Not only that, but where in the Constitution is power granted to the government to take away this asshole's free speech, the same Constitution which enumerates his right to speak and grants power to the governments?
I think if this goes to appeal it'll be tossed. I can't imagine how that judge could rule like that.
It's reasonable, concurs with observation, and has yet to be disproven. Although I'd say it's one of the things that separate us from the other species (humor being another), not the "only" thing.
Are you talking about the "Occupy xyz" thing? It was interesting, but un-guided and seems to me to have pretty much fizzled out.
You haven't been paying attention, have you? That's wishful thinking, Mister Tea Party One Percenter. You better wake up before you hear the words "up against the wall, motherfucker!"
it makes all sorts of assumptions about how you must manage the whole system.
Package management is good in kubuntu, but unfortunately I found an irritating Microsoftism in Amarok. I love the way Amarok finds lyrics to almost any song it plays, even if the song was sampled from an LP or cassette (this impresses the hell out of me, I can't figure out how they do this David Copperfieldery), but distressed that it "added some hand picked internet radio streams we're sure you'll enjoy" to my playlist, and then re-added them when I deleted them because they sucked. Did someone from Redmond join the Amarok team?
At least it's not as bad as WiMP. After installing Winamp and making it the default Windows media player, I click on an.ogg file and WiMP pops up and says that it can't play them. WTF, Microsoft??? You're not happy with dual boot and want me to erase Windows? It sure seems so.
Slackware solves the problem for me by not requiring updating 2x a day.
I think all the Linux distros are like that. Even better is not having to reboot because the AV software updated its tables (AV? What AV? Reboot? Without replacing the kernel? Why?)
Sounds like Windows to me. It took me a month to figure out how to shut off my notebook's tap to click "feature". Control panel? Nope, not there. Everything about Windows wastes time, from installation to maintenance. MS's vaunted "user friendliness" is a sad joke.
Cataracts are no longer a problem, there are have been implants for cataracts since 1949 (developed in the UK). The surgery is fairly quick and entirely painless, although it does kind of freak you out when they stick a needle in your eye. However, you're getting a needle in the eye for the retina implant, too.
You guys still want that HUD? Even though it means getting a needle stck in your eye, maybe more than once like I have?
Cataract surgery is a piece of cake. A Vitrectomy is pure hell, and I would imagine that a retinal implant would involve a vitrectomy. BTW, the photos in that second link are not for the squeamish.
Why do you do that? It's "companies". Don't you read anything but the illiterate ramblings on Yahoo? Meet Bob, maybe you can look less like an illiterate moron.
I've had to do the odd wee bodge to get sound to work on Ubuntu, but that's mostly because sound is still a joke on GNU/Linux.
Funny, about five years or so ago when XCP ruined my computer (they should have named it X-PC) and I reinstalled XP and couldn't find XP drivers for the on-board sound chip, the Linux side had sound working without any trouble at all. I wound up buying a USB Sound Blaster, which worked in XP but not in Mandriva.
That was the only time I ever had sound issues in Linux, was with the USB Sound Blaster. Maybe you're just buying the wrong sound cards?
To tell the truth, I've had far more problems with video than sound, although not for a long time now. The latest distros I've run have just worked (maybe it's because I'm using older equipment and the Linux devs have had a chence to write drivers for them?) I'm especially happy with the latest kubuntu, since I can access the Windows notebook's files, even though Windows help says it's impossible without a copy of Windows 7 Professional on the network (no, I don't have W7 Pro). Kudos to kubuntu!
How much do these bundles cost? I haven't gamed in years.
OK, doctor, whatever you say. Now for an actual on-topic comment (why do you guys do that, anyway?)
It's too little, too late, for me anyway. After my eye operation in 2006 I tried for WEEKS to get the CrystaLens I'd had implanted (that was FDA-approved in 2003) included in the articles about cataracts and cataract surgery. They were always immediately excised. Why in the hell should I even bother? You wikipedia guys might want to actually have a glance at edits (maybe even with a quick googling) before you remove stuff.
But again, my wiki editing days were few and are over.
I'm pretty sure you only need that with implanted tissues, not implanted devices. I have a CrystaLens in my left eye, and I need no antirejection drugs. I know people with other artificial parts and they need no drugs, either. The only person I know taking those drugs has a donated liver and two donated corneas.
By the way, you will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
To clarify,.28 BAC is "shitfaced drunk",.08 BAC is buzzed.
Again, no. I'd be passed out long before I hit.28, it wouldn't even slow my friend Amy (who is now in rehab) down. She WALKED to the hospital once with a.43! That's enough to kill most people, and she was still walking!
As to the woman who drove me home, I didn't even know she'd been drinking at all.
certain drinks, in certain circumstances, give me a stronger buzz than the amount of alcohol would suggest likely
There are certain combinations that will make you absorb the alcohol faster, which will get you drunk faster. IINM CO2 (bubbles in beer and soda) is one of them.
You should do some fact checking. Read this http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults1.htm before you cry "fallacy" towards my opinion about crack and attempt to back them up with figures from alochol prohibition.
The U.S. Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration is no more a valid source of unbiased information about drugs than NORML is. You might as well ask a tobacco company about the dangers of snuff. However, your own link backs me up:
In truth, nobody really knows exactly how much alcohol consumption increased or decreased during Prohibition. The reason was simple enough -- people like Al Capone didn't pay taxes on their product and thereby report their production to the government. Licensed saloons became illegal speakeasies, and many common citizens took advantage of the high sales price of illegal booze by secretly manufacturing booze in their own bathtubs. That's one of the major problems with all drug prohibitions -- they greatly reduce the ability to make accurate judgments about the problem. There is no good way to count the number of illegal dealers, or the people who are secretly making gin in their own bathroom. Therefore, to make such a judgment, we have to rely on a number of indirect indicators.
Grandpa had a beer making kit in his barn, as did lots of other folks.
Crack use has declined for many reasons
Then name a few.
I'm going to sell all my belongings and follow you. Forsaking all other logical thought.
I didn't mean to imply that I think it is benign -- just that the regulatory scheme we have in place for it seems like a good model to use, at least as a starting point, when figuring out how to regulate soft drugs.
Since you agree that alcohol is a hard drug and its regulations work, it seems that those same regulations would also work with other hard drugs.
That's one of the things wrong with the stupid laws. I know a few people who became addicted to crack cocaine because of drug testing. They'd been smoking pot for years with no ill effects and stopped for a couple of months to get a job. They then decided that since they'd been lied to about pot, the government and media were lying about crack, too. They started smoking crack because the cheap tests employers use can only detect cocaine for three days, while pot is detectable for a month.
All of them are homeless addicts now. Thanks, drug war. Testing for drug use is stupidly authoritarian. testing for impairment is rational.
.08 is stone cold sober for an alcoholic; there's tolerance like any other drug. But personal experience tells me that.085 is drunk when you're not an alcoholic -- one evening a woman I was with thought I was too drunk to drive, and I agreed and let her drive. She got pulled over and blew a.28 and went to jail. They had me blow to see if I could drive the car home, it was a.085. The cop said half a beer less and I'd have been legal (had to have my daughter come get the car). I sure didn't feel almost legal.
What I watch and listen to runs the gamut from NPR to Fox, but I get most of my news from the internet and newspapers; The Guardian, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, St Louis Post Dispatch, LA Times, Illinois Times, State Journal-Register, and whatever pops up on Google News.
Of all the places I get news, none are as slanted as Fox. Partisan hack? LOL, last Presidential election I registered as a Republican and voted for Ron Paul in the primary. Half the Presidents I've voted for were Republicans. How many Democrats have YOU voted for?
Perhaps we should consider the cost of such laws as well... what's the cost of people imprisoned for the sequela of cell phone use while driving (cell phone tickets -> suspended license -> driving while suspended -> prison -> prison rape)?
What's the cost of people imprisoned for the sequela of drinking while driving (DUI -> suspended license -> driving while suspended -> prison -> prison rape)? I see no difference. You would legalize drunk driving?
In real life, anyone with a functioning brain with STFU or just drop the phone if they need to concentrate more or use both hands.
That's not what I've observed; seems like some idiot on a phone is always trying to get in a wreck with me. Pouring down rain at sunset in heavy traffic and the idiots still have that phone glued to their ear.
Not only does the science go against your flawed view, so do statistics.
Harvard researchers estimate about one in 20 U.S. traffic accidents involve a driver talking on a cell phone, but say laws banning cellular phone use while driving would cost society about as much as it would save.
"We calculate that around 2,600 people die each year as a result of this use of the technology," said researcher Joshua Cohen of the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis. Another 330,000 are believed injured.
They do that because they're morons. Cell phones didn't make them stupid, it just makes it easier to see.
Wow, you're blind. Every single person I see outside talking on the phone is like that. If you poo-poo statistics, science, and the evidence in front of your very eyes I don't see how this conversation has any meaning whatever.
You might want to turn down that reality distortion field a notch or two.
So it's ok to make a giant party like ther's no tomorow, burn all non-renewable resources, have no kids and generaly ignore any future events after my predicted lifespan?
No, your universe will still be here when mine is gone. I have no right to screw your world up.
The difference was CB radios weren't used constanbtly; a thirty second conversation isn't all that dangerous if you're on the highway. Most people didn't use CBs in traffic. With phones, some people seem to not be able to put the damned things down at all for any reason.
I don't believe in a "social contract". If I didn't sign it, there's no contract. I never agreed to watch anybody's ads. When that beer commercial comes on TV, I'm taking a piss. When that McDonalds commercial comes on the car radio, I change the station. Period. I have no obligation whatever to watch or listen to advertising. If you buy into this "social contract" bullshit you're a fool.
Advertisers only have contracts with publishers; they have to just hope I look at their ad, because I am not part nor parcel of their contract.
"Social contract", what will the goddamned rich bastards come up with next? And you fools keep letting them...
Accident rates (and especially fatalities) have been dropping (per capita) for decades. However, there is no science that can explain how much reduced drunk driving, cell phone outlawing, safer cars, etc each contribute to the drop.
The studies had people driving on controlled course with and without phones. The results were conclusive; there is no room for debate. Talking on a phone while driving is dangerous.
Slashdot Mirror
Not only that, but where in the Constitution is power granted to the government to take away this asshole's free speech, the same Constitution which enumerates his right to speak and grants power to the governments?
I think if this goes to appeal it'll be tossed. I can't imagine how that judge could rule like that.
It's reasonable, concurs with observation, and has yet to be disproven. Although I'd say it's one of the things that separate us from the other species (humor being another), not the "only" thing.
Are you talking about the "Occupy xyz" thing? It was interesting, but un-guided and seems to me to have pretty much fizzled out.
You haven't been paying attention, have you? That's wishful thinking, Mister Tea Party One Percenter. You better wake up before you hear the words "up against the wall, motherfucker!"
it makes all sorts of assumptions about how you must manage the whole system.
Package management is good in kubuntu, but unfortunately I found an irritating Microsoftism in Amarok. I love the way Amarok finds lyrics to almost any song it plays, even if the song was sampled from an LP or cassette (this impresses the hell out of me, I can't figure out how they do this David Copperfieldery), but distressed that it "added some hand picked internet radio streams we're sure you'll enjoy" to my playlist, and then re-added them when I deleted them because they sucked. Did someone from Redmond join the Amarok team?
At least it's not as bad as WiMP. After installing Winamp and making it the default Windows media player, I click on an .ogg file and WiMP pops up and says that it can't play them. WTF, Microsoft??? You're not happy with dual boot and want me to erase Windows? It sure seems so.
Slackware solves the problem for me by not requiring updating 2x a day.
I think all the Linux distros are like that. Even better is not having to reboot because the AV software updated its tables (AV? What AV? Reboot? Without replacing the kernel? Why?)
Are you talking about the humble bundle or linux?
Sounds like Windows to me. It took me a month to figure out how to shut off my notebook's tap to click "feature". Control panel? Nope, not there. Everything about Windows wastes time, from installation to maintenance. MS's vaunted "user friendliness" is a sad joke.
Other than the inevitable cataract problems
Cataracts are no longer a problem, there are have been implants for cataracts since 1949 (developed in the UK). The surgery is fairly quick and entirely painless, although it does kind of freak you out when they stick a needle in your eye. However, you're getting a needle in the eye for the retina implant, too.
You guys still want that HUD? Even though it means getting a needle stck in your eye, maybe more than once like I have?
Cataract surgery is a piece of cake. A Vitrectomy is pure hell, and I would imagine that a retinal implant would involve a vitrectomy. BTW, the photos in that second link are not for the squeamish.
The company's that produce these military weapons
Why do you do that? It's "companies". Don't you read anything but the illiterate ramblings on Yahoo? Meet Bob, maybe you can look less like an illiterate moron.
Mods, I'm offtopic, please mod me down.
I've had to do the odd wee bodge to get sound to work on Ubuntu, but that's mostly because sound is still a joke on GNU/Linux.
Funny, about five years or so ago when XCP ruined my computer (they should have named it X-PC) and I reinstalled XP and couldn't find XP drivers for the on-board sound chip, the Linux side had sound working without any trouble at all. I wound up buying a USB Sound Blaster, which worked in XP but not in Mandriva.
That was the only time I ever had sound issues in Linux, was with the USB Sound Blaster. Maybe you're just buying the wrong sound cards?
To tell the truth, I've had far more problems with video than sound, although not for a long time now. The latest distros I've run have just worked (maybe it's because I'm using older equipment and the Linux devs have had a chence to write drivers for them?) I'm especially happy with the latest kubuntu, since I can access the Windows notebook's files, even though Windows help says it's impossible without a copy of Windows 7 Professional on the network (no, I don't have W7 Pro). Kudos to kubuntu!
How much do these bundles cost? I haven't gamed in years.
OK, doctor, whatever you say. Now for an actual on-topic comment (why do you guys do that, anyway?)
It's too little, too late, for me anyway. After my eye operation in 2006 I tried for WEEKS to get the CrystaLens I'd had implanted (that was FDA-approved in 2003) included in the articles about cataracts and cataract surgery. They were always immediately excised. Why in the hell should I even bother? You wikipedia guys might want to actually have a glance at edits (maybe even with a quick googling) before you remove stuff.
But again, my wiki editing days were few and are over.
I'm pretty sure you only need that with implanted tissues, not implanted devices. I have a CrystaLens in my left eye, and I need no antirejection drugs. I know people with other artificial parts and they need no drugs, either. The only person I know taking those drugs has a donated liver and two donated corneas.
By the way, you will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
Charlie Sheen can snort enough coke to kill two and a half men!
Cocaine is God's way of telling you that you have too much money.
To clarify, .28 BAC is "shitfaced drunk", .08 BAC is buzzed.
Again, no. I'd be passed out long before I hit .28, it wouldn't even slow my friend Amy (who is now in rehab) down. She WALKED to the hospital once with a .43! That's enough to kill most people, and she was still walking!
As to the woman who drove me home, I didn't even know she'd been drinking at all.
certain drinks, in certain circumstances, give me a stronger buzz than the amount of alcohol would suggest likely
There are certain combinations that will make you absorb the alcohol faster, which will get you drunk faster. IINM CO2 (bubbles in beer and soda) is one of them.
You should do some fact checking. Read this http://www.druglibrary.org/prohibitionresults1.htm before you cry "fallacy" towards my opinion about crack and attempt to back them up with figures from alochol prohibition.
The U.S. Department of Justice Drug Enforcement Administration is no more a valid source of unbiased information about drugs than NORML is. You might as well ask a tobacco company about the dangers of snuff. However, your own link backs me up:
Grandpa had a beer making kit in his barn, as did lots of other folks.
Crack use has declined for many reasons
Then name a few.
I'm going to sell all my belongings and follow you. Forsaking all other logical thought.
Don't.
I didn't mean to imply that I think it is benign -- just that the regulatory scheme we have in place for it seems like a good model to use, at least as a starting point, when figuring out how to regulate soft drugs.
Since you agree that alcohol is a hard drug and its regulations work, it seems that those same regulations would also work with other hard drugs.
If indie recording artists give away their product, and they aren't yet in a situation where they can tour, what can they sell?
CDs, T-shirts, hats, other what they call "merch", plus door reciepts from the bar they're playing in. Have a listen fo a few of my friends.
But you'd have to buy the LPs first.
Or borrow them from friends.
That's one of the things wrong with the stupid laws. I know a few people who became addicted to crack cocaine because of drug testing. They'd been smoking pot for years with no ill effects and stopped for a couple of months to get a job. They then decided that since they'd been lied to about pot, the government and media were lying about crack, too. They started smoking crack because the cheap tests employers use can only detect cocaine for three days, while pot is detectable for a month.
All of them are homeless addicts now. Thanks, drug war. Testing for drug use is stupidly authoritarian. testing for impairment is rational.
A bad joke needs no woosh. Bad joke! Bad Bad! *hits joke on nose with rolled up newspaper*
.08 is stone cold sober for an alcoholic; there's tolerance like any other drug. But personal experience tells me that .085 is drunk when you're not an alcoholic -- one evening a woman I was with thought I was too drunk to drive, and I agreed and let her drive. She got pulled over and blew a .28 and went to jail. They had me blow to see if I could drive the car home, it was a .085. The cop said half a beer less and I'd have been legal (had to have my daughter come get the car). I sure didn't feel almost legal.
What I watch and listen to runs the gamut from NPR to Fox, but I get most of my news from the internet and newspapers; The Guardian, New York Times, Chicago Tribune, St Louis Post Dispatch, LA Times, Illinois Times, State Journal-Register, and whatever pops up on Google News.
Of all the places I get news, none are as slanted as Fox. Partisan hack? LOL, last Presidential election I registered as a Republican and voted for Ron Paul in the primary. Half the Presidents I've voted for were Republicans. How many Democrats have YOU voted for?
How about we stop passing laws on the basis of "if it could possibly save just one life"?
How about preventing 2600 deaths and 330,000 injuries per year?
Perhaps we should consider the cost of such laws as well... what's the cost of people imprisoned for the sequela of cell phone use while driving (cell phone tickets -> suspended license -> driving while suspended -> prison -> prison rape)?
What's the cost of people imprisoned for the sequela of drinking while driving (DUI -> suspended license -> driving while suspended -> prison -> prison rape)? I see no difference. You would legalize drunk driving?
In real life, anyone with a functioning brain with STFU or just drop the phone if they need to concentrate more or use both hands.
That's not what I've observed; seems like some idiot on a phone is always trying to get in a wreck with me. Pouring down rain at sunset in heavy traffic and the idiots still have that phone glued to their ear.
Not only does the science go against your flawed view, so do statistics.
They do that because they're morons. Cell phones didn't make them stupid, it just makes it easier to see.
Wow, you're blind. Every single person I see outside talking on the phone is like that. If you poo-poo statistics, science, and the evidence in front of your very eyes I don't see how this conversation has any meaning whatever.
You might want to turn down that reality distortion field a notch or two.
So it's ok to make a giant party like ther's no tomorow, burn all non-renewable resources, have no kids and generaly ignore any future events after my predicted lifespan?
No, your universe will still be here when mine is gone. I have no right to screw your world up.
The difference was CB radios weren't used constanbtly; a thirty second conversation isn't all that dangerous if you're on the highway. Most people didn't use CBs in traffic. With phones, some people seem to not be able to put the damned things down at all for any reason.
Look websites, we get it, the social contract.
I don't believe in a "social contract". If I didn't sign it, there's no contract. I never agreed to watch anybody's ads. When that beer commercial comes on TV, I'm taking a piss. When that McDonalds commercial comes on the car radio, I change the station. Period. I have no obligation whatever to watch or listen to advertising. If you buy into this "social contract" bullshit you're a fool.
Advertisers only have contracts with publishers; they have to just hope I look at their ad, because I am not part nor parcel of their contract.
"Social contract", what will the goddamned rich bastards come up with next? And you fools keep letting them...
Accident rates (and especially fatalities) have been dropping (per capita) for decades. However, there is no science that can explain how much reduced drunk driving, cell phone outlawing, safer cars, etc each contribute to the drop.
The studies had people driving on controlled course with and without phones. The results were conclusive; there is no room for debate. Talking on a phone while driving is dangerous.