If their goal is outright legalization, then their stated goal should also be outright legalization.
Suggesting that pot should be something that you get from a pharmacy and with a prescription when, in reality, you believe that you should be able to grow and use it yourself is disingenuous and counterproductive.
Not at all. One of the big obstacles to legalization is the populace's current misperceptions, which have been largely driven by US government propaganda. For example, common objections include, "Why would we want more incapacitated drivers" which implies the belief that pot impairs coordination and heightens risk taking like alcohol does, which is false. Or,"the pot these days is so much stronger, it's a different, more dangerous drug", which is a failure of reasoning (is wine less dangerous than brandy?) and a lack of knowledge of the ability of a smoker to titrate their own dose pretty easily.
Getting pot into society via the medical use route increases everyone's available data, which proponents of legalization will ultimately result in an outbreak of rationality. And even if it didn't result in me being able again, as a geezer, to get some smoke once in a while, it would still benefit a bunch of sick, suffering people, which is hardly a bad outcome.
Hm-m-m. I beg to differ, though this may be a case of semantics. Have you ever done acid? You can be quite aware that you have taken a drug, and still amazed at what your eyes appear to be showing you. Watching the side of a building melt onto the grass, or your friends face undulating into a throbbing pink oviod that pulses with the music can seem pretty real, even though you know you're buzzed.
Of course, this is just what my casual acquaintences tell me has happened to friends of theirs.
You can turn SElinux off pretty easily, if it annoys you. I don't bother with it. I've had the same troubles with wifi across all versions, as they all seem to turn to Madwifi, and it doesn't (last I tried) support the Atheros chipsets very well yet.
Sounds like for each of us, it's what you're familiar and comfortable with. I hate SuSE/YAST, and have been unimpressed with Ubuntu. But that's probably because I cut my teeth on Redhat/Fedora.
I have to differ. I absolutely hate YAST. It probably means I'm getting old and rigid, but I find Fedora/CentOS's positioning of the admin tools so much easier to find. I've not yet gotten updates working properly on SuSE, which probably has something to do with the furshluginer network and firewall configurations foisted on us here.
The entire point of a petition is that it's a public statement of opinion. The law regarding signatures on a petition for a referendum in Washington require that the signer be a voter, and that they be identifiable. Petitions need to be public so that opposing interests can contest the signatures if they are demonstrably invalid. That they also publish the identity of the partisans on an issue is an interesting side effect, and not one that I, for one, mind. If you don't want yourself to be identified with the issue, don't sign. There are other, more private channels for getting your way, including contacting your congress-critters, and contributing to the campaigns of candidates or PACs that support your goals. Of course, these have some sunshine laws on them as well, and again, I think that's OK. Citizens should have the right to know who is driving the issues of the land. If you really don't want to state your opinions publically, then just vote, which is absolutely guaranteed to be private.
I've been on both sides of this. I have supported petition effects and indeed led one some years back. It was entirely public, and -everyone- who signed was quite willing, and indeed eager, to be publicly identified with the issue. In most petition drives, that isn't a problem. If it is a problem, I think that signifies something deeper is gravely wrong.
So, because some OTHER people, in the past, have wrongly beaten up and attacked (or, worse, killed) some Gays, then it is OK, to do the same to OTHER completely innocent people who had nothing to do with, nor condone the violence perpetrated against some gays?
Supporting Prop 8 is nothing other than direct discrimination against gays. If you signed the petition, you, not someone else, are saying that -you- want the state to discriminate against gays.
This has nothing to do with some other person harrassing or beating gays. The signators essentially said, in a public document, that they themselves support harrassing gays. In doing so, they assume part of the responsibility for the violence, because they are endorsing the beliefs that they share with the violent anti gay thugs.
It's no different than the southern gentry eschewing the beating of negroes themselves, while neglecting to prosecute the lower class whites who did it for them.
Seems to me that the Prop 8 folks got a taste of what it's like to be singled out and harrassed for what they thought should have been private behavior. I have no sympathy.
Because it affects your status with regards to the laws that the government makes. That is why the gays want to be able to get married, so that they can enjoy the protection afforded by these laws.
BTW, I live in Washington, and I look forward to the publication of these names, because I intend to look and see who I know is in there. And I WILL tell them what I think of bigotry and hate.
. Their Creator makes them gay and then punishes them for eternity for it. Yeah, makes a lot of sense.
No less sense than the rest of the doctrine. Their creator makes them sexual, and then damns them for eternity if they act on it. The creator creates people all around the world, and damns most of them for eternity if they don't figure out that the bible has the secret code to avoid eternal damnation. If you don't force the rest of the people in the world to accept -your- beliefs you are condemned to eternal damnation. And so on.
Making sense is not high on the requirements list for a religion.
The bible never stated that marriage was limited in any way other than between a man and a woman.
Well, there is Leviticus, which says that if a man shall lie with another man, it is an abomination. Of course, it goes it to say that if you eat shellfish, it is an abomination, too.
it's incredibly dangerous to be talking on the phone while you're driving.
Let's not overstate things. While people talking on cell phones does measurably increase the likelihood of accidents, literally thousands of people are doing it right now, and very, very few of them are crashing because of it. I don't think that meets the standard of "incredibly dangerous". Standing on the seat with your head out the sun roof while steering with your feet, while your friend works the gas and the brake with his hands, now that I would submit meets the standard of "incredibly dangerous". Talking on a cell phone while driving is just less safe than paying full attention to the road. The decrement to safety is one that most people find acceptable, even when done by someone else.
I don't know what they do. The water tastes good, without the smell of chlorine. I know they do treat it, as occasionally issues will arise with the treatment systems after very heavy rainstorms. I suspect that the water is clean to begin with, and they have to treat it less, but I'm just guessing.
We do. In Seattle, WA, and Portland, Or, the tap water is marvelous, and tastes (IMO) better than most bottled water. This is because it comes from rain/snowmelt. It has a low load of dissolved minerals, which, among other things, makes it very good for brewing beer with. However, across the river from Portland, in Vancouver, WA, the water comes from wells and tastes like typical well water dreck. It also makes for shitty beer.
We could also look at the kids themselves, who want to go get a job immediately after their bachelors degree, rather than live in near poverty for 4 to 6 more years while getting a PhD. Part of what is happening is that the foreign students are more willing to delay gratification.
Mike, I haven't seen anyone else say this, so allow me. As a grateful firefox user and evangelist, thanks for your efforts, contributions, and patience in putting up with all of us. Please pass this thanks on to your co-team members.
I've never heard of a government being involved in these. It's something put together by the developer of the neighborhood to increase the appeal of the neighborhood to prospective buyers. There is little regulation involved, and most of the regulation is about what you can't prohibit. For example, CC&R's that prohibited selling to negros, jews, and asians were struck down as illegal.
Slashdot Mirror
If their goal is outright legalization, then their stated goal should also be outright legalization.
Suggesting that pot should be something that you get from a pharmacy and with a prescription when, in reality, you believe that you should be able to grow and use it yourself is disingenuous and counterproductive.
Not at all. One of the big obstacles to legalization is the populace's current misperceptions, which have been largely driven by US government propaganda. For example, common objections include, "Why would we want more incapacitated drivers" which implies the belief that pot impairs coordination and heightens risk taking like alcohol does, which is false. Or,"the pot these days is so much stronger, it's a different, more dangerous drug", which is a failure of reasoning (is wine less dangerous than brandy?) and a lack of knowledge of the ability of a smoker to titrate their own dose pretty easily.
Getting pot into society via the medical use route increases everyone's available data, which proponents of legalization will ultimately result in an outbreak of rationality. And even if it didn't result in me being able again, as a geezer, to get some smoke once in a while, it would still benefit a bunch of sick, suffering people, which is hardly a bad outcome.
Get off my lawn, punk.
Hm-m-m. I beg to differ, though this may be a case of semantics. Have you ever done acid? You can be quite aware that you have taken a drug, and still amazed at what your eyes appear to be showing you. Watching the side of a building melt onto the grass, or your friends face undulating into a throbbing pink oviod that pulses with the music can seem pretty real, even though you know you're buzzed.
Of course, this is just what my casual acquaintences tell me has happened to friends of theirs.
I wonder if you have to pass a drug test.
You do, but its pretty simple: "Can you roll a tight one?"
all right, that was a little more than we needed to know. :-)
You can turn SElinux off pretty easily, if it annoys you. I don't bother with it. I've had the same troubles with wifi across all versions, as they all seem to turn to Madwifi, and it doesn't (last I tried) support the Atheros chipsets very well yet.
Sounds like for each of us, it's what you're familiar and comfortable with. I hate SuSE/YAST, and have been unimpressed with Ubuntu. But that's probably because I cut my teeth on Redhat/Fedora.
I have to differ. I absolutely hate YAST. It probably means I'm getting old and rigid, but I find Fedora/CentOS's positioning of the admin tools so much easier to find. I've not yet gotten updates working properly on SuSE, which probably has something to do with the furshluginer network and firewall configurations foisted on us here.
What is to hate? I'm curious. I work with Fedora, CentOS, SuSE and a little Ubuntu, and Fedora has been pretty solid for me.
pft-t-t. Maybe they'll ask if it runs Flash.
And we're not against bashing the intelligent, experienced and capable. Cf. 'the elites'.
The entire point of a petition is that it's a public statement of opinion. The law regarding signatures on a petition for a referendum in Washington require that the signer be a voter, and that they be identifiable. Petitions need to be public so that opposing interests can contest the signatures if they are demonstrably invalid. That they also publish the identity of the partisans on an issue is an interesting side effect, and not one that I, for one, mind. If you don't want yourself to be identified with the issue, don't sign. There are other, more private channels for getting your way, including contacting your congress-critters, and contributing to the campaigns of candidates or PACs that support your goals. Of course, these have some sunshine laws on them as well, and again, I think that's OK. Citizens should have the right to know who is driving the issues of the land. If you really don't want to state your opinions publically, then just vote, which is absolutely guaranteed to be private.
I've been on both sides of this. I have supported petition effects and indeed led one some years back. It was entirely public, and -everyone- who signed was quite willing, and indeed eager, to be publicly identified with the issue. In most petition drives, that isn't a problem. If it is a problem, I think that signifies something deeper is gravely wrong.
So, because some OTHER people, in the past, have wrongly beaten up and attacked (or, worse, killed) some Gays, then it is OK, to do the same to OTHER completely innocent people who had nothing to do with, nor condone the violence perpetrated against some gays?
Supporting Prop 8 is nothing other than direct discrimination against gays. If you signed the petition, you, not someone else, are saying that -you- want the state to discriminate against gays.
This has nothing to do with some other person harrassing or beating gays. The signators essentially said, in a public document, that they themselves support harrassing gays. In doing so, they assume part of the responsibility for the violence, because they are endorsing the beliefs that they share with the violent anti gay thugs.
It's no different than the southern gentry eschewing the beating of negroes themselves, while neglecting to prosecute the lower class whites who did it for them.
Seems to me that the Prop 8 folks got a taste of what it's like to be singled out and harrassed for what they thought should have been private behavior. I have no sympathy.
Because it affects your status with regards to the laws that the government makes. That is why the gays want to be able to get married, so that they can enjoy the protection afforded by these laws.
BTW, I live in Washington, and I look forward to the publication of these names, because I intend to look and see who I know is in there. And I WILL tell them what I think of bigotry and hate.
. Their Creator makes them gay and then punishes them for eternity for it. Yeah, makes a lot of sense.
No less sense than the rest of the doctrine. Their creator makes them sexual, and then damns them for eternity if they act on it. The creator creates people all around the world, and damns most of them for eternity if they don't figure out that the bible has the secret code to avoid eternal damnation. If you don't force the rest of the people in the world to accept -your- beliefs you are condemned to eternal damnation. And so on.
Making sense is not high on the requirements list for a religion.
The bible never stated that marriage was limited in any way other than between a man and a woman.
Well, there is Leviticus, which says that if a man shall lie with another man, it is an abomination. Of course, it goes it to say that if you eat shellfish, it is an abomination, too.
it's incredibly dangerous to be talking on the phone while you're driving.
Let's not overstate things. While people talking on cell phones does measurably increase the likelihood of accidents, literally thousands of people are doing it right now, and very, very few of them are crashing because of it. I don't think that meets the standard of "incredibly dangerous". Standing on the seat with your head out the sun roof while steering with your feet, while your friend works the gas and the brake with his hands, now that I would submit meets the standard of "incredibly dangerous". Talking on a cell phone while driving is just less safe than paying full attention to the road. The decrement to safety is one that most people find acceptable, even when done by someone else.
I don't know what they do. The water tastes good, without the smell of chlorine. I know they do treat it, as occasionally issues will arise with the treatment systems after very heavy rainstorms. I suspect that the water is clean to begin with, and they have to treat it less, but I'm just guessing.
who the heck drinks from their tap
We do. In Seattle, WA, and Portland, Or, the tap water is marvelous, and tastes (IMO) better than most bottled water. This is because it comes from rain/snowmelt. It has a low load of dissolved minerals, which, among other things, makes it very good for brewing beer with. However, across the river from Portland, in Vancouver, WA, the water comes from wells and tastes like typical well water dreck. It also makes for shitty beer.
Also, Linus is an immigrant.
I would prefer to think of him, and myself, as citizens of Earth. The world might be a better place if we thought that way more often.
That's correct. They've only been here about 25,000 years. Damn new comers, fucking up the nieghborhood.
We could also look at the kids themselves, who want to go get a job immediately after their bachelors degree, rather than live in near poverty for 4 to 6 more years while getting a PhD. Part of what is happening is that the foreign students are more willing to delay gratification.
Mike, I haven't seen anyone else say this, so allow me. As a grateful firefox user and evangelist, thanks for your efforts, contributions, and patience in putting up with all of us. Please pass this thanks on to your co-team members.
I've never heard of a government being involved in these. It's something put together by the developer of the neighborhood to increase the appeal of the neighborhood to prospective buyers. There is little regulation involved, and most of the regulation is about what you can't prohibit. For example, CC&R's that prohibited selling to negros, jews, and asians were struck down as illegal.
And it's pretty sad that the above isn't labeled assault and battery. We'll punish mean words, but not actual violence.