80% of a really nice house in a ritzy Manhattan (Kansas) suburb.
I don't know, I read the summary and thought, "Dear Used record store owner, Please sue us and so that we can have the fair use provisions enumerated (again)."
Well technically, and in most jurisdictions, a corporation is a legal person
It's usually a big thing when coupled with AIDS, particularly in Africa. People say silly things like we can't give prostitutes condoms because then they might use them. Then African bishops spread FUD about condoms, and meanwhile millions of people die.
Although lately a similar issue has sprung up with a human papaloma vaccine. Is giving your daughter a vaccine for a STD at 11 condoning sex?
Does no one listen to CDs in their car anymore?
The one and only reason I still buy CDs is to fill my 6-disc changer with new music. Yes I can, and have, burned CDs to listen to, but most of the time I prefer a coherent work, otherwise I'd be listening to my iPod, FM, or subscribing to satellite.
In fact, if I had a little more tin-foil lying around I might suggest that the main reason cars still don't come standard with 1/8'' line-in is to sell more CDs.
What I'm unclear on is apparently, according to your wikipedia link: which I read to mean that digg and others are not absolved via the Communications Decency Act. Otherwise slashdot would not have had to capitulate on the scientology thing, correct?
So basically as I understand it there is no safe harbor, and in order for digg to survive a lawsuit a judge would have to strike down the law as either unenforcible or unconstitutional.
Anyone else have a take on this?
Ok now I'm going off topic, and against slashdot groupthink, but molecules should not be copyrighted, because the proper IP protection for molecules is patents.
Teach you to try to explain how lack of social interaction is a punishment to a slashdotter.
Universities have the same inability of any large account (corporate, government, or other) to choose "good" software. The people hawking crap like WebCT have better account reps who sway the people spending the money than the "good" options.
And since the late 80's what has happened to the population of schools? Now, what has happened to the number of administrators running the schools? Has it kept pace?
The reason they need technology is the same reason anyone needs technology, So that fewer people can do more work. In fact that should be the litmus test of throwing technology at any problem. Can the user get more done?
In some cases it is not obvious, like students with laptops, but in others, like administrators administrating their schools it is quite obvious.
IMO a max payout cap isn't really a good solution (which is essentially what you're proposing) because the people who get massive settlements probably genuinely deserve them. I have no problem with someone who's doctor cut off the wrong leg (when they needed an appendectomy) receiving a multi-million dollar payout. The problem is all these $10-500k payouts where a woman comes out of pregnancy with sciatica, or someone has surgery and one of those 5% eventualities (that you acknowledged and signed off on) happens and blames the doctor. I feel bad, honest, but for god's sake it isn't the doctors fault that pregnancy is risky or that surgery you needed isn't perfect and he shouldn't be paying you a dime.
I, for one, think that we should stop immigration from this country peopled entirely with criminals.
Perhaps we should build some sort of fence...
That is an interesting definition, but it is a little problematic because it isn't as if one day there are thoughts were previously there were none. The brain develops slowly, asking when there are thought patterns is a little like asking where the mountains start.
Sorry, but the shrapnel is made in China
Ok, you've gone and gotten my started.
Abortion is a moral issue, namely when does life begin. This is a moral, philosophical, or religious question, but it cannot and will never be a scientific question. We are essentially asking when does the fetus have its soul infused.
Saying that life begins at conception is all fine and good, but most politicians (willfully) don't understand the consequences of such a position.
If one is to take the position that early abortions are immoral, one does so on the grounds that the zygote/embryo/fetus is a life (has a soul). If the embryo is equivalent to a human life than we cannot create them for research, or in vitro fertilization. The most abundant source of embryonic stem cells are discarded embryos from fertility clinics. If the embryo is a life than we cannot create embryos that will not be implanted directly into a woman (which makes fertility clinics impractical). More to the point if a fertility doctor knowingly creates embryos that cannot make it into a woman he is guilty of murder. This means there cannot be any morally acceptable path to obtain embryonic stem cells.
Therefore, the only positions that are internally logically consistent are (a) life begins at conception, no abortion, no extra embryos in fertility clinics, and no stem cell research, (b) life begins sometime after conception, abortion and stem cell research are permissible until life begins.
It could have been a trade secret at one time, but by printing it in the take down notices it is now public knowledge and trade secret laws do not apply.
In fact I just tested it now.
It turns out that 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 has at least the following roots 2, and 04 F9 55 51 4E 87 71 7D E9 10 78 62 81 78 44 60 and cannot therefore be prime.
I release this mathematical proof into the public domain.