Catholic church wants the US to have Catholic morals instituted as law? How is that a conspiracy? Sounds like a fact of existence for the 2 entities. Or are you suggesting that because the US does not have Catholic morality built-in, the Catholic church has been working to undermine US economic interests? That'd be a more interesting theory.
Yes and jurisdiction for those domains has always been within the US. In my formative years I read about the UN attempting to take over jurisdiction and the general worldwide consensus was that the US was doing a good job, let's not rock this boat needlessly.
They can make decisions and rulings all day, but if the US government decides that they have jurisdiction over this quasi-independent international body, the US government will win out. It may seem terrible, but I'm ok with that. I at least have a very tiny voice within the US government. I have absolutely no voice in this quasi-independent international body. Hate on the US government all you want, it's still the best of what we've got.
You say that like incorporating in Bermuda is out of the ordinary. Heck, a Bermudan subsidier should take about an afternoon to setup with the right connections.
Your ethical standards are much too low. It's not WW2, shades of grey are real. Although we need to react appropriately, suggesting that it could be worse is a revealing non-sequitor.
Lawsuits can happen for any number of reasons, and given a self-driving car, it is easy to imagine the car driving perfectly, but the manufacturer being sued anyway. I spill my coffee in my lap and move the controls to the point that the car presumes I'm taking control. Even if the car is then able to notice I'm not taking control it could be too late. The idiot in the front seat is at fault in my mind, but given a few more variables a judge/jury could easily be swayed. No matter how idiot-proof technology is, it is always at the mercy of stupid users. Unless legislation is changed add in some protection for self-driving car manufacturers, they will be sued by some stupid user.
Now if you're worried that too much may be taken away, that's entirely possible. Good governance is good, and it's quite apparent that's not what's in DC. But that doesn't change the situation for car manufacturers.
You attacked the GP for adding _significantly_ but then completely ignore your own strawmen. First off, it should be stated that we have absolutely no idea what consequences legalizing marijuana will have. Usage will most likely increase, but by how much is a complete unknown. There are even easily constructed models where usage would decrease, though unlikely.
Secondly, there is a distinct difference between legalizing marijuana and other drugs. I've had my problems with alcohol, but we cannot extrapolate that to any problems I would have with marijuana. As the only 2 consistent drugs I use, 3 with caffeine, each addiction requires different levels of conscious action to overcome. Each also has very different consequences of addictive usage.
Thirdly, addiction clinics have been highly successful in Portugal. Your closed loop logic completely ignores this point. It's an open loop because junkies can become not junkies. This stigma can be found all over the legal system and conservative social circles, and is at least in some part self-fulfilling. Also, taxing easy to make, legal drugs does not push their price to black market levels. Maybe you are unaware how cheap meth or crack would be if legal, but let's just say a day's worth of minimum wages could easily kill a person with either drug. Taxing would push them into cigarette cost levels, not stealing cars to pay for the fix levels. Also, if drugs are decriminalized, risky behavior is immediately lowered, so risky behavior to obtain money for the fix would be lowered.
No you don't. You hate seeing marketing material that wasn't meant for you. I feel the same way. Personally, I love the marketing material that's on the boxes of plastic toys I purchase.
It's not the technology. It's the people. Fraccing does not damage water tables every single time in every single case, which is what people love to say.
You had such a reasonable argument until here. You can ignore the crazy enviro-types. I belong to several organizations filled with them. They have their story and they're sticking to it. Just go ahead and leave them out of the entire equation. Those of us who are skeptical of fracking need to know how it can be done responsibly and why it isn't. Hopefully this can end in oil for everyone AND bad engineers in jail.
Probably. I'm going to bet the conversation started out:
DEA: All methamphetamine precursors are outlawed.
Pharma: So no more prescription medicens?
DEA: Find something else.
Pharma: There is nothing else.
DEA: Fine, then we control the precursor supply.
Historical anomaly not at all. The British populace did harp on their government to improve labor conditions all over the empire. Of course, that was a while ago. Chinese workers now have better conditions than British factories workers did then, let alone their colonial counterparts.
Which is exactly what I want, but I'm of the belief that we should let that happen naturally. Artificially raising manufacturing wages will prevent many in the 3rd world from a job that could get them off the farm and into a modern life.
I just came from the Victoria 2 game forum. For a game that is based on the rise of industrialization and globalization you would hope the players have an appreciation for complex systems. Their lack of understanding leads me to believe that most people think that macro-economics works exactly like micro-economics. I hold no faith for Slashdotters understanding this concept.
Slashdot Mirror
Catholic church wants the US to have Catholic morals instituted as law? How is that a conspiracy? Sounds like a fact of existence for the 2 entities. Or are you suggesting that because the US does not have Catholic morality built-in, the Catholic church has been working to undermine US economic interests? That'd be a more interesting theory.
Naughties is definitely standard. 2000s is awkward, who would use such drivel?
Yes and jurisdiction for those domains has always been within the US. In my formative years I read about the UN attempting to take over jurisdiction and the general worldwide consensus was that the US was doing a good job, let's not rock this boat needlessly.
Do you have a draft copy of your new name registration and lookup service?
They can make decisions and rulings all day, but if the US government decides that they have jurisdiction over this quasi-independent international body, the US government will win out. It may seem terrible, but I'm ok with that. I at least have a very tiny voice within the US government. I have absolutely no voice in this quasi-independent international body. Hate on the US government all you want, it's still the best of what we've got.
Mod parent pointlessly cynical +1
Do you know much about the USA's relationship with Columbia? We may not have jurisdiction in Columbia, but we have plenty of friends who do.
Knowledgeable ranting is the new old-man rant. It probably won't have any effect, but it sure made me feel good following that thread. Thanks!
You say that like incorporating in Bermuda is out of the ordinary. Heck, a Bermudan subsidier should take about an afternoon to setup with the right connections.
Your ethical standards are much too low. It's not WW2, shades of grey are real. Although we need to react appropriately, suggesting that it could be worse is a revealing non-sequitor.
Lawsuits can happen for any number of reasons, and given a self-driving car, it is easy to imagine the car driving perfectly, but the manufacturer being sued anyway. I spill my coffee in my lap and move the controls to the point that the car presumes I'm taking control. Even if the car is then able to notice I'm not taking control it could be too late. The idiot in the front seat is at fault in my mind, but given a few more variables a judge/jury could easily be swayed. No matter how idiot-proof technology is, it is always at the mercy of stupid users. Unless legislation is changed add in some protection for self-driving car manufacturers, they will be sued by some stupid user.
Now if you're worried that too much may be taken away, that's entirely possible. Good governance is good, and it's quite apparent that's not what's in DC. But that doesn't change the situation for car manufacturers.
You attacked the GP for adding _significantly_ but then completely ignore your own strawmen. First off, it should be stated that we have absolutely no idea what consequences legalizing marijuana will have. Usage will most likely increase, but by how much is a complete unknown. There are even easily constructed models where usage would decrease, though unlikely.
Secondly, there is a distinct difference between legalizing marijuana and other drugs. I've had my problems with alcohol, but we cannot extrapolate that to any problems I would have with marijuana. As the only 2 consistent drugs I use, 3 with caffeine, each addiction requires different levels of conscious action to overcome. Each also has very different consequences of addictive usage.
Thirdly, addiction clinics have been highly successful in Portugal. Your closed loop logic completely ignores this point. It's an open loop because junkies can become not junkies. This stigma can be found all over the legal system and conservative social circles, and is at least in some part self-fulfilling. Also, taxing easy to make, legal drugs does not push their price to black market levels. Maybe you are unaware how cheap meth or crack would be if legal, but let's just say a day's worth of minimum wages could easily kill a person with either drug. Taxing would push them into cigarette cost levels, not stealing cars to pay for the fix levels. Also, if drugs are decriminalized, risky behavior is immediately lowered, so risky behavior to obtain money for the fix would be lowered.
Is this a real argument? I read the back-and-forth as a disagreement, but individually each post seems to conclude that legalization is preferred.
Are you suggesting that wives don't have the ability to sell a family car?
Wow, 2 negative AC responses for good advice.
No you don't. You hate seeing marketing material that wasn't meant for you. I feel the same way. Personally, I love the marketing material that's on the boxes of plastic toys I purchase.
It's not the technology. It's the people. Fraccing does not damage water tables every single time in every single case, which is what people love to say.
You had such a reasonable argument until here. You can ignore the crazy enviro-types. I belong to several organizations filled with them. They have their story and they're sticking to it. Just go ahead and leave them out of the entire equation. Those of us who are skeptical of fracking need to know how it can be done responsibly and why it isn't. Hopefully this can end in oil for everyone AND bad engineers in jail.
It is just you as he clearly states that a simple regulation is achievable.
Probably. I'm going to bet the conversation started out: DEA: All methamphetamine precursors are outlawed. Pharma: So no more prescription medicens? DEA: Find something else. Pharma: There is nothing else. DEA: Fine, then we control the precursor supply.
Blarg... we both meant years!
No, the GP meant months. As in 969 * 29 / 365 = ~76 years old when Methuselah died.
Historical anomaly not at all. The British populace did harp on their government to improve labor conditions all over the empire. Of course, that was a while ago. Chinese workers now have better conditions than British factories workers did then, let alone their colonial counterparts.
By capitalists, do you mean the heads of the Communist Party?
Which is exactly what I want, but I'm of the belief that we should let that happen naturally. Artificially raising manufacturing wages will prevent many in the 3rd world from a job that could get them off the farm and into a modern life.
I just came from the Victoria 2 game forum. For a game that is based on the rise of industrialization and globalization you would hope the players have an appreciation for complex systems. Their lack of understanding leads me to believe that most people think that macro-economics works exactly like micro-economics. I hold no faith for Slashdotters understanding this concept.