Let the free market decide about smoking. If a restaurant/bar makes more money allowing smokers in...they'll keep doing it. You as a non-smoker, have the right to go somewhere else. If this hurts the business they will have no smoking policies.
I almost agree with you. Yes, it's true that capitalism would dictate that the restaurant should be free to decide whether or not to permit smoking, and the customers can choose whether or not to patronize said restaurant. However, there is one important group of people being ignored here: the restaurant employees. They don't get a choice. They are forced to breathe the smokey air and subject themselves to lung cancer, and in this day and age, in civilized countries, that's a form of employee abuse.
"They can choose not to work there" you will say, and while that's true, that's not a valid point. That exact same argument can be used to defend sexual harassment at the work place. After all, if a woman isn't comfortable at a construction site, with a bunch of knuckle-dragging neanderthals ogling her, whistling cat-calls, and shouting obscene, suggestive remarks at her, she can quit and work somewhere else, right?
For me, "smoking bans" are not about the patrons. It's about the employees. Everyone has a right to a safe and healthy workplace, and in those cases where the very nature of the job is dangerous (miners, astronauts, etc.), they have a right to safety standards and equipment. If employees at smoking-restaurants could wear respirators, then I wouldn't have a problem. But the employers won't let them. "Turns off the customers," they say.
I welcome smoking bans. Thankfully, I live in a city (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) progressive enough to recognize that the food service industry is not exempt from the same workplace safety laws and standards that apply to every single other industry. I like that my wife and I can go out to any bar or restaurant without coming home smelling disgusting and smokey.
People say that, but has anyone who's not single said it? I admit it, I still watch TV. Why? Because I can watch TV with my wife. I can't really "Internet" with my wife. TV is something we can do together, and talk during the show or the commercials. Do you actually talk to anyone in the same room while you're on the Internet? Don't you find that when you try to talk to someone who's on the Internet, that they actually respond negatively, and would rather be left alone?
Hahah, I know exactly how you feel. I wasted 2 hours on what should have been an extremely simple C assignment in university one day. Back then, we did our C/C++ assignments on a shared Solaris server, working on dumb terminals in a lab. I was getting some kind of strange exception with my C macros. So, I created a "test" program and copied over the guts of the logic of my app, so I could re-add the functionality piece-by-piece until my test app broke. This would allow me to isolate the code that was causing the problem.
Only one problem: my "test" app didn't appear to be doing anything. It would run fine, with no error messages, and then exit quietly. In fact, it was producing no output at all. I began removing code, and adding printf()'s, desperately trying to get my app to say something, anything. After a couple of hours, I had stripped my "test" app down to little more than a "Hello, world" app, but it still wasn't producing any output! I would just type
dragon:/home/kombat/> gcc test.c dragon:/home/kombat/> test dragon:/home/kombat/>
Can anyone spot the problem? Anyone?
It turns out that "test" is actually a built-in system utility for regular expressions, used in scripts. That was the day I learned what my $PATH means, why/usr/bin is at the beginning of the $PATH, and how one can use./test to make sure that one is actually running the program in the current directory, rather than the system utility with the same name!
That day ranks as one of my most stressful, and yet most educational, at university.
I was a Teaching Assistant (read: I graded assignments and tutored students) for an introductory computer course at my university. The course was affectionately referred to as "Chips for Dips," since it was intended for non-comp-sci majors (in fact, comp sci majors were ineligible for the credit). It taught things like how to use the Internet, how to use Word, PowerPoint, email, that sort of thing.
Anyway, amazingly, some people couldn't even be bothered to learn how to "create a Word document describing your major, using 5 different fonts." Spotting copying was generally pretty easy. On more than one occassion, 2 students would pass in identical assignments, with only the name changed. The giveaway was that the copier had forgotten to change the student ID number on the assignment, which was still that of the person he copied from!
The man had a poor business sense and he didn't see the value in doing what he needed to do to win.
Yeah, poor guy. He had ethics.
Are you suggesting that is impossible to be both ethical, and a successful businessperson? What about co-ops? Google? Saturn? If you'd RTFA, you'd see that in this case, "doing what was needed to win" consisted of "delivering a 16-bit version of your OS by next summer." Kildall couldn't/didn't. Gates did. So the contract went to Gates. Where does ethics enter into this? Gates had vision where Kildall didn't. This has nothing to do with ethics.
The excuse for this new proposal is that it is for homeland security and preventing counterfeiting. But the broader truth of the matter is that this would be another nail in the coffin for free speech.
*Puzzled look* Huh? When did they confiscate all the pens and pencils?
Why the hell would people sell their cars to afford drugs, when drugs are now cheap due to legalization.
The same reason alcoholics do it. That is to say, they're taxed, so they're not really all that "cheap," and they need/want them every day. But thanks for the insult anyway.
Did you leart nothing from prohibition? The crimes you associate with drugs are not caused by drugs, any more than organized crime in the 20's was caused by alcohol.
Alcohol is legal, and is still the cause of a very large amount of crime. Drunk driving, assault, domestic violence, the list goes on. Drunk people are a huge hassle for police. Ask any cop, they'll tell you that crime drops off dramatically in the winter, and on rainy days, because fewer people go out drinking during those times.
If your local police department has a "ride-along" program, I strongly encourage you to participate. I've gone on two (only because my district limits participation to once-per-two-year-period, due to high demand), and it is very eye-opening. You really see what cops spend their time doing. Wanna know? Here it is, in no particular order:
False alarms, both home and business.
Cleaning up auto accidents and doing paperwork. At night on weekends, you can almost guarantee that at least one party in the accident will be charged with DUI.
Responding to fights where 90% of the time, at least one participant is drunk.
That, right there, is 90% of a cop's job. So don't try to tell me that society is happy-go-lucky because alcohol is legal.
As for the "coke wouldn't cost so much if it were legal" argument, I call BS. Alcohol and tobacco are cheap to produce, but are taxed as much as they can, without allowing the underground bootleg market to thrive.
If this is supposed to be a free country, why is the government concerned about what I do in my own home with my own money?
Because there is a nontrivial segment of the population who, given the opportunity, would indulge themselves into self-destruction. I know it sounds nanny-state, and if the population were comprised entirely of law-abiding, responsible, honest, intelligent people (such as the type of people who would be participating in this very discussion), then it wouldn't be a problem. I don't know about you, but I don't use cocaine. Not because it's illegal, but because I recognize that it is a toxic, self-destructive substance that would add no value to my life, but would instead lower my overall quality of life.
I can recognize that. You can recognize that (I'm assuming you're not a coke user). I'm guessing that the vast majority of Slashdot readers recognize that. However, you make the mistake of assuming that therefore, society would think the same way. Sadly, that's not the case.
I'm not advocating a "nanny-state," but there are certain decisions that must be made for us, by the government. Even if 90% of us made the "right" decision to not use cocaine, if the remaining 10% did not, and instead sold their cars and homes, lost their jobs, destroyed their marriages, and abandoned their kids all due to an overwhelming cocaine habit, the overall loss to society would be far too great.
I fear you dangerously underestimate the inevitable damage that legalized hard drugs would do to our society. A very large percentage of the crime we already have is caused by drugs, and we are already fighting the drug problem head-on. Imagine if the drugs were allowed to flow freely! Imagine the people who lack the judgement to know they shouldn't drive while high on crack. Or those who lost their job and spent their last $20 on crack 2 days ago, and are shivering and sweating in a corner in their empty apartment, literally dying for their next hit. Do you want to be the first person this guy runs into when he stumbles out into the street?
Soft drugs should be legalized and taxed. The funds from those taxes should go to provide social programs for those addicted to the harder drugs. The drug problem is a health problem, not a criminal problem. But make no mistake: It is still a problem, and should be fought, not accepted.
the problems prohibition creates are often worst than any problems that the drugs create. The US gave up on alcohol prohibition for this reason.
I was hoping someone would bring up that point.:) The flaw in your reasoning is that it assumes that none of the drugs currently under prohibition are worse than alcohol. This is simply not true. If you've ever met a real cocaine or heroin addict (there is no such thing as a casual cocaine/heroin "user", only "addicts"), you'd see that it is not the same thing as alcohol at all. It takes over your life. It creates a dysfunctional circumstance in which the person quickly loses the ability to carry on a normal life, hold a steady job, and maintain a loving relationship with family.
Please don't give me anything about marijuana. I'm in favour of legalizing, controlling, and taxing marijuana. I'm talking strictly about the harder drugs here. There are some drugs that should remain illegal, and vigorously fought, no matter what. Cocaine, heroin, PCP, and crystal meth are examples.
People addicted to hard drugs rapidly spiral into a dysfuncional obsession. If authorities can intervene early enough and get the person into treatment, their lives can literally be saved (not to mention the lives of their potential future victims, as their need to finance their next hit becomes worse and worse). If you truly believe that crack cocaine and heroin should be legalized, then you clearly have never experienced how damaging and controlling those drugs are.
People can smoke cigarettes and still lead normal lives. People can have the occassional drink of alcohol and it doesn't ruin their lives (with a minute fraction of exceptions). People cannot casually use heroin and still function normally. It's just plain not in the same league as alcohol and tobacco.
Seeing how the "war against drugs" and the "war against terror" went
What, you mean their utter ineffectiveness?
I don't get you people who consider the war on drugs a failure. What exactly are you proposing as an alternative? That the government stop trying to keep heroin, crack, PCP, and crystal methamphetamine off the streets? Should they instead focus those police resources on real criminals? Is that what you're saying?
Because if that's what you're saying, then I would strongly encourage you to do a little research into the root causes of most crime. They are, in no particular order, drugs, alcohol, and lack of money. If they ignored drugs and just waited until some tripped out junkie held up a convenience store for his next fix, then you'd accuse the government of "attacking the symptom instead of the root cause."
They just can't win with you people. Open your eyes man.
Are you suggesting that the government stop trying to aprehend and prosecute hard drug users/dealers?
The War on Terror. Yep that's working: so far two countried fucked up and Iran's next.
Psst.... I don't know if you noticed or not, but just last weekend, Afghanistan held open, democratic elections for the first time. And the US, so far, hasn't made any moves toward Iran, other than diplomatic posturing. I'll give you Iraq though.
don't most tax cuts in the U.S. benefit the richer and not the poorer?
I can't speak for the US, but in Canada, yes, most tax cuts benefit the middle-to-upper classes, but it's for one simple reason: poor people don't pay any taxes. In Canada, if you make less than $20,000 a year, you will pay virtually nothing in income tax. Well, it may come off your paycheck, but you will get almost all of it back come tax season. How do you give someone like that a "tax break" when they're already paying practically nothing into the tax system?
That is where this rhetoric about "tax cuts not helping the poor" come from.
I favor repeal of all income taxes, and the move to some form of federal sales tax.
Come to Canada! We have both federal income tax, and a federal sales tax! Actually, we have both at the provincial level too, so we pay provincial and federal income taxes, and provincial and federal sales taxes. Ain't it great!
Wow, this really demonstrates that I've been reading too much Slashdot. I read this, and the first thing that came into my mind was, "'Leet words? What 'leet words was Bush using?" Then, I realized, you meant the actual number 7337.
I'm not religious, so I'm not saying "Don't play God", but it is the height of arrogance for scientists to say they understand genetics sufficiently to control GM. The risk of doing bad things is great.
Should we ban stem-cell research too? Cloning research? Organ donation/transplant? Cancer treatment? After all, the potential for creating some kind of new, "super-resistant" cancer that we don't understand is too great.
While I share your sentiment that it's sickening to be corrected in everyday talk,
Is it really "sickening," as in, physically nausiating, or were you just using a metaphor? Did you choose to write "sickening" to mean an obviously exaggerated expression of annoyance?
Sort of like how people use "stealing" as a metaphor for "copying music without paying for it" when referring to music downloaders? Do you see where I'm going with this?
Lighten up, all you semantic nitpickers. We use metaphors all the time. Get over it.
No, like it or not, we've developed a new "on-call class" and to say that they can't go to the movies with us is not just wrong, it's not going to work. I think France is about to find this out.
I'm a right-leaning capitalist at heart, so I believe that the government should back away with their legislation, permit all kinds of jamming, and let regular market forces sort this issue out. The only exception should be that establishments employing jamming technology should be required to display prominent signs alerting patrons that jamming tech is in use, and describing the specific nature of the jammer (cells blocked but not pagers, emergency outgoing calls permitted, etc.).
If there is a big enough market out there of people who are not in dire need of being in complete networked contact at all times, as well as those who prefer an environment where they can be confident that they will not be bothered by such interruptions, then establishments using jamming tech to enforce such an environment will flourish. However, if you are right, and most people are afraid to break contact with Verizon for 2 hours, then those places will fizzle, and they'll likely drop the jammers.
But my point is, they should be allowed to make the choice and see for themselves. Supply and demand. Let the market sort it out.
People use them where they aren't supposed to and people forget to turn off their ringers. Why don't we solve THESE PROBLEMS
It sounds like you're advocating a behaviour-modification education campaign. While this certainly sounds like an effective, warm-and-fuzzy, "everybody wins!" solution, empirical evidence suggests that such campaigns simply don't work. Even if you achieve a 95% compliance rate (an absurdly high level), that remaining non-compliant 5% will still cause unacceptable disruption.
"Education" campaigns have been/are being employed against alcohol abuse, drunk drivers, smokers, gamblers, STDs, infidelity, aggressive driving, and more, and yet people still do all of those things. However, in all of those examples (except gambling [yes, I've left you an opening here for a joke about "infidelity"]), failure to heed the warnings and act responsibly can result in death. So if people hear the "education propaganda", and ignore it anyway, even in cases risking death, what makes you think people will respond do your "turn off your phone" drive?
Should we halt all progress simply because people managed OK in 1900?
As recently as 1990, I could enjoy a movie without it being interrupted by 3 different pathetic polyphonic ring tones emulating the pop-music-pap-du-jour. Nowadays, I cannot. That's progress? By my accounting, that's a step backwards.
There are cases where a babysitter may urgently need to contact the parent.
There was a time, not so long ago, when cell phones didn't exist. And guess what? Parents still hired babysitters and went out for the occassional movie. The truly paranoid ones simply stayed home until their kid got a little older.
What's wrong with suggesting parents of today do the same thing? As the GP said, having a child requires certain sacrifices. Suck it up and stop complaining, or don't have kids.
If I can encourage cinemas and universities to install the Asshol-Blok 5000
I believe a product with such a name is already on the market, although it has a very different purpose. It's been widely endorsed by paranoid right-wing homophobes.
Slashdot Mirror
Let the free market decide about smoking. If a restaurant/bar makes more money allowing smokers in...they'll keep doing it. You as a non-smoker, have the right to go somewhere else. If this hurts the business they will have no smoking policies.
I almost agree with you. Yes, it's true that capitalism would dictate that the restaurant should be free to decide whether or not to permit smoking, and the customers can choose whether or not to patronize said restaurant. However, there is one important group of people being ignored here: the restaurant employees. They don't get a choice. They are forced to breathe the smokey air and subject themselves to lung cancer, and in this day and age, in civilized countries, that's a form of employee abuse.
"They can choose not to work there" you will say, and while that's true, that's not a valid point. That exact same argument can be used to defend sexual harassment at the work place. After all, if a woman isn't comfortable at a construction site, with a bunch of knuckle-dragging neanderthals ogling her, whistling cat-calls, and shouting obscene, suggestive remarks at her, she can quit and work somewhere else, right?
For me, "smoking bans" are not about the patrons. It's about the employees. Everyone has a right to a safe and healthy workplace, and in those cases where the very nature of the job is dangerous (miners, astronauts, etc.), they have a right to safety standards and equipment. If employees at smoking-restaurants could wear respirators, then I wouldn't have a problem. But the employers won't let them. "Turns off the customers," they say.
I welcome smoking bans. Thankfully, I live in a city (Ottawa, Ontario, Canada) progressive enough to recognize that the food service industry is not exempt from the same workplace safety laws and standards that apply to every single other industry. I like that my wife and I can go out to any bar or restaurant without coming home smelling disgusting and smokey.
the Internet's replaced TV for me;
People say that, but has anyone who's not single said it? I admit it, I still watch TV. Why? Because I can watch TV with my wife. I can't really "Internet" with my wife. TV is something we can do together, and talk during the show or the commercials. Do you actually talk to anyone in the same room while you're on the Internet? Don't you find that when you try to talk to someone who's on the Internet, that they actually respond negatively, and would rather be left alone?
Hahah, I know exactly how you feel. I wasted 2 hours on what should have been an extremely simple C assignment in university one day. Back then, we did our C/C++ assignments on a shared Solaris server, working on dumb terminals in a lab. I was getting some kind of strange exception with my C macros. So, I created a "test" program and copied over the guts of the logic of my app, so I could re-add the functionality piece-by-piece until my test app broke. This would allow me to isolate the code that was causing the problem.
/usr/bin is at the beginning of the $PATH, and how one can use ./test to make sure that one is actually running the program in the current directory, rather than the system utility with the same name!
Only one problem: my "test" app didn't appear to be doing anything. It would run fine, with no error messages, and then exit quietly. In fact, it was producing no output at all. I began removing code, and adding printf()'s, desperately trying to get my app to say something, anything. After a couple of hours, I had stripped my "test" app down to little more than a "Hello, world" app, but it still wasn't producing any output! I would just type
dragon:/home/kombat/> gcc test.c
dragon:/home/kombat/> test
dragon:/home/kombat/>
Can anyone spot the problem? Anyone?
It turns out that "test" is actually a built-in system utility for regular expressions, used in scripts. That was the day I learned what my $PATH means, why
That day ranks as one of my most stressful, and yet most educational, at university.
I was a Teaching Assistant (read: I graded assignments and tutored students) for an introductory computer course at my university. The course was affectionately referred to as "Chips for Dips," since it was intended for non-comp-sci majors (in fact, comp sci majors were ineligible for the credit). It taught things like how to use the Internet, how to use Word, PowerPoint, email, that sort of thing.
Anyway, amazingly, some people couldn't even be bothered to learn how to "create a Word document describing your major, using 5 different fonts." Spotting copying was generally pretty easy. On more than one occassion, 2 students would pass in identical assignments, with only the name changed. The giveaway was that the copier had forgotten to change the student ID number on the assignment, which was still that of the person he copied from!
The man had a poor business sense and he didn't see the value in doing what he needed to do to win.
Yeah, poor guy. He had ethics.
Are you suggesting that is impossible to be both ethical, and a successful businessperson? What about co-ops? Google? Saturn? If you'd RTFA, you'd see that in this case, "doing what was needed to win" consisted of "delivering a 16-bit version of your OS by next summer." Kildall couldn't/didn't. Gates did. So the contract went to Gates. Where does ethics enter into this? Gates had vision where Kildall didn't. This has nothing to do with ethics.
The excuse for this new proposal is that it is for homeland security and preventing counterfeiting. But the broader truth of the matter is that this would be another nail in the coffin for free speech.
*Puzzled look* Huh? When did they confiscate all the pens and pencils?
Why the hell would people sell their cars to afford drugs, when drugs are now cheap due to legalization.
The same reason alcoholics do it. That is to say, they're taxed, so they're not really all that "cheap," and they need/want them every day. But thanks for the insult anyway.
Alcohol is legal, and is still the cause of a very large amount of crime. Drunk driving, assault, domestic violence, the list goes on. Drunk people are a huge hassle for police. Ask any cop, they'll tell you that crime drops off dramatically in the winter, and on rainy days, because fewer people go out drinking during those times.
If your local police department has a "ride-along" program, I strongly encourage you to participate. I've gone on two (only because my district limits participation to once-per-two-year-period, due to high demand), and it is very eye-opening. You really see what cops spend their time doing. Wanna know? Here it is, in no particular order:
That, right there, is 90% of a cop's job. So don't try to tell me that society is happy-go-lucky because alcohol is legal.
As for the "coke wouldn't cost so much if it were legal" argument, I call BS. Alcohol and tobacco are cheap to produce, but are taxed as much as they can, without allowing the underground bootleg market to thrive.
If this is supposed to be a free country, why is the government concerned about what I do in my own home with my own money?
Because there is a nontrivial segment of the population who, given the opportunity, would indulge themselves into self-destruction. I know it sounds nanny-state, and if the population were comprised entirely of law-abiding, responsible, honest, intelligent people (such as the type of people who would be participating in this very discussion), then it wouldn't be a problem. I don't know about you, but I don't use cocaine. Not because it's illegal, but because I recognize that it is a toxic, self-destructive substance that would add no value to my life, but would instead lower my overall quality of life.
I can recognize that. You can recognize that (I'm assuming you're not a coke user). I'm guessing that the vast majority of Slashdot readers recognize that. However, you make the mistake of assuming that therefore, society would think the same way. Sadly, that's not the case.
I'm not advocating a "nanny-state," but there are certain decisions that must be made for us, by the government. Even if 90% of us made the "right" decision to not use cocaine, if the remaining 10% did not, and instead sold their cars and homes, lost their jobs, destroyed their marriages, and abandoned their kids all due to an overwhelming cocaine habit, the overall loss to society would be far too great.
I fear you dangerously underestimate the inevitable damage that legalized hard drugs would do to our society. A very large percentage of the crime we already have is caused by drugs, and we are already fighting the drug problem head-on. Imagine if the drugs were allowed to flow freely! Imagine the people who lack the judgement to know they shouldn't drive while high on crack. Or those who lost their job and spent their last $20 on crack 2 days ago, and are shivering and sweating in a corner in their empty apartment, literally dying for their next hit. Do you want to be the first person this guy runs into when he stumbles out into the street?
Soft drugs should be legalized and taxed. The funds from those taxes should go to provide social programs for those addicted to the harder drugs. The drug problem is a health problem, not a criminal problem. But make no mistake: It is still a problem, and should be fought, not accepted.
the problems prohibition creates are often worst than any problems that the drugs create. The US gave up on alcohol prohibition for this reason.
:) The flaw in your reasoning is that it assumes that none of the drugs currently under prohibition are worse than alcohol. This is simply not true. If you've ever met a real cocaine or heroin addict (there is no such thing as a casual cocaine/heroin "user", only "addicts"), you'd see that it is not the same thing as alcohol at all. It takes over your life. It creates a dysfunctional circumstance in which the person quickly loses the ability to carry on a normal life, hold a steady job, and maintain a loving relationship with family.
I was hoping someone would bring up that point.
Please don't give me anything about marijuana. I'm in favour of legalizing, controlling, and taxing marijuana. I'm talking strictly about the harder drugs here. There are some drugs that should remain illegal, and vigorously fought, no matter what. Cocaine, heroin, PCP, and crystal meth are examples.
People addicted to hard drugs rapidly spiral into a dysfuncional obsession. If authorities can intervene early enough and get the person into treatment, their lives can literally be saved (not to mention the lives of their potential future victims, as their need to finance their next hit becomes worse and worse). If you truly believe that crack cocaine and heroin should be legalized, then you clearly have never experienced how damaging and controlling those drugs are.
People can smoke cigarettes and still lead normal lives. People can have the occassional drink of alcohol and it doesn't ruin their lives (with a minute fraction of exceptions). People cannot casually use heroin and still function normally. It's just plain not in the same league as alcohol and tobacco.
Seeing how the "war against drugs" and the "war against terror" went
What, you mean their utter ineffectiveness?
I don't get you people who consider the war on drugs a failure. What exactly are you proposing as an alternative? That the government stop trying to keep heroin, crack, PCP, and crystal methamphetamine off the streets? Should they instead focus those police resources on real criminals? Is that what you're saying?
Because if that's what you're saying, then I would strongly encourage you to do a little research into the root causes of most crime. They are, in no particular order, drugs, alcohol, and lack of money. If they ignored drugs and just waited until some tripped out junkie held up a convenience store for his next fix, then you'd accuse the government of "attacking the symptom instead of the root cause."
They just can't win with you people. Open your eyes man.
The War on Drugs. Yep that worked.
Are you suggesting that the government stop trying to aprehend and prosecute hard drug users/dealers?
The War on Terror. Yep that's working: so far two countried fucked up and Iran's next.
Psst.... I don't know if you noticed or not, but just last weekend, Afghanistan held open, democratic elections for the first time. And the US, so far, hasn't made any moves toward Iran, other than diplomatic posturing. I'll give you Iraq though.
Thanks for playing.
don't most tax cuts in the U.S. benefit the richer and not the poorer?
I can't speak for the US, but in Canada, yes, most tax cuts benefit the middle-to-upper classes, but it's for one simple reason: poor people don't pay any taxes. In Canada, if you make less than $20,000 a year, you will pay virtually nothing in income tax. Well, it may come off your paycheck, but you will get almost all of it back come tax season. How do you give someone like that a "tax break" when they're already paying practically nothing into the tax system?
That is where this rhetoric about "tax cuts not helping the poor" come from.
I favor repeal of all income taxes, and the move to some form of federal sales tax.
Come to Canada! We have both federal income tax, and a federal sales tax! Actually, we have both at the provincial level too, so we pay provincial and federal income taxes, and provincial and federal sales taxes. Ain't it great!
Bush:
* 7337 Words
Wow, this really demonstrates that I've been reading too much Slashdot. I read this, and the first thing that came into my mind was, "'Leet words? What 'leet words was Bush using?" Then, I realized, you meant the actual number 7337.
I'm not religious, so I'm not saying "Don't play God", but it is the height of arrogance for scientists to say they understand genetics sufficiently to control GM. The risk of doing bad things is great.
Should we ban stem-cell research too? Cloning research? Organ donation/transplant? Cancer treatment? After all, the potential for creating some kind of new, "super-resistant" cancer that we don't understand is too great.
Yep- that's pretty much the problem with any GM plants.
So you're saying all genetically modified life is extremely vulnerable to disease? That's very interesting science. Got anything to back that up?
While I share your sentiment that it's sickening to be corrected in everyday talk,
Is it really "sickening," as in, physically nausiating, or were you just using a metaphor? Did you choose to write "sickening" to mean an obviously exaggerated expression of annoyance?
Sort of like how people use "stealing" as a metaphor for "copying music without paying for it" when referring to music downloaders? Do you see where I'm going with this?
Lighten up, all you semantic nitpickers. We use metaphors all the time. Get over it.
No, like it or not, we've developed a new "on-call class" and to say that they can't go to the movies with us is not just wrong, it's not going to work. I think France is about to find this out.
I'm a right-leaning capitalist at heart, so I believe that the government should back away with their legislation, permit all kinds of jamming, and let regular market forces sort this issue out. The only exception should be that establishments employing jamming technology should be required to display prominent signs alerting patrons that jamming tech is in use, and describing the specific nature of the jammer (cells blocked but not pagers, emergency outgoing calls permitted, etc.).
If there is a big enough market out there of people who are not in dire need of being in complete networked contact at all times, as well as those who prefer an environment where they can be confident that they will not be bothered by such interruptions, then establishments using jamming tech to enforce such an environment will flourish. However, if you are right, and most people are afraid to break contact with Verizon for 2 hours, then those places will fizzle, and they'll likely drop the jammers.
But my point is, they should be allowed to make the choice and see for themselves. Supply and demand. Let the market sort it out.
People use them where they aren't supposed to and people forget to turn off their ringers. Why don't we solve THESE PROBLEMS
It sounds like you're advocating a behaviour-modification education campaign. While this certainly sounds like an effective, warm-and-fuzzy, "everybody wins!" solution, empirical evidence suggests that such campaigns simply don't work. Even if you achieve a 95% compliance rate (an absurdly high level), that remaining non-compliant 5% will still cause unacceptable disruption.
"Education" campaigns have been/are being employed against alcohol abuse, drunk drivers, smokers, gamblers, STDs, infidelity, aggressive driving, and more, and yet people still do all of those things. However, in all of those examples (except gambling [yes, I've left you an opening here for a joke about "infidelity"]), failure to heed the warnings and act responsibly can result in death. So if people hear the "education propaganda", and ignore it anyway, even in cases risking death, what makes you think people will respond do your "turn off your phone" drive?
Should we halt all progress simply because people managed OK in 1900?
As recently as 1990, I could enjoy a movie without it being interrupted by 3 different pathetic polyphonic ring tones emulating the pop-music-pap-du-jour. Nowadays, I cannot. That's progress? By my accounting, that's a step backwards.
There are cases where a babysitter may urgently need to contact the parent.
There was a time, not so long ago, when cell phones didn't exist. And guess what? Parents still hired babysitters and went out for the occassional movie. The truly paranoid ones simply stayed home until their kid got a little older.
What's wrong with suggesting parents of today do the same thing? As the GP said, having a child requires certain sacrifices. Suck it up and stop complaining, or don't have kids.
If I can encourage cinemas and universities to install the Asshol-Blok 5000
I believe a product with such a name is already on the market, although it has a very different purpose. It's been widely endorsed by paranoid right-wing homophobes.
seriously though, even the theatres aren't a problem if people don't act like assholes.
And therein lies the flaw in your solution.
I eventually just set my phone to beep once. What is slashdot's opinion on this? It's set to beep fairly loudly, but it's a quick, short beep.
Don't all cell phones have a "vibrate" mode?